WHY bother, seems to me they are of no use, another wrong decision tonight

Goodness knows . Waste of time , don't know what screen they look at can't be what everyone else is looking at.

Makes the sport a laughing stock. Ridiculous.

Get rid of them. Theyre a farce.

Certain calls you cant go to them for, some teams have the facility more than others.

They say they dont gave the facility to use it at all games but yet have the facility to record all games for disciplinary reasons and still make it up as they go along.

Weve got a better sport than puffyball and yawnion but those muppets at RFL, they make FIFA look transparent.

Could you say for definite his finger was on the line? If asked to say which way, you'd say yes, but enough to overrule something? Probably not.

So, even after all those replays we still can't say for certain it's a try or not, what's the point of having a video referee?

That's the point of the current system though. He sent it up as a try. We couldn't say for certain either way so the on-field view remains the same, That's the system working.

Oh well Sky now have their marketing dream next week - the clash for the league leaders shield and the top of the middle eights.

Spot on again

it's that obvious it smacks you in the face

So we just let the referee make a decision and stick with it, as they would when no screen is there.

A blind man on a galloping horse could see his hand on the line. Either the video refs don't like to overrule their colleague on the pitch or they're blind. There's also the fix option to consider now sky have their showdown.

Watched highlights of Friday's game and am amazed that the video ref couldn't see what everyone in the ground could see on the big screen. I agree with this blog. What is the point of having a video ref who has every camera angle imaginable to look at and still messes up. Also as everyone could see on the big screen Hull's last try was a yard forward. The score should have been 18-12 to Trinity in all fairness. Even Stevo and Hemmings were in agreement. The RFL have got to sort these pathetic referees out!

It was very clearly NOT forward. Quoting Eddie and Stevo as some kind of authority on the matter is desperation indeed.

Also, the ref was in no position to judge a forward pass and the VR isn't allowed to, so a tad harsh to blame either of them. Forward passes are generally the fault of the equally dire Touch Judges.

Imho it was forward and the tj was in perfect position to see it. Oh and there was nothing wrong with our try .....still sky have got their showdown so that's what matters.

Yes, its all one big pantomine is Super League. Just made for (Sky) TV entertainment, its not a sport anymore.

Its clearly not working though, if it was we wouldn't be posting threads every week questioning decisions.
I dunno what the finger on the line issue is about I've only seen the second half and highlights, but it seems to me the contentious decisions always seem to revolve around how the ref sends up the event.
I don't understand how he can say he's seen a try, but can't be sure so sends it to the vid ref as a try, then say's he's seen a knock on in the build up to another try but isn't sure so sends it up to the vid ref as a no try....which is then proved to be not a knock on and then subsequently chalked off by some miscellaneous bollox.......I mean WTFF ???
Its time the attacking team was given the benefit of the doubt like their supposed to, just call the gdamn try a try and let the vid ref disprove it, this on field decision rubbish ain't working.

or....get rid of the vid ref altogether because the poor bugger has to work with one arm tied behind his back due to a call made by an unfit bogeyed ref 20 yards behind action, played at a hundred miles an hour.
I'm not surprised they can't be sure about what happened, if they're not sure...this choice of sending up a try or sending up a no try is just plain stupid, they're not sure ffsake

Another game, Wigan v Wire I think.

Agree about the thing that seems to be the biggest bone of contention, is refs having to make a call one way or the other, when they haven't sometimes got a clue if it was a try or not. Preferred the old system where if they didn't see the score, it went straight up. Saying that there's no excuse for video refs to make the blunders that they make, especially this season.

I think that you're right.
Although in some respects, the ref's call is a good idea. After all, not all games are televised and in those matches, we have to accept what the ref gives.
However, there is no point in the VR system, if they cany be 95% right. Anything less than this means that it's not working.

You get the feeling that the vid ref ended up "looking" for a reason to disallow the try simply to back up the refs no try call.
Refs seem to ship so much grief, you can't blame them for trying to stick together and back each other up.
Its debatable as to whether the try would have been disallowed had the ref sent up a referral for a try but check for a knock on, rather than a no try referral.

Either way......the ref on the field is making incorrect calls that stand far too often for sport completely covered by high frame rate recording and almost instant action replays.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion but, the winger was slightly in front of the player who passed the ball and it certainly looked to go forward.
No matter now, it's all chip paper but, it looked forward.

Usually it's best to ask a neutral on these things and even Cas fans are saying it was forward !!!!!

Hull fans saying that was a forward pass and Finn was offside despite evidence to the contrary shocker

And I'm not surprised to see them think Tierney wasn't in touch in Friday night

Pork, educate, can't springs to mind

From where I was standing (just below the big screen) The pass leading to Hull's try was definitely about half a metre forward. As for the offside situation the big screen appeared to show every one to the left as on side and only Finn forward of the kicker.
Regarding the use of video refs the problem arises by virtue of there being two people involved in the decision, therefore a difference of opinion can arise. If only the referee was involved that case couldn't arise and you accept the decision of the man in the middle as we did for about 110 years. OK, the referee wasn't always right but in the end you accepted the decision. Video refs break the flow of the game and just add to the controversy. The referee indicating "try" or "no try" only allows the old pals act to be employed.

Video Phil b missed a blatant knock on by Ben Harrison