If they have the technology why not use it?
People would be up in arms if they didn't go to the VR and a try was awarded when it clearly wasn't for whatever reason.
Also, there is no such thing as a tiny knock on it is either a knock on or it isn't.
Refs use the VR a lot as they are under so much scrutiny from the media and the public that it is the safest option if they have any doubt or the touch judges have any doubt.

This. Shenton claimed (twice) he was obstructed. It should be down to the ref to make the call, and not get pressure from the players, and yet when a linesman says 'that was not a knock on' (Ward) and the ref to overrule his own lines man is a joke. Upstairs should be used for tries like you said, the McGuire one, which was clearly double movement, but the whole 'obstruction' during play should be the same as the forward pass rule is, only call it if the referee notices it, play like this shouldn't go upstairs.

wasn't the Maguire one a free play? If so should it not have been a scrum to Leeds rather than a goal line drop out - Or did I miss something?

He knocked on in the "in goal" area, therefore drop out.

It annoys me when a decision is referred to the VR for say obstruction but the ref will also ask for grounding for what seems to be the sake of it. We knew Bish got his first try down fine last night but the grounding also had to be checked. It's also frustrating when say a try is checked again for obstruction and grounding but then another offence is spotted in the replay and they chalk the try off. The VR should only be looking for what the ref has requested

Am I right in thinking the system in Oz is different? Doesn't the ref tell VR if he thinks it's a try and just ask the VR to look for something. Removing the chance of the VR picking something else up. At least then if the VR can't see something he can refer it back to the ref to go with his initial instinct

Personally I think if you go to the video ref then there is no problem in ensuring it is a try full stop. I would rather them do that than see a try awarded when it shouldn't be.

I still want to see a trial done where the ref makes a verdict first by some means (not publically necessarily) when he goes to the VR, to see how often the end result is different. I do wonder how much value the intervention really adds.

In general though, I see no problem with use of technology. But this year it has really felt over-used, and the main bugbear is the obsession with looking for obstructions when the ball goes behind a dummy runner. It seems that every time there are more than 2 passes across the line, the ref will refer it just in case there's an obstruction. It starts, in that case, to feel like looking for reasons to disallow a try. It's an interruption to the flow of the game and pretty much every "new" viewer I ever watch a game with finds it incredibly frustrating.

We really need to try to focus its use a bit more in my opinion. People don't tune in to watch a couple of blokes messing about with a big telly.

Agree with Gotcha - scoring tries is what the game is all about- might as well make sure it's actually a score if we can.

Only negative I see creeping in is that when watching games on TV instead of describing good play that leads up to a score all we hear is Eddie and sometimes Stevo pointing out every potential reason to disallow a try. The times they have Carney in the box with them you can hear the guys frustration at the endless negativity of Eddie in particular (unless it's his beloved Stains of course). The point of a commentator is to make the game sound exciting, not talk endlessly about potential obstructions "forward passes" or non-existant minor technical infringements. They even wind back the video a couple of plays to pull up a dodgy PTB or "high shot" after a try has been awarded.
I know Murdoch news is all about how negative they can make something sound but does that have to be incorporated into sport coverage?
Classic example was Ryan Hall's try against Wigan, all Eddie was banging on about during the buildup was that Hall was infront of Moon when anyone with reasonably functioning eyesight could see that was nonsense. They barely talked about any of the skill involved in the buildup and the fact Leeds ran the ball from deep in their own half on the last tackle. Endless replays of Peacock picking the ball up cleanly and the moaning commentry sucked the joy out of the score.

Rant over.

Bad mood today, jet lag and a bollocking from the boss.

Yep I missed that

Thanks

Not going upstairs, referees making up their own minds? Can't be having that.

The video ref always brings arguments, do the refs go upstairs to oftern, I think of two games when they should have, Fartown St Helens and the drop goal that was not given. Leeds v Wigan I think two years ago when Wigan scored two tries which were knocks on and were not checked out. But it does slow the game down, but the quality of are refs is so poor they need every bit of help possible.

But remember the Auckland 9's no video ref, and at the end of the event according to TV only one questionable decision. Could are refs do that!!!!!!!

No spell check? .. Although I suspect that might not be TOO helpful for some of OUR contributors .......

I honestly believe circa 80% of the time the ref will instinctively get the call right, but it'll be a call they aren't a 100% certain of, that's when they keep using the safety net of the ref.

I know when i've been at games (in a worse position than the ref) something will happen in real time and i'll just sort of know the decision ''nah, in touch, no try'' and low and behold the video backs it up, even on slide rule decisions, alot of other people are probably the same.