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 ?

Like I keep saying it aint a case of we need video refs at all games, lets get them all singing from the same hymn sheet for a change and bring consistency into our game. Lets see how that works!
Also like I said having VR at every game every weekend only means 1 thing and that is more cost to us the fans!

Just the important games ?

I don't understand how the supporters will be affected either? Are they affected already at Saints/Leeds/Wire/Wigan?

I agree that we want more consistency with refereeing, but in fairness, this has been an issue for the last 30-40 years and the problem is largely due to fans of each team seeing things differently to each other. Although things like a 20 metre tap are certainly different, depending who the ref is.
I realise there are cost implications in VR's at all games, but this should ensure that trys are only given when they are actually scored.

Now it is very easy to pick out part of a sentence and ask a question on half a statement but try putting it back together and ask the same again?
We have the luxury of a VR thanks to live sky games and Challenge Cup games and if we we're to have them at all 7 games for 27 rounds then that is going to be alot more staffing. It's not a case of putting a guy with a camera at pitch side and another in a tv room to watch back what he is filming, it's alot more technical than that AND like I said who is going to pay for all this extra staffing? I gurantee it wont be the clubs and it sure as hell wont be the RFL, it will be the fans when they hike up ticket prices and inflate merchandise.

Video refs should be at ever SL game but it's just not possible

I agree but I also think the standard of our reffing is very poor and incosistent.

Look at the NRL with their 2 on the pitch officials, 1 to man the defensive lines giving the othe official more opportunity to see what is going on around him and hence being more proficient.

I see what you mean now, however I still don't think that it's fair that the top clubs are getting the benefit of having a more comprehensive refereeing process. Even todays HKR vs Saints game might have been a different scoreline with a VR (I have no idea if this is actually the case) but 1 point might make all the difference to either club.

It's a shame we don't have the resources to have a VR at all games.

Another great idea but not possible in SL for the foreseeable future.

We haven't the funds for 14 full time officials, probably don't have enough quality ones and Cummings seems to be against it.

Yes, i have said it plenty of times before. The VR is a fully trained and qualified referee, if the referee on the field misses something or doesnt see it clearly we have a referee right there who has multiple angles and slo-motion who can advise. And why not.

I think the VR called that Sam Moa red card

it doesnt even have to be an instant decision. the game could carry on for a couple of minutes while the video ref looks at what happened - (although that could be controversial if the offending player scored a try, and was then sent off for a foul a few minutes previously!!)

the video ref is usually Ian Smith though, so anything could happen.