Stevo was discussing this post-match today. Usually he's way out of touch, but I've got to agree with him on this. It makes sense. The ref has stopped the game to talk to the touch judges already, so it's not like it'll add time. Surely the video ref will be in a better position to review it?

Lee should have gone, and had a video been looked at then they'd have had a better opportunity to decide his fate.

IMO yes. I've thought it for years. The video Ref is there to make decisions on things that the ref hasnt seen, so why not extend it to include possible sending offs. Tommy Lee should have walked last night. I know it may have spoiled the game but he deserved red.

the RFL should open up ears and start listening to the people within the game because this is the best way of dealing with the problem and dodgey forward passes are becoming a real problem the touch judges need to start running and keeping up with play properly.

But you can't use the video ref to judge forward passes


What it really needs are touch judges with the balls to put their flag up and call it.

Good idea in theory but the telly games are slow enough at the moment anyway. He would still call the touchie over have a chat then get video ref involved then get the players over 2 minutes gone!!
Going to the video to see how to re-start a game is taking the pi.. as well, at this rate going to have two games a week reffed totally different to the other games!!

I think so, its the only way, rather than the referee having to make an on the spot decision.

I still think though that the video referee concept is too flawed, as only the top teams get to benefit from it!

I said it on the other thread, on report should go. It's simply an excuse for referees to avoid making difficult decisions. Lee's tackle was about as bad as it gets, and took place in full view of the official. His touch judge also tried to tell him how bad it was, but he'd already decided to take the 'safe' option and put it on report. Having the video ref look at it as well wouldn't make any difference - Bentham saw it, but lacked the balls to make the correct decision.

All that said, in instances where the ref hasn't seen what has happened, the video ref should look at it immediately whilst the ref is consulting with his touch judges, so that no additional time is wasted if the official needs a VR opinion.

If the ref is going to go on report then why not automatic yellow, then the video ref has 10 minutes to decide one way or another if it deserves a red.

What are the stats like for decisions made by the committee for players put on report ie 50 go in front X banned. Maybe the RFL need to analyse the use of it then make a decision on its future.

What we don't want to do is end up like soccer where every back page is a complaint about a match being decided by a bad penalty, sending off etc which we see every weekend at the mo.

Lee should have gone for a wreck less challenge (not malicious) but giving even more responsibility to video refs means each week the match officials are going to have less and less of a very questionable back bone!

Lee wasn't the only incident mind you, Bridge should of been binned for 10 and any of a number of Giants players for blatant ignoring the ref after the string of conceded penalties. The English game seriously lacks consistency from our officials and Eddie hit this nail on the head when he said had Ganson been reffing then Lee would have seen straight red. Catalan/Cas saw two players sent to cool off for 10 for fighting, where other refs would of just put it on report. So we are desperately crying out for consistency at the moment before changing the way we do things completely.

For once, a good idea from Stevo - but could it be used in all games where Sky aren't present?

It might stop the issues we saw last night.

Not sure about using the yellow and then converting it to a red during the 10 mins as that could cause confusion for the fans and teams alike not knowing whether said player would come back or not.

If you aren't a 'big' club then you don't get the advantages (and disadvantages) of a video referee for some reason. It's not fair, not just the big clubs though, we need video referees across Super League.

I agree mate. It could only be done fairly if the facility was present at all games.

I don't see how it's any different to a VR giving a try at a game.

At the end of the day, we DO get closer to a correct call using the VR (despite what some people will try and argue). The percentage of correct decisions increases.

Whilst some teams will be involved in more of these games with correct decisions than others, it doesn't necessarily mean they benefit from it. Just because you are more likely to get a correct decision in your game doesn't necessarily mean you'll benefit from it.

I don't think it affects how "fair" it is to have a VR at some games and not others, because at the end of the day you don't necessarily see your side benefit from the "correct" decision. The closer we can come to having correct decisions throughout the league, the better. Having a VR at some games and not others is better than having none at all.

