I agree entirely with the points about moving off the mark. I've been moaning about it myself and it needs a crackdown next season.

But I couldn't disagree more with the moaning about the video referee. Bottom line is that yesterday, without the video referee, Wire would probably have been awarded at least 3 tries they shouldn't have had. Tonight, without the video ref, Giants would have been denied a try which they should have had. It's legitimate to moan when the video ref gets it wrong - that's inexcusable. But essentially, strip away the led-by-Stevo's-nose whinges about the timing, and all you really have is people complaining that the right decisions are given. Yet I'd lay a fairly large bet that those exact same people would absolutely slate the first ref to award a try on the field against their team which big screen replays then showed should have been disallowed.

If you want to do away with the video ref, then you HAVE to remove the big screen from any ground. It would be utterly unworkable - possibly even dangerous - to demand refs make try decisions alone in all circumstances, only then to have the incident replayed from 3 different angles the ref didn't have, in slow motion the ref didn't experience, at super zoom focus the ref can't ever use. Especially as you have fans so unreasonable that they think decisions like Myler being a yard offside are simple, when that would have been in reality a very very difficult call to make for actual real people.

However, I think this is all a nonsense. Maybe some would rather have a faster decision because you don't care whether it's correct or not. Personally, I'd rather have a more accurate decision than a faster one.

If we are going to continue using video referees I think it's about time we changed the ruling so that all replays are at game-speed.

I mean, when you think about it the case for slow-motion is not as rock solid as one might think.

After all - referees seem perfectly capable of making good calls during the seventy-eight minutes-plus of game time not adjudicated by the VR.

And there's nothing stopping them replaying the incident again - and from several angles.

Time limit the video ref. If they can't get their act together within one minute then on pitch decision stands. Like the idea of them watching replays at full speed.

I can honestly say I reached a watershed moment when the SKY team were SERIOUSLY debating whether Clark's knock-on a foot before the line should actually have been a try.

I mean, there have been some pretty shocking decisions over the last few weeks but at that precise moment I couldn't help wondering whether I'd somehow slipped into some upside-down, topsy-turvy parallel dimension where apes rule the earth and Charlton Heston pounds the beach in frustration.

You really couldn't find a better example of bovine herd mentality among commentators.

Only Stevo had the mental wherewithal to resist Phil Clarke's cynical attempt at the Jedi mind-control trick - rightly pointing out the utter insanity of suggesting anything close to a try had occurred.

I've said this before - but it's important. Instead of greater scrutiny at 1/1000th fps minimizing uncertainty - it actually exacerbates it.

It's obvious, really. After all - which is more complex - a tiny pool of water on a glass slide - or the very same viewed through a microscope?

Instead of helping referees the VR system only serves to make their jobs harder. No one doubts that it is a boon when the ref is unsighted or partially so. But the fatal flaw is that the entire technology is predisposed to FIND FAULTS where previously we saw none (and didn't care anyhow).

Here's an experiment for the many referees who inhabit this forum. Take a recorded SKY match. Rewind to the beginning and then play the entire game at the slowest possible frame rate noting every mistake not picked up by the officials. At the end - tell me how many errors you discovered which weren't found by the ref and then estimate how much of an impact you think this would have had on the result.

I really would like to know because I suspect we aren't talking small potatoes here.

The ball was CLEARLY batted out by Amor...you're very very stupid

From the man whose anti-Saints bitterness rivals that of Dick Dastardly plummeting to the earth after yet another spanking by the pigeon - I think it's safe to write your opinion off.

Have you considered a career chasing Penelope Pitstop instead? Or perhaps Roadrunner?

So that means it's alright for Wilkin to dive (game v Wire on Friday) and McCarthy-Scarsbrook to feign injury (game at Cas a little while ago)? The absolute pair of Wendyball wannabe fairy boys!

This is spot on though. Moving off the mark is one of the biggest things that needs cleaning up (second refs would help with that, and with helping the ref make decisions without the video ref too) as well as the diving and pretending to be being held down.

Touch judges get off very lightly when it comes to fans ridicule. A lot of the time they are the problem why the video ref is overused.

