It's fair enough to complain about the way the VR is currently used (and plenty of fans of all teams don't seem to like the current situation), but those are the guidelines we are playing under at the moment, and whatever you think about them, they are the same for both sides.

Actually I think the main bone of contention is that the current rules mean that it's actually not the same for both sides, and that's the problem. If it was the same for both sides then that would mean that every time an incident like the 'obstruction' happened it would go upstairs as a No Try, but as we've seen plenty go up as a Try then the burden on the VR shifts dramatically and teams are advantaged/disadvantaged accordingly. This inconsistency is a major problem.

We have a simple game with straightforward laws that should be easy to implement, especially with the help of HD footage, but errors like this are still occurring. It must take more effort to continually make that harder than it is to make it work.

This is the problem. The VR has several replays at several angles and various speeds to make a decision. The on-field ref sees it once and 9/10 the VR is forced to go with the decision on field. It's completely backwards the use of the VR.

He should be there to make the decisions the ref can't make, not forced to agree with the calls the ref guessed at.

What I don't know is *exactly* what the guidelines are for the VRs. The idiots on Sky keep saying "They have to be 100% sure..."

Well, I doubt it. I'd wager the phrase "100% sure" appears nowhere in the guidelines. Virtually no case is 100% sure. If that was the case, we'd never see any on-field decisions overturned, and yet we do.

So realistically, I'd imagine the VRs are told they have to be 90% sure or whatever. Once again, I'm not suggesting an actual numerical percentage is given, more a form of words that boils down to the same thing.

I could accept the decision as just a soft one that went against us. It happens. Tomkins made a terrible call. got way out of position and begged for a penalty to rescue him. Silverwood gave him one. Its frustrating but they refs get things wrong. I think the length of time the VR looked at it shows he thought it was a try but not enough to overturn the ref. Which is stupid because by definition the referee sending it up shows he wasn't sure. Why have a system that says "im not sure, don't go on what you think with more time and more angles, prove me wrong". I said at the start of the season it was a stupid decision and time and time again it is proving so.

It isn't even the worst part of it. The worst part of it is refs often refer for a couple of reasons. They might refer for obstruction and a grounding for instance. They could refer it up thinking it was obstruction but the grounding was fine so go No Try. The VR can then see it definitely wasn't obstruction, but still be left needing to disprove a knock-on that neither he nor the ref really sees and we are left with a No Try because a knock-on the ref didn't see can't be disproved. It really is a terrible system.

I agree it's a terrible system, and I think we've had this conversation on a previous thread about it. Nevertheless, we all play under the same system and we've all had these calls. The game last Thursday was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other and it's well and truly in the past now.

Not Huby. His ONLY try for the Giants was that hotly disputed effort at Castleford.

i see in the league express that both Hetherington and Schofield are still banging on about these decisions costing Leeds,
it will be interesting to see the reaction should Leeds benefit from a controversial decision in the near future.

Schofield also claimed that the penalty from which the match winning penalty kick was awarded was dubious.... how?

it was Wardle that scored, Huby was the one who Leeds Fans said was obstructing.

Because it was against Leeds.

Face it, the reason this new ruling came in was because Australia have it. Every time Australia have a rule change, then Super League has to follow like a puppy dog (not immediately though, mind you).

From my view in the SS, directly in front of the incident, it looked a definite obstruction. However, after seeing the highlights on The Superleague Show from a different angle, I think Leeds may have been harshly done by.

Conversely, I would not like to make a call on the Smith knock on and depending on Silverwood's view can understand why he gave play on.

Apparently the knock on was a touch judges call. Though you could ask why the touch judge decided to intervene on this and not, say, on forward passes from any team in any game ever.

But I really don't care about the knock on. The ref and TJ's get 1 look in real time from often poor viewpoints. That's one of those that's just filed away as unfortunate.

The obstruction would be the same if it hadn't been handed to the VR.