I take your point but naively I want to live in an ideal world where all facilities are available to all teams and all indiscretions/referee decisions are dealt with there and then. That way the team that has been transgressed against (in the instances of foul play) gets the advantage in the game where the incident has occurred.

The VR can't adjudicate 'on-report' decisions on the spot - it would slow the game up too much and create an even scrappier spectacle. The simple answer is to remove the option altogether - it adds absolutely no value whatsoever, given that all incidents are reviewed by the panel anyway, and simply allows the ref to abdicate responsibility. Further, even if the review results in a ban, the team the offender plays next gets the benefit, whilst the team that has been offended against gets only a penalty. It's potical.

All in all, despite yesterday's game being rightly billed as a headliner, it was an unedifying and rather shameful spectacle; several acts of outright thuggery that went unpunished, a catalogue of niggly foul play and Kevin Brown doing his best to debunk once and for all the myth that RL players show more respect for the referee than footballers. Not great.

Doesn't matter about seeing your side benefit or not, it isn't fair. Simples. I'm not sure how the VR is used in others sports, do Yawnion have VR at all Premiership matches? What about cricket? Is it just televised matches that benefit from a VR?

Don't agree with this. The referee has already stopped the game to talk to the touch judges. How long did that slow the game down for? On top of that, the player that has been fouled will probably need treatment, so the game will be stopped anyway. This is a natural break in the game that could be used to review a video of the incident and get to the correct decision that the disadvantaged team deserves.


Agree with this. On report means absolutely nothing if all incidents in the game are reviewed by a panel. It's just a huge cop out for a bottleless referee.


So shouldn't we be doing what we can to ensure that the offender gets what he deserves there and then?


The referee lost complete control of the game. He should be dropped. There were times when I was thinking "he should have spoken to both captains by now", and then when he finally did, he didn't follow through. He spoke to the captain again... And then again! He basically patronised Kevin Brown the last time, which is why he didn't get a very good response from him. The game fell apart because the referee frustrated both sets of players in his inability to uphold the rules.

HUll KRs coach explains why we should have VR at all Super League games

[urlhttp://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/HULL-KR-Sandercock-wants-TV-replays-Super-League/story-15187998-detail/story.html[/url

Why isn't it fair? You benefit from a VR getting the correct calls for your team just as much as you wouldn't benefit for them getting the correct calls against your team. Teams aren't benefiting individually from having the VR at more games. The game is benefiting as a whole for having more correct decisions though, which is what's important.

You haven't given a reason why it isn't fair other than just stating that it isn't fair.

I thought the link to the article explained things clearly enough? The top teams are getting the correct decisions, the average sides aren't? Does it need explaining much?

Before anything like Sandercock suggested, like I said earlier we need consistency in our refereering before changing anything else. VR at all games wont necesarily mean better judgement calls because you are still relying on the match official to send it upstairs and there are refs that will exploit it and send every decision upstairs taking all responsability/pressure away from themselves and there will be others that will be over confident and make the calls themselves and minimize the use of VR.
So like I say introduce some structure into the match officials, whether it be more training, strict guidlines for dealing with certain things etc before introducing something like VR at every game televised or non because don't forget with more staffing means more money and who do you think will suffer most from this? It wont be the clubs that is a fact, it will hit us on ticket prices and merchandise.

Should the video ref give input? They already can
Should on report go? No chance

on report is about as much use as a cock flavoured lollypop these days

As there are mayb only one or two (sometimes none) "on report" incidents in any game, why not let the ref and/or video ref watch them back.
The play has already stopped for a penalty and therefore it would take only a couple of minutes to sort out the decision.
What happens currently, is that the ref doesn'y want to make an incorrect decision in front of the TV cameras and therefore usually "bottles" the decisiom
and puts the incident on report.
The other issue here, is getting to a stage when all games have a video ref, so that the game as a whole is more evenly officiated.

Also, why cant the ref and VR talk to each other about what happens when a decision is refered. I know that they may possibly disagree sometimes, but
two minds are better than one and if they couldnt fully agreee then the ref's decision would be final ?