Quote: Harry Pinner "Why would a try like this ever be referred to the video ref? By this logic every break away try where the ref is well behind play would need to be referred just in case there's been a knock on he can't see during grounding of the ball. If the ref has no reason to suspect there's been an offence or an error why would he refer it?'"
Because one of your touch judges with a wider view says "Might have been a knock on there, can't be sure."
Because the fans of the defending team near the score all jump up shouting "knock-on".
Because the defending player appeals for a knock-on, having seen it close-hand.
Now the ref can ignore all those things and award the try, only to see himself repeatedly pilloried on a large screen in front of 40,000 people, or he can just refer it upstairs to check. The worst that can happen if he refers it is a 60-second pause in proceedings. The worse that can happen if he doesn't, is that the game is decided on a mistake. That's a really easy decision to make.
As I said above, this is all a nonsense issue. The same fans who are currently screaming loudest for not referring things to the video ref are undoubtedly those who would scream loudest about the injustice the first time a ref gave a try which was then shown to be a no-score on the big screen.
As for this straw man about people being turned off the game because of the amount of time a video referee decision takes - what utter hogwash. What percentage of ex-fans have been surveyed to discover this as the motivation for their departure ? What research has been done ? What evidence is there of TV audiences switching off when video ref decisions are pending ?
There's nothing to see here. A manufactured argument about buggerall.