This has become an absolute joke , half the time they are guessing , the decision goes upstairs and they stick with his decision when it is 95% clear that it should be reversed .

"and they stick with his decision when it is 95% clear that it should be reversed" ................ thats not an issue with the principal, its an issue with the video ref

To the viewer, "can we check the grounding" doesnt explain that what the ref might need to check is "was there pressure on the ball" or "did he lose contact".

I still have the idea of playing the video back on the TV screen, under the direction of the match referee, as only he knows what he's looking for/couldnt see, and let him still make the final call. (Backup rule, during the review period, any player who approaches the ref to "offer an opinion" is sin-binned)

Half the time they are guessing...... Which in a game without video is where the decision stops!

I don't have a problem with the ref making a call, I don't agree with that influencing the VR's decision.

I'd put a 2 minute time limit on the VR, if he can't decide in that time we go with the refs call.

The whole video ref situation is a farce, refs, one week are made to use the video ref and the next week play without one. It's just so amateurish.

Let's start playing the same rules for every team, either have a video ref at every game or scrap it all together, but don't have a league were teams are playing with different rules.

Is there any wonder that there's so much confusion?

Yeah lets scrap a rule that was brought in to close the gap in the difference of rules worldwide. Its great to have 3 different sets of rules... *sarcasm sign*

The silliest rule in the game, rather than sending it up as a try/no try why not let the video ref take a look at it and if he isn't certain send it back to the ref.

The whole thing is a farce. It's now basically used as a catch all for tries at big moments in games and whenever the ref panics a bit. Video refs shouldn't be allowed to send it upstairs to check everything, they often do with a 'can we check that?' shout. There was one in the Cas Leeds game a couple of weeks ago where he asked them to check the whole defensive line for obstructions. Either you've seen something and call it specifically or you haven't and you award the try. Otherwise there is simply no reason to have an on field official at all.

It's one of those things that you only see people whinging about when it goes against them.

Did not see, funnily enough, any Leeds fans complaining in the grand final when a "try" which had a knock on in the build up was sent upstairs as a try on the field. Strange that innit.

That Grand Final try would have been given under any variant of the video ref; you can't legislate for fans and commentators not knowing the rules though. The actual problem at present is the input of the initial guess from the on field ref. It simply shouldn't have any influence on the decision being made.

FWIW the complaint about one week having the video ref and the next not is utterly spurious as has been discussed many times.

Maybe so, but a different ref with a different interpretation could have easily sent it up as a no try.

I agree though, it's a flawed system at present; I struggle to think of a way of doing it that is infallible though.

Can't see the problem. Works fine for me.

I've made no secret of my dislike for the on field decision. If the ref sends up a dodgy grounding as a try the VR has to conclusively prove separation to overturn it, but if he sends it up as a no try the VR has to conclusively prove downward pressure.

How many times do we see an angle which quite clearly shows proof only seconds after a video ref decision has been made? Instead we see 3-4 repeats of inconclusive footage then a decision is made based on the ref's call and then lo and behold a different angle is shown whilst play re-starts. Frustrating.

Absolutely. Surely the least the video ref can do is arm himself with a diagram of the fixed camera positions around the pitch and ask for them if they want, none of this "Do you have anything else" stuff we hear on the games with video ref sound. Admittedly Sky/BBC aren't exactly being helpful ifthey can't quickly produce the required footage but the ref could be a little more proactive.

Has no one figured it out yet

The video ref is there for entertainment purposes.

Suspense, controversy, anticipation, stupidity. It's all there, refs should have the balls to mAke the call without sending it "upstairs". Makes the ref look incompetent.

All in the name of entertainment.

Can you show any evidence that's it's 95%?

Of course, why improve the game, why make it fairer for all?

All I can repeat is I don't understand why it seems to be going so poorly in SL when it works well in the NRL. My main gripe is that there are clear instances where the VR overrules the ref's on field call without clear evidence. That wasn't and isn't the intent of making refs make a call. The other gripe is using mega slow motion to show a player has lost a ball for a nanosecond when in real time that is impossible to see.

I hate the dreaded blurr, They should use high speed cameras as used in nature programmes.

Go back to how it was if the refs not sure send it to Video ref but do not say try or no try job done

It's a shame Thierry Alibert isn't a twin or we could have one as the on field ref and one as the vid ref. [iThat[/i would be entertainment.

The theory is fine. The video refs just need to implement it better and be more accountable when they make decisions that aren't properly justified.

This was introduced to stop forcing the VR to make a decision when the footage wasn't conclusive. If we get rid of the on field decision then what happens if the VR can't prove it? Either they guess like in the old days in SL (I'm sure we could dig out a few threads on 'benefit of the doubt' from a few years back). Or they have 'refs call' like the NRL used to and it goes back to the in field ref which is the same as this but in reverse
This way reinforces the on field ref being in charge and stops them just passing the book. No system can be infallible but this feels the best way to me.

Or... they simply say, if the ref's not convinced he's seen a try scored, it's no try. If you didn't see it, you can't give it. I'd be happy with that.