it doesn't seem that popular in Australia, for exactly the reasons outlined in here www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... bfed79839c Though I assume it has become more popular since the exact same situation led to an incorrect decision wrongly keeping them in the 4 nations

it doesn't seem that popular in Australia, for exactly the reasons outlined in here www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... bfed79839c Though I assume it has become more popular since the exact same situation led to an incorrect decision wrongly keeping them in the 4 nations

And yet it wasn't a try, so it's a good job they checked everything!

What would really be a farce is if we decided that pushing people away off the ball is now a legal tactic

whether it was a try or not it is a very good example of the problem.

So much went on that incident that the ref just didn't know if it was a try or not, there were a million offside possibilities, a couple of knock on and a possible push (which was a very insignificant one) what was wrong with him letting that play run on and leaving it to the VR? That incident didn't have particularly clear evidence of anything and I would bet a pound to a penny that NONE of the incidents in that play would have been over-ruled by the VR and we would have been left with a ref guessing something he admitted he just didn't know.

It seems absolutely nuts that we are now demanding the ref 'have a guess' and try and disprove that rather than just making the best decision from the information available.

I think we should give refs more credit here. I don't think they go through matches just guessing decisions. No matter how much it appears that way from the terraces and when a call goes against your team.

Refs call it as they see it and this rule change doesn't change that. There is the option, as before, to check that they were correct. It doesn't really change anything at all. If he/she 'guesses' at a decision, because they did not see what happened (e.g Hall), then the VR will find 'sufficient evidence' if they look hard enough to come out with the correct decision.

This is probably a way of justifying the decision to go to to the VR maybe? Or clarifying why exactly they are asking the VR to look at it: 'I saw it as a try, but can we double check the offside?', for example.

Referees do guess at decisions. That's not a criticism of them, simply accepting that they only have one pair of eyes and can only be in one place looking one way at any one time.

It is hugely different to now, because previously the ref would refer the incident and the VR would look at it and decide on each aspect as to what he saw, so was he offside, did he knock on, has he got it down, did he push him, but now he isn't looking at it in that way, he is looking if he knocked on enough, did he push him enough.

As Hall proved in the 4 nations, there can be pretty clear evidence of a try, that isn't necessarily enough evidence to over-rule the referee.

If the referee was in a position to make a decision without the VR why doesn't he just make it and we get rid of the VR completely. By going to the VR he is admitting that he cant be sure his decision is correct, why give it more credence?

Agree with Smokey. The refs opinion is pretty much invalidated by the fact he's referred it to the VR.

Have the VR start with an open mind from the beginning and not be swayed one way or another.

Just get rid of the VR.

Don't know how a ref would cope without VR Leaguefan. Last Hull derby at Craven Park, almost every single try was referred to VR if I remember rightly, might have been 1 or 2 that were given without lol.

He'd cope by making a decision himself (for good or bad). This may come as something of a surprise, but there are usually 5 games in SL and many more in the Championship & Championship 1 every week where this process happens.

Removing the VR would also hasten the redundancy of Ganson, a day when celebrations can be had, although I suspect he's due a testimonial at FC for the service he gave your club.

They managed very well until the TV companies wanted it, and once the genie was out of the bottle, a superb fast , skilled , collision sport was reduced to nano second scrutiny to make a decision.

No one has yet convinced me, and probably others that the VR has been beneficial to the game as a whole, even in Aus where all NRL games are covered.

It would not surprise me if eventually the use of video was a red button decision made by the folks at home, along with fans at the ground using a mobile app to make the decision.
The TV companies would love that, just like the old slaves and gladiator decisions of the crowds in Ancient Rome.

If you're not convinced that the VR helps to ensure more critical decisions that have a bearing on people's livelihoods are made correctly, then I'm not sure whether you're being deluded or deliberately obtuse.

Even with this new VR rule we have seen that decisions can still be made incorrectly, four nations for example... Of course I'm not bitter but England would have been in that final if it wasn't for one VR guy...

