Is the time coming when Video Refs have to be substituted so that they don't suffer from burn out?.

It is becoming a joke the amount of time spent on reviewing every try, even going back several play the balls and showing every aspect of the play over and over again.

Are they in danger of turning the fans and casual viewers who want to see what the game is about off the game?.

This is something you would never see in the NRL, their game sees to flow which is so unlike our game.

That Walsh no try near the end got me up. If he's tackled short that would be play on. It was an excusable high shot considering Grix slipped in my view but the refs should be calling that.

Should be like tennis and nfl. The ref gives the try or no try then the opposite team has 3 challenges

Have thought for a while now the the whole video ref thing is a farce, refs cop out all the time by not awarding tries and passing on the responsibility. The amount of time taken over decisions with the constant re-runs and angles is way beyond a joke - surely this must be baffling for any casual viewer.

Of course nothing will change but what I would like to see

1. the video ref can only be used when there is real doubt - refs should award a try unless there is CLEAR doubt, not as a matter of routine.

2. The video ref should have no more than 2 mins max to make a decision if they cannot after that time - award a try on benefit of the doubt (remember that...)

3.Sort out the flipping obstruction rule - it is getting silly.

This is just moaning for the sake of moaning! The video refs help reduce the number of incorrect calls in a game. This is a good thing. If there happen to be numerous difficult or contentious calls to make in one game and the video refs are used multiple times then so be it.


1. If there was no doubt then they would award a try. We should be careful to avoid a situation where awarding a try is the default decision and pushing refs into guessing when they could refer the decision to the VR who has the benefit of multiple angles and replays. I only want tries to be awarded when a try has been scored.

2. I can see some merit in limiting the time simply for the benefit of maintaining the spectacle (long VR decisions affect the flow of the game and the atmosphere) but again with this lets just award a try! If they aren't sure then they should adjudicate based on what they think is most likely given the evidence available.

3. The current obstruction rule bandwagon is what's silly. Fans need to understand the rules, not keep trying to change them.

Most of us started playing/watching in the dark ages before VRs. We got used to refs making "benefit of the doubt calls" most of the time. As soon as the technology allowed scrutiny of the game in such detail, we became aware of the slightest infringement. Referees have now come under such intense pressure that it is not surprising that they go to the VR for almost ever call. That is the price of change and, unlike on the VT thread, you cannot argue that little knock-ons should be ignored if they benefit your own team, as one Leeds fan suggested. The result will be a different product with each new piece of technology, but hey, if we didn't want change we could always go back to having a scrum after every tackle.

When refs don't go to the VR, make a decision and the SKY TV replays shows he's got it wrong the first words used by the commentators or summerisers are "We have the technology so use it"
When the refs use the technology to get correct calls on trys they are critisised by those who advocate its use in the first place.

When I raised this thread it was because of being surprised with the amount of adverse comments coming from Eddie and Stevo, comments like ' not again , this is becoming a joke it is the 4th time we have gone to the ref'.

At half time they went to John Wells and Brian Carny and the same thing was brought up, John Wells ( who I consider is the best of all the Sky Team) talked the viewers through one of the incidents .

He showed the move in slow motion and the said obstruction which was shown 4/5 times and he said that it was probably an obstruction but in his view it in no way had it affected the outcome because the ball went through 3/4 pairs of hands after the so called obstruction before the ball was touched down.

But what I am finding so confusing is seeing members of the Sky team questioning the overuse of the video Refs when it is Sky themselves who have brought in the faceless wonders who stand with their backs to the cameras milking every minute of it.

Maybe it is a double bluff on Sky's part knowing that they could not force this type of technology on football.

An excusable high shot? Get lost. Oh I can just hear you lot saying that if it had been one of your on the receiving end. In fact you lot seem to excuse high shots on grix all the time. What was the difference between crookes shot last week and the Bowen one on grix first game of season?
Nothing apart from the fact Bowen was 2 weeks late with the shot and crookes got a 2 game ban.

An excusable high shot is exactly what it was. Grix was going down, it was high and was a penalty. That's it. Bilko's point is that the ref/touch judge should have called it without the need for a VR.

What on earth has Bowen and Crookes got to do with a VR decision in a St Helens V Huddersfield game.

