Absolutely correct, but absolutely wrong.

I know that the outcome given the currrent ruling was correct, but c'mon, it's not a try is it. The Saints player is offside, and that should be punished, so given that the RFL have tied the video refs hands behind his back, he's had to award a try knowing that there's been an infringement. That can't be right.

Surely this needs to be looked at, can't be right.

Obvious that Ganson was considering ruling it out ... makes you wonder if the Video Refs listen to the SKY team.

What was said?

Had Halibut called it offside then the try would have been ruled out. But because he didn't, it wasn't, as the ball had been played and the video ref can't use that in making his decision. Therefore, the decision was as right as any other.

Alibert asked Ganson to look at offside. Initially he looked at the PTB and then it looked like the big screen was being prepared for a decision. The suggestion being that since he hadn't wound it forward, it was going to be NO TRY.

The SKY pundits started to point out that Cummings has said that they can only go back as far as when the ball clears the ruck area and not the PTB itself.

Ganson then started looking at the play from when the ball cleared the ruck to the grounding and awarded a TRY.

Well that is a bit silly isn't it. That probably needs looking at.

What he said ...

I've no problem with the try given the constraints the VR has in place. I just think it can't be good for the game when a VR is forced to give a try when he knows that it shouldn't be given.

I concur.

as a neutral think it was a cracking game now if that had been a KR player talking to the ref like Graham did to Halibut he would ave been sent of, game could have gone either way and personally wanted wire to win, will be a cracking challenge cup final if these two get there then i think wire will win....

Undermines the whole system. Shame as the VR has been a good example to othe sports so far.

It will be hard to rule, some refs stand ten and want the players in line with them and blow if they aren't, some refs stand 11 and allow the players to stand in front knowing they are ten. Ganson being one that stands 11. The players know how each refs work. It will need a ruler to work it out on screen. On a second note, do players need both feet or just one to be in line? I know it used to be one, you would need a camera in line with each PTB to make a fair and true ruling.

In this instance, the Saints player (Wilkin) didn't even get back 8 yds, hence why Ganson took one look and the screen changed, only for him to remember/be told that he couldn't rule.

I think the VR is there to remove the obvious, if it's marginal, decisions would stand.

It was Mr Cummings that said live on sky that a VR could not rule on off side at the POTB. When Ganson started to do this i think he might just have had a phone call from his boss.

Its quite obvious to me they should have 2 or 3 designated video refs that only do that job and know what they can and what they cannot rule on

... or been listening to the SKY commentators.

He has not got sound in the VR box

It is no different than when a try is given after it goes to the VR and there has been a clear forward pass in the build up. If the ref hasn't blown up for a forward then the VR can't rule on it. If it had been a try for you then you wouldn't be having this thread saying it wasn't a try. Get over it.

Must have been a call from Cummings then.

I actually think we are 'over it' - no one has said 'we would have won if' etc. Its just a debate cos Ganson was so close to pressing the no try button. No arguments here but this forum is to debate the working of our beautiful game?

You are right with the whole forward pass argument - though it is harder to see with the momentum rule, even in slow mo. The off side was way more clear cut. As for forward passes, well let's not go there.

How far would you like to video ref to be able to go back? Because go back far enough and he would have seen the three knock ons from the kick off in the build up to one of the Warrington tries.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the video ref. I think it creates a bias for the teams that are favoured by sky, it adds 15 minutes of standing about like a lemon for the spectators to every game and as threads like this highlight, they don't always get it right with a video replay. I'd much rather the on pitch officials just make a decision there and then.

I think the argument here is that Alibert asked for the off side? So I guess within a play of the ball would be nice.

I am inclined to agree (as does Tony Smith) - on pitch officials there and then. But the VR has been fairly successful on the whole.

mrs goggins.

we are not debating weather the video ref made a bad decision. that we can clarify was a good decision from steve ganson.

what we are debating is wether the video ref should be able too look at the play from when they play the ball or when they stand up too play the ball. or wether it's when the ball clears the ruck.

steve ganson knew saints were off side. ths why he nearly gave the no try. but something changed his mind. whatever it was. it is unfotunate on us. but he had too do the wrong thing.

I don't think Wilkin was offside either. If you freeze it at the point where the ball is played Wilkin is the furthest Saints player back and is easily 10m away from it, his foot level with Alibert.

If Alibert thought it was offside he should have called it instead of referring it upstairs. He should have known they couldn't rule on it, although it was clear they almost did untill Phil Clarke pointed out the error of their ways.

I have a valid point/question for you (not trolling)

If you look at the markings in the pitch he IS 10m from the play the ball at least,even if he was slightly in front of the ref,(which I am still not sure). So is he doing anything wrong.
This would cause countless problems in the future. Is the VR supposed to stick to the rules or look at the ref who might be 11 or 12m back and if the player is a foot in front of him, is he offside?
(I guess the rules say he must retreat 10m, not 11 or 12, which the ref might estimate to be10)
What are your thoughts?

It is a tough one. IMO the 10 is the refs 10. End of. There should not be this 'well some refs stand 11 to allow a step forward' rubbish. Far too confusing and open to interpretation. You stand with both feet behind the refs 10, simple.

I'm off to watch said incident on my Sky+. Just out of curiosity I might add, seeing as so many are convinced there is no off side anyway.

I'm 100% with you on that one.