Good article in the MEN by Saints chairman Eamonn McManus. Saying how we don't want to see Punch & Judy giving their
decisions on screen, if at all, get rid of the video re.f
My opinion is to get rid, if you have it you have for every game. the way it is now you get unbalanced decisions and results

And to add insult to injury we also have to listen to duty-bound Stuart Cummings trying to defend and justify every poor decision the referees make.

I don't normally watch NRL but recently saw Warriors v Storm,first half
5 or 6 tries most from kicks.
Not a single referral.
Surely the answer can't be to remove the technology but to ensure the refs use it sparingly .
And,please get rid of Puch and Judy. Use refs for what they're supposed to be good at,refereeing,and allow the camera techies to control the video output.
At present it's a bloody embarrassment.
As you say,great article by McManus

I think the refs are in a lose-lose situation here...

If a referee refers a try for review every single time that one is scored, you get fans angry that they haven't got the guts to make that call themselves.

However, if a try is scored and the referee [idoesn't[/i use the technology that is afforded to them, you get angry fans wondering why they didn't refer it to the video ref for a bit of support.

So essentially they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Every game should have video technology or no game should make use of it.

If that becomes the case then we need to bite the bullet and have every try anylised.

Now we are back with promotion and relegation one bad decision by an official could have massive consequences for a team.

I agree - good article and captures the Zeitgeist.

I thought he may have used words slightly differently in the week Zak Hardaker has got himself in a bit of bother.

[url=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/st-helens-chairman-slams-video-7219809See If You Agree[/url

A bit of stereotyping never harmed anyone.

This is something Jack Dearden bangs on about on Radio Manchester. Apparently, only having the video ref at certain matches means it's not a level playing field. Since Jack thinks it, it's a pretty safe bet that it's . And it is. It's a level playing for the two teams involved in a match with a video ref, and it's a level playing field for the two teams involved in a match without one. That's all that matters. in the match with the video ref, each team is as likely as the other to have a try awarded or disallowed on the intervention of the video ref. It has no bearing on other matches.

What would the effect be of having a video ref at every match? Given that each team is as likely as the other to have a try awarded or disallowed by video, how does it affect the outcome over the long term? It doesn't, surely.

When Jacko bangs on about video refs at every match, I end up thinking, "But Jack, different referees see different things. For a level playing field, then, you need the same referee at every game. And the weather has an effect too. Would we have lost our first game at the CoS if a couple of bobbins kick throughs hadn't held up in the snow? Unlikely, so games need to be played in exactly the same weather conditions in order to ensure a level playing field. And pitches. Some have deeper in goal areas than others. Some have corners that turn up like a dried up butty, others don't. So, for this level playing field, we need all matches to be played on the same pitch." And then I switch off, because I can't bear listening to him babble on.

I'm struggling to see the comparison between McManus' comments and Zak Hardaker's homophobic outburst?

I know what you mean John, but I think McManus is saying that the worst thing about the video ref is that it's being used too often by the match official on the park and is detracting away from the speed of the game. The addition this year of the 'Punch and Judy' show (no doubt inspired by some bright spark at Sky) is then further turning the whole thing into a circus and I have to say I agree with his assessment. Let's face it would we all have been upset if we had seen Meli's first try against Wigan allowed, followed by the next Wigan try being allowed in almost exactly the same circumstances? I doubt it, it also meant that all of the subsequent referrals added a significant amount of time where the players and crowd are just kicking their heels waiting for someone to make a decision.

McManus point about reaching a stage where the video ref is overused is correct and he further supposes that perhaps the only way to solve that is to get rid of it entirely. I agree with the former but not necessarily the latter, as I can't see Sky agreeing to it, as it's clear, from the Punch and Judy show, that they see this as a cornerstone of the SL entertainment package.

There don't appear to be any easy answers to this either.

I was commenting on the assertion that we should have the video ref at every game or at no games. It's nonsense.

On the McManus point, he's right that it's now being overused. A large part of the problem this season is that there seems to have been some edict handed down from on high about obstruction, and we're seeing tries chalked off for obstructions so small that the Hadron Collider would struggle to spot them. I think in previous seasons, most of the tries we saw disallowed in the game against Wigan would have stood and wouldn't have been referred, but this season, with edict in hand, the referees are having to go to the screen at the merest hint of a block.

Hopefully, coaches will adapt and work on improving the co-ordination between the dummy runners and the ball carrier, and the need to refer will be reduced.

I think that this is all a result of Sky TV setting the entire agenda for Rugby League.

They dictate the fixture list and they believe that the video ref makes for extra suspense and good TV so while they fund the game I'm afraid there will be no change. Certainly no video ref at every game because where's the benefit of that to Sky and their muppets?

