I don't think that would be the case at all - cricketers have as much if not more respect for umpires as RL players do for the refs. If anything, it's brought more honesty into cricket, as the players have to decide whether to "waste" a referral (most players know whether they've scored or not, so would only use it to overturn a clearly wrong decision).

That may be true from the attacking players perspective when a legitimate try has been denied, but how about the defender's perspective when a non-try has been awarded as a try? Do most defenders know when the player they are attempting to stop scoring has a foot slightly in touch, or that the ball has come away from his fingertips? An attacking player may well be certain he has scored, just as you say, but a defender will be much less certain he has prevented a try as he isn't the one controlling the ball. If the referee awards a try when he shouldn't have, do defenders have a fair chance of invoking their referral or will they be playing a guessing game? Will they risk "wasting a referral" or allow the try to be awarded without challenge, only to realise the morning after that they performed a try-saving tackle?

I also don't like the idea of having 2 referrals. If this system were in place then I'd hardly call it fair sport if a try was awarded from an incorrect call simply because it happened to be the 3rd incorrect call. Imagine if the referee made 5 incorrect calls in a match--two going in your favour but three in favour of your opponents. Hardly seems fair that your team would have to allow that decision to stand simply because the referee had already made two prior mistakes.

I've not read the rest of this thread but I am seriously considering it now. I didn't know they were on £35k a year at the minute I'm on half that and I don't make as many mistakes as what they do at work.

I would like consistency from each INDIVIDUAL referee, what I mean by that is take two recent incidents the Wigan V Leeds and Stains v Dragons. The dummy runners trys imo there was very minimal differences but one VR allowed it (Ganson) and one didin't (Smith). As long as they make the same decision for similar incidents then I don't have a problem with.

I think everyone (including Cunmims) wants robots as refs. Everyone singing off the same song sheet sort of thing. This isn't going to happen as an incident will look different from which angle you see it. Watch MOTD and some controversial incidents during a match and they take the refs position to help him. I know I did it when I played one of my favourits was a tackle that was border line on me I used to turn my head towards the ref so it looked high 9/10 I got a penalty for a high shot.

I would like a ref to ref his natural game. Ganson a good example here mouth off your punished from penalty perspective. As a smart coach will allow for the ref and take him into his plans for a match, for example if a ref allows you to lie on in the tackle or not, will a ref take you bak the full ten and pull up for offiside. A coach can take this into his match game plan.

I would also like to refs just like the NRL. Not that it is following the Aussies but because I believe that the Aussies because of this are a lot better at the dark arts of the game then we are.

As for the VR the sport neeeds to make a choice enforce it at every match or not at all. There is an element for cost but sponsorship springs to mind. But before we scrap it I would like the ref to say "I don't/think it is a try, because of x, y or z" then we will have a better indication whether they would have got it right. Not to inflate someones ego or think that they are rubbish but to see if we need a VR it is the only way we will know whether they would have got the decision right or wrong.

It's the inconsistency that annoys me the most. Blatant forward passes missed one minute and then a marginally forward one given (rightly of course).

With regards the VR, it's the same thing. Josh's try v Leeds is chalked off and yet Tommy Makinson's is given for Saints. Both tries yet somehow one was chalked off?? (by the same VR I think as well) Add to that the ridiculous benefit of the doubt rule and it just becomes a shambles. If you can't tell it's a try from the 6 million angles and super slow mo that Sky rave on about, then it shouldn't be a try.

Thats bang on for me too. As long as people know that when a team gets a try disallowed/allowed for something the same will happen for every similar incident in other matches then there would be no uproar.

Another thing that does my head is when they go to the video ref for a decision and even after looking at the video the video ref gets it wrong! Makes the whole process utterly useless.

Totally agree. It really shouldn't be that hard to establish stringent criteria that an obstruction, for example, must meet. Referees should then apply the criteria objectively without letting their own feelings about what [ithey[/i think obstruction is get in the way.


I do disagree with that. A system doesn't have to be perfect to have any value, it just has to be an improvement on what we had before. The VR gets many decisions correct where a referee feels unable to do so, which is an obvious improvement in my opinion.