Tony smith calls for video refs at every game I for one agree some games have been lost because the ref cant see every try you do not even need the big screen they don't in australia what do you think

Certainly desirable, maybe not affordable.

Definitely not affordable.

Why is it not affordable? From that sky angle of the try Smith was unhappy with it looked pretty clear that the ball was still in the field of play when it was touched down by Briscoe however his left hand my have been in touch at the same point. Both the in goal judge and Ganson were very close and had a better view than the touch judge so coupled with that camera angle the correct decision would have probably been a try anyway.

The fact there would be an extra two cameras at games is certainly affordable. They don't need big screens at every game, they don't have them in Aus just red and green lights but with our officials in constant communications with the other officials we don't even need that. Stop the clock and ask for help with the decision.

Two cameras one at each in goal area plus the main camera up high to check for onsides and other infringments is not only affordable but also surprising it hasn't already been done. As in Aus too if no decision can be found on camera then it goes to a 'Refs Call'.

Because the trial carried out at Craven Park for the final derby of the 2008 season showed that it would be expensive, and our sport isn't swimming in cash.

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/super_league/7675916.stm[/url

You would need a minimum two, more likely three cameras at each end. You will also need bodies to operate them. We're not talking Sony Handycams here, although we wouldn't require 1080p HiDef, they would still need to be high quality optics. The operators would also need to be trained cameramen, used to shooting dynamic sports. There would also need to be a recording/viewing suite with, apart from the video ref, at least one more technician. Now multiply that lot by five.

If our game was as rich as the NRL, we could possibly justify the expense but as I suggested on the subject of Tony Smith's comments: "what would he rather spend his money on, Trent Waterhouse or a video ref?"

Well said to the above 2 posters.

I beleive the figure quoted after the 2009 trial was about £50,000/match.

The only way I could see that working was if Sky covered all games similar to their Premier League coverage, but I doubt that there is the demand.

Not sure it would be as much as that. That's £6.5m a season. The report says it would cost a six-figure sum each season. £6.5m is a pretty large seven-figure sum.

The largest six-figure sum would leave us at around £7.5k a game.

I think Smiths right, it should be all or nothing, not just the televised game. I don't know how much it would cost but I'm pretty sure well never see it at every ground.

Maybe we should have signed a sponsorship deal with a company who could have provided the technology rather than the trucks?

but can we not still do this we are not tied in to one deal why not talk to a company to do it and use their name has sponsors they make money with the name splashed every game and on the trucks and we save money win win all round

That would be Sky then better get on the phone to them and see if they are interested

As good as the thought is - I just can't see happening. Hell, money aside - we'd struggle to even get enough competent officials adjudicating the decisions at all games.

The best proposal I can think of is, clubs using their own cameras/equipment to 'help' officials make a decision. As an example, we're obviously going to have camera crews at our games for hullkr.tv. If there was some way that a replay of a try could be viewed on a monitor by the match official with no/little time lost, then that could work. But, the biggest problem with this concept would be in the integrity of the host club's chosen camera team.

when the original trial took place it was costed at about £300,000 for the season and it was taken to the clubs who themselves decided that in the current financial climate that they didn't want the expense. The trial itself was successful and showed it could be done and work. It was down to the clubs to decide and no matter how much complaining Tony Smith does he knows this.

He also knows that a touch judge cannot chalk a try off. The job of the TJ is purely and simply to judge touch and goal kicks and "Advise" the ref nothing more than that.

If the RFL could get a deal with a production company to provide the equipment and crew, they could possibly recoup their money back via sponsorship with them as well as commission on better quality DVDs sold and possible sponsorship on internet highlights/replays (such as HullFC.tv, HullKR.tv, etc).

The front of the referees' shirts are still not sponsored either.

I like this idea lets tell the rfl

£50k x 13 home games is £650K not £6.5M

Did he mean six-figure number per club or altogether?

I went with £50k x 5 games x 26 rounds = £6.5m per season.

5 games rather than 7 because 2 are already covered by Sky, and 26 rounds rather than 27 because Magic Weekend is televised.

It would have been all together. The clubs wouldnt pay for the video refs, so why would he give the cost per club....i'm with you Wellsy

even sandy has said after talks about refs they should be video at every game see the mail

i think video refs are needed at every game otherwise it isn't a level playing field, even if its with less cameras at games a second look at 'dubious' tries is a must, i don't know the exact numbers but i would imagine Saints, Leeds, Wigan etc will have more games televised than say Salford, Widnes, Wakey etc. which theoretically gives the big teams an advantage too over the season. Dont need a big screen, as someone else said, a red and green light system or even just a word radio'd to the refs ear who could then signal whatever the decision is. I know cost is an issue but with some cameras at every game surely something could be done thats not too astronomical cost wise.

Robot refs, that's what we should have.

Honda could sponsor them and any back chat from players like that idiot Cross last week would result in a Chinese burn.

That'll learn 'em.

sandra you get dafter

And last night's game showed just how flawed his argument is.

When Saints 2nd "try" was chalked off for a knock-on, it was only one camera angle out of four that gave the evidence leading to disallowing the try. So using just the club camera would have offered no clearer indication of whether it should be a try or not.

As it stands the playing field is level, four teams each week know they'll have the advantage of numerous camera angles to decide on tries, ten teams will not. It's not the same four teams each week, so each gets a reasonable shout throughout the season.

If it's going to be introduced, then it should be done properly and most seem to agree that the extra expense that will be incurred is simply not worth the investment. To have four teams per week using multiple camera angles and ten teams using one is no improvement on what we have now.