Video refs are essential and should be at all games imo. I just think on-field officials need to use them less and go with their instincts more because they're often correct. Also this "I've got a try"/"I've got no try" is pathetic and needs scrapping. The video ref should only be used if the ref hasn't actually got a clue.

I think slow motion ones are absolutely essential in some circumstances. But game-speed should always be considered too, not just a slow-mo on its own.

Impressed by the posters who believe that players should be allowed to break the rules and complain when the players do and are caught or not caught.

Seems more prevelant depending upon which team they follow



It's a bit like speeding on the roads. Everyone does it but then loads whinge when they caught, or say it's unfair that people /speed cameras are there to disuade them from speeding in the 1st place.

If you get away with it then don't blame the authorities for YOUR actions, but you then can't blame them if you do get caught. It's a risk/reward scenario and your choice.

People have to accept that people make mistakes and also great judgment calls and decisions in all walks of life. It's just the way it is.

I will back a match officials judgment reagrding the laws of the game over a players, coaches or fans judgment every time. Not because they will get it right everytime, but because their prime function is to apply the laws. Everyone else has a different prime function and they will make mistakes as well. It's human nature and will never change.

People are asking for perfection ( by their standards) where none can ever exist. It's impossible unless either machines that are programmed play the game or the game isn't played at all. Anything inbetween has to many variables. That is the hard part for people to accept.

why do we need a 2nd ref? just penalise the offenders until it is stopped!
and while we're at it, penalise players who not only move off the mark but move into the markers enabling a quick scoot.

Well, quite. Go back and apply video slo-mo to matches from the past, and half the tries every scored would be disallowed. VR operating at game speed is a great idea, I think. Can't see it ever happening, though. But what it would do is largely equalise decision-making on tries from other on-field decisions made by the officials on the pitch. At the moment, try-scoring situations are subject to extra scrutiny that midfield play isn't.

But it won't, it's human nature to stretch the laws to breaking point. See Hicks penalising Ellis & Koppy in the last 5 minutes. Something you seem to question.

things like that are always debatable, walking off the mark isn't

Start penalising every team for every misdemeanour, resulting in 54-37 penalty counts and the coaches and players should get the message how much they're antics spoil the game ....it will never happen but imagine if it did !

I can't believe people are now complaining about the correct call being given.

This thread should be bookmarked and framed for mind numbing stupidity.

Yes we need faster less accurate and effectively wrong calls.

Whilst the rest of the world is moving to the Internet of things web3.0. Rlfans want to turn off the TV.

Shall we roll back to weaving by hand and medical attention by the village wannabee too.

Let's have rugby at 300 aside whilst we are at it and games that go on for days with no ref at all.

other sports......

No they won't. Coaches like Wane & Anderson & muppets on here will ridicule referees not players.

And Powell, Cunningham, McDermott, Smith x2' Betts, Sheens, Radford and Chester (apologies if I forgot one).

Coaches will almost always deflect attention away from their players as they know how precious confidence is.

I've no issues with very high penalty counts providing the RFL stick with it until players and coaches get the message. In the past we've had various directives resulting in high penalty counts for the first few games of the season then it is all forgotten.

I have no problem with high penalty counts but coaches like Wane & Anderson & muppets on here will ridicule referees not players.

The point is while the calls against Ellis and koppy might have been the right calls, why were they given then when the same offences had been commited by both teams all night

Every time McGillvary hit the ball up Leeds should have been penalised for the very offence Ellis was

Thats what coaches and fans alike complain about

I’m not aware of any Leeds players shoulder-charging into the back of a restrained player.
The Ellis one is a more difficult one for me. I was brought up in the time when ball-stealing in the tackle was fair game. Consequently you were taught to respect possession far more & held onto the ball more carefully than players have to now. My immediate instinct now is that it is the ball-players responsibility to hold on & if the ref misses it, it’s tough, you should have been more careful. But if there is interference, & the ref penalises, you have no-one to blame but yourself.
However, with 5 minutes left the Hudds players should have been doubly careful not to give the ref any opportunity to blow up.