I have often said that since referees went full time the standard of officiating has fallen. However, I cannot support your petition because I don't agree with some of your other points...

1. I don't think you can ask for change just because spectators come away from games questioning refs decisions - that will always happen come what may! (see next point on VRs). What you can complain about is the lack of consistency, and often inability to exercise much control over the game at all.

2. Use of video referee. I think that the VR is a waste of time for three reasons:

- It seems to have undermined referees willingness to make judgement calls on the field and their willingness to penalise players by using the sin-bin.

- I'd rather live with a 'human' error made on the spur of the moment than wait whilst the VR watches the 'action' over and over and still manages to make horrendous mistakes or the VR interferes during play.

- even if there weren't any poor VR decisions, you will never get the same grade of technology at every game because it will simply cost too much. So we will still have inconsistency.

Are you talking just in try scoring situations? Just those on TV or every game? I can see a situation where virtually every try scored would be referred to the VR, whichis not something I wish to see.

Rubbish. Leeds scored 42 points, presumably they were all Ganson's fault? None were defensive errors & penalties atributable to Bradford? Bradford only scored 38 points. Was Ganson responsible for all missed try & goal scoring opportunities? It's like accusing Ben Harris of directly costing Bradford the game because he failed to pass to a supporting Iestyn Harris 4 minutes into the game. There are thousnads of incidents that contribute to a game's final score, sadly it is the ones in the last few minutes or seconds that fans tend to focus on.

I'm a fan of 2 refs, but it is clearly not "too much" for one ref, otherwise how has the game worked this last century or so? I have never been aware of any ref having any difficulty in glancing at the defensive line at the appropriate moment and penalising offside and I'm surprised you suggest this. If this duty was "too much" for any individual then clearly that individual would not be up to the job.

I entirely agree, and said myself, that it was utterly ludicrous that Bentham never called an offside, but that was 100% clearly a decision he made, whether on instructions or not who knows, but without a shadow of a doubt there were some pretty disgusting offsides which on that particular day he made a policy decision to ignore, come what may.

Rubbish. Michael Withers' failure to touch a long floating pass occurred in the first half.....

It really wasn't. Look, dad, I know you like to be controversial, but one of the few givens in sport is that (a) Bradford lost and (b) had it not been for the phantom penalty and the missed offside, Bradford would 100% certainly have won. Cause, effect. Nail, head.

Just try scoring situations. In the same way that they don't go to the VR for every suspected knock on, but would if there was a suspected knock on in the build up to a try. There would have to be some suspicion that a pass is forward to justify going to the VR, just as there should be some suspicion of an infringement to justify going to the VR for any reason.

In view of the way that officials adjudicate on forward passes, looking at the direction of the passer's hands, there's no justification for exempting forward passes from VR decisions.

Just those on TV or every game? I can see a situation where virtually every try scored would be referred to the VR, whichis not something I wish to see.

Love the Aus version; the ref gives his decision; the VR can then only overturn it if there is compelling evidence that the on-field ref is wrong.

I too wouldn't like to see everything going to the VR but the problem with passes like the blatant forward pass by Catalans is that presumably the ref has no doubt (he hasn't seen it, and his touchie hasn't queried it) so the problem is that such howlers would still be allowed to stand, if you rely on the ref self-referring to the VR. I agree it's less than satisfactory, but then I am of the firm view that we shouldn't have whole teams of officials at a SL game that as a unit can't see such a blatant forward pass between the lot of 'em. I still don't get that.

I would recommend everyone watch the SLTV highlights to give their opinion on the Cats try, because to me it is close enough to stand as a try. There's no way as a VR would I cancel it.
I support the Aus version as well. I prefer minimal interference in the game, including tolerating marginal physical transgressions. There is always the luxury of reviewing any incidents in the calm of the week after anyway. I am told that there are no dismissals in Aussie rules, all disciplinary is done after the game, which I think is worth considering, except for extreme foul play.

I have to say I'm sick of hearing people going on about following the nrl. It's a typos idea two refs mean twice as many mistakes

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.