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.

Surely the bigger question is: why did Alibert ask for the offside? He has himself and two other officials to pick these things up. Why refer it?

Because he's a clown and doesn't have a clue. They were offside all match.

I think because it was so messy he just wanted a coverall to make sure he hadn't missed something. Plus he probably had Lee Briers chewing his ear off.

I think that probably covers it.

... oh hang on ... that could also be a factor.

Well looking at the replay Alibert was indeed 11 back from the play, with pretty much all of the Saints players at least one foot in front of him (may I remind you that both feet must be behind the ref.) Now here is the debate from earlier - is it the pitch 10 or the refs 10 or 11 but slightly in front. Too confusing.

Alibert's = all off side.
Pitch = at least 2 players a stride in front of the 'lines on the floor' 10 m.
Result = doesn't matter one jot. We mucked up, Saints finished nicely.

Defo think however Mr Cummings needs to address the way refs uniformly indicate the 10. If not for the players but for the crowd!

No issue over the result and a good game by both sides. No issues over the end result of this incident given the constraints placed on the VR system. BUT:

Alibert messed up no1 by specifically asking the VR to look at the offside.

Gansom initially messed up by appearing to be willing to award the offisde penalty

The RFL have messed up by giving VR technology to sort out mistakes and then making them sit on their hands (metaphorically)

The refs mess up by not standing 10 (THATS TEN....NOT TEN GIVE OR TAKE DEPENDING ON HOW THEY FEEL) at the play of the ball. Some refs say they stand just over 10 so that their view of the line is not impeded by the next player in the line.. use the touchline officials!!!!!!!!!!! Are we going to end up with 1 metre markings like they have in US footballs. The players might now how a "ref likes to work" BUT like the players and the game, the refs should have a set of rules. This will at least allow the fare-paying spectator the chance of make well innformed and thought out areguements for screaming.."OFFSIDE...GET THEM BACK"

Two further questions for the ref - and before anybody jumps on me, Wire only had themselves to blame for last nights defeat.

1) when Wilkins bawled at Alibert after being penalised for holding down, he was asked to go to the ref for a telling off. Wilkins ignored him and Wellens stood in for him. Why did Alibert not insist on speaking to the player, and why did he not move the penalty forward by ten yards?

2) As half time approached, and Riley kicked the ball forward, he was tackled by two Saints players. Alibert was going to let play go on until the touch judge intervened and a penalty was awarded.
Now, at a home game this season, Riley was sin binned in the first minute for holding down after an opposition break. Why was one or both players not sin binned for the professional foul?

As I said, I am not blaming those decisions for the loss, but I am getting extremely frustrated at the inconsistencies of referees from game to game, and within games.
Am I the only one?

There will be many opinions as to your first two points ranging from "got it bang on" to "the guys a muppet and has no bottle". What I would say is I think that every sane fan posting on this or any forum HATES inconsistent referring. Differences in opinion from one ref to another is inevitable (they are of course contray to many peoples opinion ..human) but god knows how a ref can be so inconsistent about his own decisions within a single game and often within a single 15 minute spell!

Cummings has confirmed before that the whole ref's standing 12m back and allowing players in front of him in nonsense that gets repeated time and again. The ref is meant to stand 10m back, and he marks the offside.

Can't find the quote, unfortunately.

It was James Graham that bawled at Alibert

He should be spoken to by the RFL for that on 47 minutes on live SKY you could cleary hear him shout to Alibert, "Move just F***in move".