Quote ="stillinthepast"When I raised this thread it was because of being surprised with the amount of adverse comments coming from Eddie and Stevo, comments like ' not again , this is becoming a joke it is the 4th time we have gone to the ref'. At half time they went to John Wells and Brian Carny and the same thing was brought up, John Wells ( who I consider is the best of all the Sky Team) talked the viewers through one of the incidents . He showed the move in slow motion and the said obstruction which was shown 4/5 times and he said that it was probably an obstruction but in his view it in no way had it affected the outcome because the ball went through 3/4 pairs of hands after the so called obstruction before the ball was touched down. But what I am finding so confusing is seeing members of the Sky team questioning the overuse of the video Refs when it is Sky themselves who have brought in the faceless wonders who stand with their backs to the cameras milking every minute of it. Maybe it is a double bluff on Sky's part knowing that they could not force this type of technology on football.'" Even Wigan and Hudds players are getting on the discussion . www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/27591860

Quote ="stillinthepast"When I raised this thread it was because of being surprised with the amount of adverse comments coming from Eddie and Stevo, comments like ' not again , this is becoming a joke it is the 4th time we have gone to the ref'. At half time they went to John Wells and Brian Carny and the same thing was brought up, John Wells ( who I consider is the best of all the Sky Team) talked the viewers through one of the incidents . He showed the move in slow motion and the said obstruction which was shown 4/5 times and he said that it was probably an obstruction but in his view it in no way had it affected the outcome because the ball went through 3/4 pairs of hands after the so called obstruction before the ball was touched down. But what I am finding so confusing is seeing members of the Sky team questioning the overuse of the video Refs when it is Sky themselves who have brought in the faceless wonders who stand with their backs to the cameras milking every minute of it. Maybe it is a double bluff on Sky's part knowing that they could not force this type of technology on football.'" Even Wigan and Hudds players are getting on the discussion . www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/27591860

Inconsistency in decisions! Which is exactly what using video refs in two games a week is giving. Obstruction- what a joke- only ever given when the video refs are available otherwise -try time.

What's the solution?

Either get rid or turn us into American football with a stoppage every few minutes!

They need to sort out the obstruction rubbish and that will cut the problem right down.

just ref it to the letter of the law and have no circumstantial decision like "its going 20 meters away from the incedient" as its still an advantage to the attacking team even if its not effected a certain defender. Also they need to draw a line and every fan needs to understand that from the point they do this that this is the rule now and a week or a year ago does not matter.

Not sure what you mean by this. 20 metres away from the incident.....? Do you mean obstruction 20 metres away from where the try was scored or obstruction 20 metres away from the ball carrier?

They already have simplified it, the problem is many fans and commentators still don't understand it.

The attacking side has to do 2 things.

1. The summer runner must either go through a hole and make no contact or run to the inside shoulder therefore not preventing the defender from sliding.

2. The player receiving the ball must not run behind the dummy runner with the ball, ie the run and pass must be times so the receiver catches it on the outside shoulder.

With The tries not allowed at Salford the first condition was not met as the dummy runner made contact with the outside shoulder if the defender hence preventing him from sliding.

I don't think it can be simplified any further.

Exactly. They've brought in a new interpretation to the rule that they thought would solve some issues and all it's done is create a heap more.

Obstruction is obstruction to me. If you impend an opposition defender from making a tackle then that's obstruction, not this whole catching the ball on the outside of a lead runner. The first three try's against Salford were fine and all got ruled out.

Outside of that farce the use of the video ref is pretty good IMO.

Imagine the premier league if they could see if it was a penalty or the player dived decision and only on sky televised games they had video technology! and and all other games had NO technology there would be uproar! rugby league at the moment is the biggest disaster at the moment.

IMO the problem is that fans just don't seem to understand the rules. The three that went to the video ref were all rightfully denied, I for one called no try before the decision came up on the screen. It doesn't help that plenty of people will just boo and shout abuse at the officials regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

The problem is the inconsistency. You could run 4 exact same plays from a 20m restart and there would be no issue, then score off the last one and it goes to the screen and gets chalked off. If we're going to have a frame-by-frame level of scrutiny with these sorts of plays, with a black and white ruling of if it's caught even a few inches behind your own player = obstruction, then we definitely need VRs at every game.

I think there needs to be a "did the obstruction directly prevent the defender from making the tackle" addition to the rule. The current interpretation rewards poor defending and punishes good attacking play. You may as well just ban dummy runners (if the game is on Sky anyway).

First paragraph - I agree obstruction is far more likely to be picked up on plays that lead to tries at televised games. However, that's only the same with loads of other rules, offside, knock on and touch for instance, we don't complain about them being picked up more accurately when the game is on tv. Ideally I'd like video refs at all games, but there's loads of other things I'd sooner spend the money on.

Second paragraph - That is the rule, you can run behind your own players all day if you aren't preventing defenders from tackling you.

Isn't it the issue that they're calling "no try" when the obstruction is a mile away from the play and doesn't actually prevent any defence from reaching the ball carrier? At least that's what I saw on the tiny bit I watched on the BBC the other night.

The Hampshire, Sarginson and Meli tries would all have been given if the Salford game wasn't on tele. Touch, grounding, offside are a lot more black and white, some will get missed at non TV games but they generally don't need the same level of scrutiny to form the decision. If VRs aren't implemented at every game, then I think obstruction needs to become an on the field decision only.