If Sean Long's involved, then quite probably.
With regards to the no try at the end of the match yesterday, what was the video ref's call? I was watching at DTD, and couldn't hear any commentary. Was it conclusively shown that it wasn't grounded?
Just asking because in league there's a "benefit of the doubt" ruling available to the video ref for cases where it looks like it was a try but there's no conclusive evidence either way. It was brought in to obviously benefit the attacking side. Is there anything similar in union, no one at the table who was a union follower was aware of such a rule (not saying it would have been relevant yesterday or not though).
Shame the try wasn't given, would have been an unbelievably difficult kick under the circumstances, and made great viewing. Was a good game from what I saw of it.
video ref's call. the available camera angles were all inconclusive
In general RU is still catching up with RL in use of video technology. There is no "benefit of the doubt to the attack". In fact, without concluive proof the benefit goes to the defence
It is an area in which RL is superb.