You're ace. Can we keep you?

Is there not an age limit for contributing on this forum? Here we clearly have a child of very minor years

I have watched the website replay a few times and I'm still not sure nor was the video ref because it took so long so I think it should have been benefit of the doubt

Techonolgy is detrimental to the game IMO. Long before the days of this modern disease it would have been recorded as a try and rightly so. A movement like that should be more inclined towards reward rather than overly scrutinised for the most minute of technical infringements .,.if Stevie Ward had been seen to have the made the slightest of finger tip touches it would have been already ruled out; if any of the players had been judged to have been a cm offside it would have been ruled out. Neither of these would have made any difference to the passage of play and the final finish of the move .....indeed at any non televised match I am sure the outcome would have been very different in 'normal speed'. The referee would not have the option to ask somebody else to "check everything". It seems the video team default position is to find a reason to rule out a try.....and the luck of the draw in camera angles can make all the difference. It altogether ruins the whole spontaneity of sport,...the moment cannot be savoured. Instead we must wait an eternity for some technocrat to rewind and rewind again until inevitably the tiniest of imfringerments is found. Awful.

I wonder how many iconic tries in history would have been wiped out if today's (inconsistent while human beings are still in charge) modern technology had been in existence.

Why not give the game back to the referees and only use the video camera for determining foul play? Then the supporters will maybe have something to moan about.

My own view is that in the days before the VR or even now at a game without the VR, that try would have been disallowed for incorrect grounding.

You might be right...and I would have no issue with that.

It is the constant rewinding back over the whole move to look for the slightest of technical infringements that infuriates me. My point was that it could have been disallowed [ilong before[/i we got to the grounding, purely because of the possible tiniest technical issue that could only be seen by the constant rewinding and frame by frame minute scrutiny.

The whole idea about having a VR is to eliminate controversial decisions. But we've ending up having more controversial decisions in the TV games than we do in the ones without a VR.

Also does anyone know if the VR was always two refs involved.....one giving the decision and the other one doing the buttons? Why does the second guy have to be a ref too? Wasn't it just some Sky guy before working alongside the VR? The operating of it in terms of slowing it down, rewinding and pausing it at the right moment seems a lot clumsier this year than previous. Why does it even take two people, why can't the VR just operate it himself?

Without the video ref Broughtons try would not have been turned down, the so called obstruction was 5/6 metres away and Broughs pass was superb to put Broughton away and Superman would have never got there.

The video ref used to be on his own in a cloth covered structure about 2metres by 1.5 metres.
All these extra experts from SKY keep putting up the premiums. There must be 12 I have counted employed by SKY.
Premier Sports comes much cheaper.

Again, the Broughton no try was off the back of a scrum that shouldn't have been given to Huddersfield so in the end justice was done (I hate that cliché)

I didn't think this in the past as I thought why not use the video if we've got it, but I'm starting to change my mind and think either there should be a system like in the NRL where it has to overturn a ref's initial opinion and on specific incidents in the play, or to restrict the use of the VR to where it can only judge on the grounding and onside/offside from kicks.

I wouldn't have complained had it been given and Leeds had won to be fair.

I also thought the Broughton try disallowed was pedantic but according to the rules correct.

However by the same token the Cudjoe/McGillivary try chalked off in the 12-12 draw by the video ref was clearly played by Ryan Hall everyone but the video ref could see it.

My call would be if it takes more than three attempts to call it then it becomes benefit of the doubt call it a try and get on with the game.

Over the season these things even themselves out however even Thierry made the same call in the Catalans game when Saints pushed Escare out of the way.

Let's be fair it was a better game than the 'watch the paint dry' soccer last night if Rooney's worth £360,000 a week what are some of the guys who played Thursday night worth in a 'fair market' ???

You are correct, but there was no comparison between those two incidents.

Printer - I made the same point elsewhere. It massively reduces pressure on the video refs to find something, anything to rule out a try if the ref calls try, as there has to be unambiguous evidence to the contrary. Previosuly we had the same problem, with video refs analysing play frame by frame looking for the slightest problem, and I think most sensible people reached the conclusion that if you watch footage of almost any try for long enough, you'll find a technicality to rule it out.

The two changes I'd make are ref's call followed by review, and automatic benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.