I'm annoyed because I wrote a really good essay here, and then found I'd been logged out and lost the bloody lot.

Right, see if I can get the same point across AGAIN.

Bradford fans would probably not want to swap our fixtures today, but after seeing the brief highlights of our match, there was one considerably dodgy try awarded to Castleford, that I wonder if anyone here would like to comment on.

It LOOKED like we'd held them up over the line, but the try was awarded nonetheless. Now, take Bradford's game tonight where the video ref saved Bradford a loss by disallowing a try that PROBABLY would have been given had the referee been forced to make the call.

Effectively this means the two matches were officiated under different rules. I've said before, the video ref should be ALL or NOTHING, either available at every game, or at NONE of the games. What we have is a situation where Sky's choice of televised matches could POTENTIALLY affect the outcome of the whole season.

Think back to Bradford's "Millennium Tragic" incident, when Tansey was offside at the penalty kick. The irony that the matches were held on the only week of the year (excluding playoffs) that the video referee IS available for every game, yet was not used. But then should the video referee look at every decision? Again, I say it should be ALL or NOTHING. Something inbetween is inconsistent.

This isn't some kind of "We Wuz Robbed" rant, what benefits a team one week may handicap them the next, I think the one thing all fans ask for is a little consistency when it comes to the rules of the game.

The technology's wonderful, sure, and we're leading the way for other sports to introduce the same facility, but again, I don't think it's something you can introduce on a half-assed basis.

Your thoughts?

(Yeah, this wasn't as good as the first time I wrote it, I'm sure I left some points out that I made before, but hopefully any following discussion will raise them anyway.)

It is stupid - Had we been televised for todays game, we would have in all likelyhood won and Saints would have beat bradford!!! As it is we all got draws! Strange but I guess it evens out over the season.

One thing the sky replays did show though - there was NO way Arundel scored a try!!!

Agree though - It should either be TV replays for all or for none - but I guess money puts pay to having them at all games - Wasnt this discussed a couple of years ago and trialled?

What we should really look to do is get as many games on TV as possible as they do in Aus - Sell secondary and third rights to ITV/ BBC/ ESPN etc for a cheaper price to take the games after the sky picks.

That way we could end up with up to 4/5 games on tele over the weekend - Sky first two picks - then say BBC and ESPN can pic 2/3 more games. At least then we'd have VR at most games - Guess selling the rights for Crusaders/ Salford v Wakey / Harlequins etc. isnt really going to whet the appertite unfortunately

It sure did look like you'd held him up, but I guarantee the ball briefly touched the ground. It was clear as day from being stood right infront of it (even Bentham saw it

)

I know this wasn't the point of your post but just thought I'd clear that up



Oh and according to 2 wigan fans 'Bentham should have gone to the screen' Honestly nearly wet myself laughing

Betham didn't see it, the touchjudge gave it. The only people on that try line were Wigan fans. And it was the same touchjudge who gave the Rangi Chase kick in, which was at least a foot out of play.

I agree. As a sport, the credibility of RL is compromised by the video referee being used at some games and not others. This fact can be decisive in who wins the game and who loses, and the fact that a game is on SKY should not have any affect on the result compared with other non-televised games.

Don't neccesarily need a screen for the non televised games, just a link to the refs is fine.

Yes he did see. He had a better view than the touchjudge IMO. His view - like the majority of wigan fans, was pretty obstructed (by the wigan defender)

I was stood on the Railway end directly infront of it. As for the kick I completely agree but it was the one decision we got all day and that touchjudge owed us after calling Thompson in touch wrongly last week!

tbh its same at cricket with the review system, and umps going to big screen in televised games for iffy run out decisions..................im with the OP.......all or nothing..............personally i prefer NOTHING..............LEAVE IT TO THE ON FIELD OFFICIALS.

Gotta have video refs without the screen at the very least at all games as soon as possible. Ridiculous that 50/50 calls are so closely scrutinised at Sky games but are given in a flash at non-TV games. Fair enough the costs of extra cameras will be higher and a video ref would be required but it has to be done. And as for being "all or nothing" it has to be ALL because there is no way sky will drop the big screen decisions anytime soon.

couldnt agree more with the op,
video refs should be at every game, and should be used at everygame or not at all,
who ever is on tv are playing with a completly different set of rules,
my only worry with this is that it may be used way to much, some games on the tv there isnt a try given without going to the video ref,
when it either was clearly a try or the ref was stood right in front of it,

What makes me laugh is that officials go to the video ref for EVERYTHING when it's available.

perhaps we should introduce a challenge system like in tennis only allowing each team to challenge twice per game?
dunno if that could work in a team sport

it works in cricket and thats a team sport and the NFL

yeah i guess so, prehaps thats the way forward,

Except offside at a penalty kick. >cough<Tansey>cough<

Even more ironically, I only remembered this morning, that penalty was given on the advice of the Video Referee, so it really was a double FAIL.




And only team sports with a video referee at the game.

I like that idea, I really do, but it still raises the question of there being video referees (and enough camera angles) at all games, and we've seen that video referees can't always get things right anyway.

Do we actually need a different ref to do the video reffing? Surely one ref can do this at pitch side/end (with a little portable Panasonic

). He's only going to stand about whilst the video ref does his thing anyway, really no need for paying an extra ref for 80 mins.

Or here's a radical idea, swap both touch judges for one video ref.

dont they do sumthing similar in the NFL?

The extra cost would be massive and that's why it has not been brought in for all games. There would be a cost saving in match officials but that would nowhere near cover the costs of covering all games with the VR.
In the end it's all down to money!
Agree though that the game is being run under different sets of rules for both types of games.

They do, yes. The ref (head ref, umpire, whatever they call him) goes to look at a TV screen on the sideline.

But if you take out the screen and have the 1st official adjudicate instead of an extra ref, the only cost is a couple of cameras and cameramen. Is it really that unfeasible? Stick an extra advert on at half time!

The screen is a financial no no. Didn't even think about it in my previous post.
At present there can be up to 9 match officials at non SKY games.
Using a VR can reduce that number considerably but their match fees are not that great so the cash saving would not be there.
When SKY do a game they have around 8-10 cameras in action. They have two on the gantry, one behind each set of sticks, one in each of the four corners and one or two cameramen holding the shouldercam.
The RFL can't go anywhere near that regarding costs.
If clubs want it then they will have to stump up far more to the RFL than they do now.
With the number of clubs having "new" grounds next year, maybe a project to install them from 2015 with the appropriate finances in place could be done.
Until then I reckon we will continue as we are.

Or abolish the whole concept.