I can think of a much clearer miscarriage of justice where a VR made the wrong call........

Viva la Video Ref I say.

So many times when a team goes over late on to steal or solidify a win and all heads turn to the screen for the replay, I think its great.

The only issue with the VR technology is that its not present at every game.

I'm a realist.

If the decision had been made by a different person (you know, one not under pressure to keep his employers in the competition) then yes.

However if there'd been no video ref there's no chance that's ever given as a try by the on-field ref, even a non-corrupt one.

I noticed the on field guess rule made its appearance again last night.

Players crash over line and Child can't see the grounding. Sends it upstairs but guesses it's a try. VR shows no view of ball on ground but equally no view of ball off ground so cannot overrule.

Since a try is the grounding of the ball the ref should be compelled to call no try if he can't actually see that grounding. If the VR sees it then he can overrule, and if he doesn't it's no try. Anything else is American Football.

The rule is very clear : you always give advantage to the attacking side. So if it is impossible to see whether a try has been scored or not, but there is a reasonable possibility that it was, then the try should be awarded. Clearly, last night, there was a reasonable possibility that the ball contacted the ground. Hence the decision was the correct one in line with the rules.

We could, of course, adopt a stance of always giving the advantage to the defending side, and ruling out all tries unless they are 100% certain. I find this stance is popular amongst fans of the team which conceded the possible try.



Either way is manageable, as long as it is consistently applied. What we can't have (but have had plenty of incidents of over the last 20 years), is one week a try being disallowed because there is doubt, while the next week a try will be allowed because there is doubt. That's confusing and aggravating for all fans, players and coaches. If every similar try to last night is awarded, though, then I have no problem with that.

Fully take that on board but my preference as a paying spectator is for the immediacy of an on-field decision. Better entertainment value IMO regardless of the correctness of the decision.

I dont think anyone has a problem with "benefit of the doubt to the attacking team" - but we don't have that, we have "benefit of the doubt to the team that the referee guesses it should be".

As to last night, there is no justification at all for James Child sending it upstairs in favour of a Try. If he saw the ball on the ground, he should just have awarded the try. If he didn't see it on the ground or has any doubt, he should have sent it up as no try.

It is sort of consistent with the laws (which don't actually mention BoD as far as I can see), but I don't like it.

I agree with EHW, if the ref can't see it, he shouldn't give it. And I don't think that's BoD to anyone really, it's just being realistic.

But the point is that he hasn't seen it held up either. So he can't give that either can he?

I haven't seen the video again of last night but at the ground it looked like you couldn't conclusively see the ball down but neither could you see it held up. In this case the VR has to take a best guess. Does the ball go toward the ground (with no defender underneath it) and then the view is obscured? If so then you'd have to assume the ball is more likely to have touched the ground than not. In which case you give the try. If however there were defenders arms all around the ball as the view was obscured then you'd have to assume it was held up and not give it.

I really, really don't like the current referral system though. It takes far too much account of the referees view who, by definition of sending it to the VR, isn't sure of what happened. I'd rather a more fluid communication took place between the ref and video ref. The referee should set out what he's seen and what he thought in real time, but not with a simplistic Try/No Try decision, it can be more nuanced than that. Then the VR can watch the replays and take the refs view into account, but not so much that they have to find conclusive proof to overturn the referees admitted not conclusive view.

Thaler was always quite good at telling the VR what had happened when referring it up to the VR.

I can see your point but since "grounding the ball" is the essential part of scoring and is explicitly required by the laws the emphasis, to my mind, really should be on requiring evidence of grounding in order to award the try rather than evidence of being held up in order to disallow it, which seems topsy-turvy.

They need to get rid of this "I've got a try", "I've got no try" nonsense!

They need to go back to the old way of sending it up when they're really not sure. If the ref thinks he's got a try he should just give the try. If the ref hasn't got a clue, send it up and if it's inconclusive "Benefit of the Doubt" should come back in.

But video refs certainly are essential. Look at the Catalans try last night.