I think the video ref adds a bit of drama to proceedings. The problem at the moment is overuse caused, I believe, by a clamp down on obstructions. Referees are in a difficult situation with this. If some of those disallowed tries in the Wigan game had been awarded, you can bet there'd have been people on here next day having little tantrums about the obstructions. So, it's probably right that the officials try to clamp down on it, and almost inevitable that they end up being criticised for it.

It'll all blow over when the coaches adapt.

In an attempt to improve accuracy and reduce criticism of the official’s decisions, it has unfortunately become increasingly detrimental to the spectacle of watching rugby league. I just can’t understand why Sky think there is an appeal to viewers to watch slow motion replays over and over from 3 different angles to determine if a try should be disallowed.

Perhaps a solution would be to abolish it and instruct the sky commentary team to stop being so critical and controversial. If the commentary team weren’t fault finding all the time the audience wouldn’t be drawn to the odd blunder. I keep reading about club owners being fined for bringing the game into disrepute but this sky team have been getting away with the same for decades in my opinion. So basically if you are a club owner putting hundreds of thousands into the game you will be fined for outspoken comments but if you commentate for Sky you are fireproof.


Officials are human and likely to make mistakes so let’s just get on with it like we do in other non televised matches.

There is also the same controversy in Australia.
Don't we eventually get round to copying their ideas as we try to match the playing quality?
[url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/after-more-mistakes-on-friday-night-nrl-video-referee-would-be-funny-if-it-wasnt-so-painful/story-fni3g67w-1226929322756Example 1[/url

[url=http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/03/28/are-we-addicted-to-the-nrl-video-referees/One Prepared Earlier[/url

I agree about the drama, but in the case of the Wigan game, what on earth was the ref thinking referring the William's try to the video ref? It appeared to be that he was questioning whether he was in touch but he was nowhere near the line at any point. If there hadn't been a video ref there that night, he would have given the try and we'd have got on with the game straightaway. That was a classic example of using it just because it's there not because there was any doubt about the validity of the try.

I have to disagree because the most exciting aspect for me is watching my team score from open play. The same applies in football when the ball hits the back of the net but the difference is far fewer scores get disallowed in football. And if a goal is disallowed in Football it's immediate and not 3-4 minutes later. If you are watching your team score a try these days at a televised game you know there is a fair probability it could be disallowed for a multitude of different reasons. This for me takes away the adrenaline rush of celebrating an in-play try. If you want drama watch Coronation Street.

I record the tv games and watch them 20 minutes after kick off and then fast forward all the video refs decisions, so I suppose I miss all the DRAMA

Also it used to be obstruction if you definitely took a man out, stopping him from making a tackle.
That was until Stuart Cummings started putting his own interpretation on the laws.

Passing on the inside or outside shoulder

That's definitely not my idea of drama!

Actually, I do agree with virtually all you said and as I said previously, I think the VR is being overused and that was amply demonstrated at our game with Wigan, so much so that it became tedious! There's no doubt though that when used sparingly and for very controversial decisions, it can add some drama, sorry!

As you rightly say,Sky pay for most of the cost of the full time Rugby League that we watch.
They have introduced many improvements that we now take for granted,the overall quality of presentation and debate being one of them.
They've also done some dumb things.
Punch and Judy,thanks Eamonn, is definitely dumb and needs to be changed.
They also need to agree with the RFL that the frequency of referrals is now damaging the spectacle rather than improving it

McManus is just the latest owner to complain about the video refs.
Someone who has suffered more than most passed comments earlier and there was a recent poll where the majority wanted to restrict the terms of reference for the video refs.

[url=http://www.totalrl.com/opinion-take-obstruction-away-video-referees/Opinion[/url

I think the problem with the Williams referral is twofold. Firstly, if the reverse had been the case - i.e. Williams had gone into touch and the ref hadn't referred it - people would be asking why he didn't go to the screen, saying "if the technology is there, we should use it". If the officials were unsighted (as appears to have been the case) then they are pretty much obliged to go to the screen in order to prevent an outcry. We only have ourselves to blame for that. I think what made the Williams referral seem so egregious is that - secondly - he'd already gone to the screen a number of times previously. If he hadn't, the Williams referral wouldn't have seemed so bad, but he had and he'd done so because of the apparent clamp down on obstruction.

Like I say, it'll blow over.

Another weekend and another report about the sport in the national press

[ithey overcame one of the logic-defying video referee decisions that have blighted the Super League season[/i

When will it end?

Not a very big attendance to see a quarter final cup game at Wigan,home of the double-winners.

People must prefer to watch the televised coverage and decision making.

When does the support live sport protest get underway?

It's not only in our game.
The Sunday Times had a full page article on 'Referees spoiling our game '
And that was Rugby Union's very own Stephen Jones