sounds like a very good idea,yes we got away with that one but when we played leeds away we got penalised for carrying on because the ref thought the ball carrying arm touched the ground and it didnt and probably would of resulted in a try for us.it just goes to show how much refs change games but there only human and make mistakes(too many for my liking)so yes i think this is a good idea

I don't necessariiy agree with the "Captains Challenge" proposal - for a start it would require full video coverage currently only available when a match is on Sky. But technology will develop which could allow some aspects of the game to be objectively monitored - for instance the 10m rule.

But the bigger question is do we want to have a game which attracts wider interest and finance or are we content to remain ed on declining towns on the M62? Both are valid options - but if you want wider acceptance you need to take on board innovations and changes. For instance in RL: dropping the flankers, 6 plays, four interchangeable subs to mention a few. In some ways we already have two sports - SL and the rest.

We live in a world of gimmicks and celebrity - neither of which I like but I know I am in a definite minority, if not on this board, but certainly in the wider public.

Yes, you are imagining it. The one ground that applies to is the Gilbert Brutus in Perpignan, which might be causing confusion.

To be perfectly honest the one change I'd make would be to lose the video referee. It was better when the referee made a decision (right or wrong, but they are mainly correct) and everyone just got on with it. For me, the video causes more controversy than it clears up. Of course there are mistakes, but it cuts both ways and will (mostly) even out over the season. Captain's challenge is just another unnecessary gimmick imo.

Always though either have VR for all games or none still televise them and allow replays on TV but why should some teams who play with a VR have an edge interms of the game than those who dont have it

Y'know, I've heard this same thing said, time after time, and I still can't work out where the logic is.

Decisions are made; either by a man with a whistle or a video replay; one team is penalised (and maybe feels hard done by) and the other gets the advantage of a penalty. At the end of the game we will have a result it doesn't matter a jot how the decisions are arrived at; if it goes your way you're happy, if it doesn't you're not.

The video decisions can't 'favour' both teams in a game, any more than a referee alone can, so where, and what, is the 'advantage' of having the video? That really dubious decision which decides the game can go either way - however it's arrived at.