Leeds lost!
History now

I'm glad everyone keeps delighting in telling us that Leeds lost and it's history. Otherwise I'd think there was something we could do to have the result reversed.

Of course what's not history is the fact that we have a badly flawed system that could quite plausibly end up deciding who wins the whole thing. Would fans of any side be happy to say 'It's history, we lost' if the deciding score in the Grand Final came down not to whether an actual infringement took place, but to whether the uncertain ref sent it up as a try or no try? That's what's at stake here, 30 seconds to go in the Grand Final and Joel Tomkins hurls himself at a dummy runner and appeals, the ref buys it and sends a perfectly good try up as no try, the decision is upheld and your team lose the Grand Final by two points. Still don't care? I bet you would. Go on, admit it, you'd still mention it more than five days after it happened.

The long and short of it is that everything should be being done to ensure the correct decisions are reached - that means helping not hampering the VR, and allowing them to tell the referee every single time they see them make an incorrect call or miss something completely. Or we could see a referee decide who wins. I know which I prefer.

Will only happen when players know and play to the rules, and fans know the rules.

It's quite obvious many don't.

I'm confident in saying match officials will stop making errors the same time the players, coaches and fans do, which is NEVER.

What was your take on Thaler's actions last weekend? Wiping the tackle count down, then changing his mind and giving a handover after Saints took the tackle rather than kicking. The most bizarre five seconds of officiating I've seen in a while.

Same as when a player knocks on with an open line, stands off side, fails to pass with a 3 man overlap, dosnt know how to tackle correctly, throws a forward pass etc etc, happens all the time.
In your perfect world dosnt anyone makes errors?

They're not rules, they're laws, and I think there are plenty of fans who know plenty of them.

I'm not saying it's unacceptable for refs to make mistakes, they're bound to, they're only human and we have a very fast game. However you seem to be saying that the situation we're in is fine and it's not. Mistakes that don't have to happen are happening; the man with the most information can't act on it; refereeing errors that could easily be rectified with a quick word are not; and errors that are sent upstairs by the on field ref are being continued because the VR's hands are tied.

It's not good enough to say 'everyone makes mistakes' because in televised games they don't have to.

Sarginson playing for Wigan in the TV match.
3 man overlap, failed to pass!
Overlap but threw a poor pass.
Had a break, could have passed but pulled up.
Need I go on? He did not need to make those mistakes because it was on TV by your reckoning,but did, what action should be taken?
You seek perfection, it just is not possible. human beings are involved.

Are you stupid or being deliberately obtuse?

I'm clearly talking about the one element of the game that can be effected and improved through the use of technology - refereeing and the application of the laws. The knock on for example, no issue at all with Silverwood seeing it wrong, but the video ref would have immediately seen the same replay we did and could (and IMO should) have told Silverwood to give head and feed to Leeds.

To use your peculiar example it's like Sarginson being given the opportunity to run the three man overlap again and still opting not to pass. To get it wrong in the heat of the moment is understandable, but to still get it wrong when given the opportunity to review and change is not on.

You can keep spouting your inane crap about players making mistakes all you like, because those mistakes are and have to be part of the game. These refereeing mistakes don't have to be when a VR is present.

I see from the incredibly pointless "ask the ref" twitter thing that Silverwood didn't blow for obstruction on the field because he KNEW Leeds were going to score and he could pass it to video ref
Wish I knew what was going to happen 5 seconds, three passes and a missed tackle later

It's only been a week now

I see the ask the ref twitter thing didn't answer the question about the wiped tackle count reversal.

But Childs tonight deserves a medal. I'm very critical of the refereeing standards in SL, but he was superb. Penalised the rampant indiscipline in the first half and the game didn't half benefit from that second half. To do that in Warrington's back yard under such pressure showed some steel. Credit to him.

He did have a good game, for a change.
I really wish refs would start penalising players for diving & trying to milk penalties though. Was rife tonight and not good to see.