Finally game today where the sky/bbc cameras wont be up the backsides of every "obstruction" decision

the ref and touch judges will have to use their BRAINS.

I look forward to the crowd not screaming 'obstruction' any time there is a dummy runner

or FORWARD whenever someone passes the ball (Im looking at you St Helens fans)

Or gerrum onside at every single play the ball.

To be fair last Friday we only had one video ref call off memory and that was the Kirk Dixon knock onto Joe Burgess which was a far enough thing to check in my view. That was a refreshing change.

Funnily enough I'll be there tonight. I'll try not to shout too loud!

Or how much are the Meyt and Prater ?

Always had you down as a closet Warriors fan

After all, you're on our board much more than your own

Haha. Simply keeping a friend company who had a free ticket going spare.

Some nice tries from Wigan . The O'Loughlin one that came from the cross field kick to Burgess was excellent and Connor Farrell finished his try really well.

Interesting that this thread was started in relation to video refs and last night two tries were given (1 for each side) that I very much doubt would have been given if it was on SKY.

One of the questions put to the refs on twitter was about a try that wasn't given on Sky and they answered that it probably would have been (incorrectly) given had it not been on TV, so at least they are willing to admit it's an issue.

Stevo on SL Backchat this week seemed to think that from next season there will be a video ref at every game, whether he's in the know or talking out of his backside is anyone's guess, but it's definitely the right move.

Watched the 2 min highlights on Wigan TV and I think the Widnes try was the correct call, at the time I thought he was tackled but Burgess seems to fall over the top of him so he's never actually touched with the ball grounded. Which Wigan try do you think would've been chalked off?

Fair enough re. the Flynn try but at the time I think everyone inside the stadium thought he had been tackled.

Obviously I haven't seen any highlights but at the time I thought Charnley's first try should have been chalked off for a clear obstruction. I think it was Farrell who ran right round the back of someone (possibly Burgess) and took before he broke through. I also think the pass that went from him to Flower and then back again was a bit dodgy too. As I say, I've only seen it once and it had no bearing on the outcome of the game but at the time I thought it was a fortunate one.

On the wider issue I do think it needs to be at every game or none at all. The lack of consistency is so frustrating.

They also need to look at this obstruction "interpretation" and possibly limit what the refs can go to the screen for.

My opinion has always been VR at every game and only used for touch, offisde and grounding. Nice and simple and, more imortantly, consistent.

The trouble with limiting what the video ref can rule on is that will mean you will end up with the situation where Sky replay the score, highlight some blatant infringement, but the try stands because of the technicality the video ref can't tell the ref about it.

The fallibility of the referee is an accepted part of the game but we expect the video ref to be infallible.

If tries are allowed that the video ref could easily disallow than it just discredits the whole idea IMO.

In-touch, grounding and offside are black and white decisions, the onfield ref may not have been in the correct position to see it, send it upstairs, one or two looks at it then a decision is made. Other stuff where there is an obvious break in play like double movement, ball out on full etc could still be clarified because again they are black and white.

The issue with stuff like forward passes and obstruction is they are open to interpretation. Slowing it down and watching a frame-by-frame replay of where a player caught a ball from 3 or 4 different angles time and time again is what people are getting fed up with. The onfield ref needs to make a decision about whether or not there was an impedance that prevented someone from making a tackle. To have a situation where coaches are openly saying they are getting their team to play in a different way when games are televised is ridiculous.

I'm sure someone will come on and reply that the interpretation of the obstruction rule the refs are enforcing is correct and I have no issue with that, what I do have an issue with is that it's not being enforced consistently. The whole caught on the inside/outside shoulder ruling only gets pulled up if it leads to a try in a televised game. You could do the same play 4 times and then score off the 5th and only that one would be punished. Similarly you could run that play, get tackled millimetres short then the dummy half could barge over and it would be fine. The only way to overcome this inconsistency is to make it an onfield decision only.

Great post and I agree with all of that.

How is that any different to playing the ref? It's standard practice to change your game if you know the ref is lax on offside or lying on for example. Always has been. Players are coached to try and steel a meter and if that works try for two! If you know the presence of a video ref means something for certain decisions then you'd be daft not to accommodate this in the same way. If there is an issue on how the video ref is doing the job so it results in incorrect decisions due to slow motion then change it.

What I don't see is how stopping them ruling on certain issues is going to avoid the problem of it being possible for replays to show blatant reasons for a try not to stand and the only reason it does is the video ref can't rule on it.



There were several instances of the new interpretation of the obstruction rule bringing play to a halt last night without the video ref being there. At least twice Widnes got pulled up for it in the 2nd half and I am sure we did once. I saw nothing wrong with any of them but that is not the point. No video ref and we still got more penalties for obstruction in the game than we would have last season. The issue here is not the video ref but this new interpretation of the rule. As to inconsistency that has been a gripe for as long as I can remember.