How are you going to fund the few sensible suggestions?
This is the hardest of your questions to answer.

You don't seem to appreciate what makes a forward pass, having lines will make no difference.
I would change the rule of a forward pass, and I also don't think the refs rule the forward pass to the letter. It should be as simple as the ball has to travel backwards, not leave the hands backwards. There would be no debate then.

How do you prove a decision wrong when the evidence is not clear?
Ref's call. NRL hand it back, then the ref has to take the gut decision. If the evidence is there, then the right decision will come. I'm assuming you meant the video ref comment?

What do you mean by more responsibility? If you watched the outstanding performance from Child on Friday you could clearly hear his communication with the linesman.
The linesmen do not do enough. I appreciate they communicate, but you see elbows in faces right in front of them and they turn I blind eye. I have seen linesmen shrug their shoulders when the ref has looked at them to see if a ball has gone backwards from a fumble (not in a HKR game too I may add). I just think they should be involved in the game more.

What do you mean by using the sin bin correctly?
I am referring to refs using "on report" as a punishment to an incident. I always related "on report" to an incident missed like a potential bite, or a cheap shot in a tackle, or if a player claims something happened. The ref would put the incident on report. Now, if there is a high tackle, or a shoulder charge, the ref puts it on report. That player should have 10 minutes if the ref thinks that the incident was bad enough to go on report. Also, a player doesn't need to be put on report to be cited post match. It kind of makes putting a player on report insignificant.

I have watched thousands of games & have never seen an official win or lose a game alone.
I have also watched thousands of games, and I have not seen an official win or lose a game. That isn't what it says.

Players make numerous more errors than officials in a game, they contribute more to the outcome of a game than any official.
Again I agree, but we pay good money to see games where the ONLY thing we should be concerned about is the errors that players make. Video referee decisions being blatantly wrong? Would you come away from those games blaming the players?

Hope this helped/

I'd like to see the vr gone tbh. For me it hasn't worked. Slow the game down and often refs will look for reasons to not give tries. For example a player grounds the ball perfectly well and would be given if viewed in real time but we'll spend five minutes stood like chips while the vr slows it down to the point where he can show that for a fraction of 100th of a second there was a nanometer of separation between hand and ball.

There's a similar debate going on in cricket about the use of DRS and I can see your point about the focus on millimetres of separation. But the genie's out of the bottle as far as technology is concerned. If they scrapped the VR, Sky would still use the technology to highlight incorrect decisions. We'd still get numerous repeats of incidents and will spend most of the week after games listening to coaches and fans complaining about how they were robbed.

I don't necessarily agree that it encourages refs to not give tries. One thing that the technology has shown is just how good the players are at scoring in seemingly impossible positions. 20 years ago tries were routinely disallowed if there was any suggestion that the ball hadn't been properly grounded. Nowadays refs are much more inclined to believe that a player managed to get a legitimate touch on a ball a fraction of an inch before it went dead.

When it comes down to it though, it doesn't really matter if [ievery[/i single decision is correct or not, and let's be honest - one thing the video has proved is that the vast majority of decisions [iare[/i correct. Fine, we all sit at games and moan about the ref and always will; it's part of being a fan, but the only thing which really matters, well, there are two things actually, which are that [1] the referee gives an honest opinion and [2] the players accept that opinion and get on with the game. That, after all, is the situation we've had for nearly all the whole time rugby league [and every other sport] has existed. I don't remember it being [ithat[/i bad.

There have always been calls for consistency and decisions being 'right', which has led us to the video - to be honest I think we should be more careful what we wish for.

A lot of talk about refs and their video counterparts, but I must admit for several years i have wondered what the two guys running the touchline do? Two extra pair of eyes which rarely seem open.

You and me both, if they are just touch judges to adjudicate if a player goes into touch why is it when the ref asks them in the build up to a try do they have blanks looks on their faces and also why are they level with the play (one following the attacking line and the other the defensive) can they very rarely see the offsides even when they are totally blatant, and as they are running the touch line following the play can they never see forward passes, fair enough some are 50/50 and if the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side so be it but some are ridiculous may aswel be watching the NFL.