But surely he should be going to the ref for something he thinks he has seen, not something he hasn't.

The only real amendment to the video ref system I would like to see is to make it similar to cricket where the first thing they look for at a review was whether it was no ball or not, in RL I would like the first thing they check is whether the defending side were all onside at the play the ball - why is all the focus of offending targeted towards the 'scoring' team?

Seconded

I've wondered for years how one of the worst ref's has ended up in charge of them!!!

The single biggest improvement I'd like to see with the video referee is to bin it altogether until it's available at every SL game.

Halves of televised Rugby League matches are routinely taking over fifty minutes (in real-time) to complete and it's boring stood/sat around waiting for decisions. It'd also stop the debates over whether he should have gone to the video or not.

It's incredible how match officials at non televised games have to and seem to manage reasonably well without the interminable slow-mo, freeze-frame, eighteen alternative angles, desire for millimetre perfect decisions only for a conclusive 'Benefit Of The Doubt' to flash up on the screen two hours later.

I actually like the video referee generally but it should be available for every game or none and they need to put a time limit of let's say 60 seconds for a decision, a bit like countdown.

Agree with this.

Also, on the length of time they spend looking at some decisions, if the infringement is so minute that you need 32 stop-motion replays to see it, just give the try. I'd actually rather see a very marginally wrong borderline call than a correct one that takes two and a half minutes to come up with.

I'd also quite like somebody review the video replays from several games without use of a video ref and audit how often the on-field officials actually come up with the wrong call before I'd justify the expense of installing cameras everywhere.

I'd like to see a change in the way the VR is used. The main purpose should be to stop any refereeing howlers caused by the referee being unsighted or unable to make the correct judgement, not to over scrutinise routine decisions just because the technology is available. I agree with El Diablo on borderline calls that take ages to resolve, which simply aren't really in the game's interests. Instead of having the option to 'go to the screen', I'd prefer to have an extra official watching the game on TV and only getting in touch with the wired-up match referee when he makes a mistake or misses something - I believe we already have this system but am unclear on the precise cases when it is being used.