Yeah but at least it would be consistent with the rest of the game

In a situation like the kylie one isn't there a option for the ref to say is there any reason not to give a try, which covers all

I see yer point AL but 1st and foremost id like Cummings sacked and a Refs controller who actualy improves their performance and makes them more consistent from one game to the next.

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

Nah. If we're taking time out of the game to use the video ref he might as well look at everything.

One thing I'd like to see though is where the on-field ref cant use the VR to check on a decision he's already made. For instance a potential crossing incident inside the attacking team's own half which is followed by a break and a try. Often you will see an on-field ref wave play-on only to then go to the video ref when a try is scored. In my opinion he's already made a decision (for right or wrong) and play has continued.

Surely the video ref is there to make the right decision. Which on Saturday he did.

Ive seen obstructions and knock-on looked at in the build-up to tries when the VR is asked to "check the grounding". If they are going to look at everything why not use the RU questions of "Is there any reason i cant give the try? (ie: I think it was OK but did I miss anything)" or "Try Yes or No? (ie: Im not sure but there is an indication it might have been)".

Here's an idea though. Why not have somebody in the booth playing the video backwards and forwards on the refs instructions and let the actual ref make the call based on the video. He knows exactly what it was that gave him doubt for making the call on the pitch so he knows exactly what he is looking for.

I don't see any reason for a rule change. If the right decision is made, then there isn't a problem.

Unfortunately the use of the video ref in RL is widening and is now being used for in play incidents, ie 40/20 or at a delay when someone is injured and they look for foul play etc.

Make the refs accountable and make decisions and bring it in line with Rugby Yawnion and let the video ref only come into play over the try line "Is there any reason I cannot give a try" or "Is it a try yes or no" I am not sure where the extended use of the video ref came into play but it isnt for the best.

The only time obstruction is given is when the ref goes to the video ref !! Why ??

I've often thought it might be better for the video ref to decide whether he wants to look again or not ie tell the ref to award the straight away if it's a clear cut try, but tell the ref he wants another look if not.

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.