Interesting idea and it does have some merit imo. Maybe add to that they should automatically look at the play all the way back the last PTB to eliminate issues like at weekend where tape wasn't rewound far enough to see buderus being out of play. Potentially raises an issue where there is a forward pass in that play which on field ref has missed and video ref isnt allowed to rule on, But that could be resolved by removing restriction on VR pulling forward passes.

So you're suggesting it would be better removing the ref asking for specific offences and the VR reviews from the last PTB to touchdown

That would of won us the game in 2007

would remove a lot of potential for things being missed like sunday because game ref missed something entirely so didnt know to ask Video ref to look at it wouldnt it. Problem would be they would potentially need to look at a longer passage of play which could interrupt flow of game, so at same time I'd put a time limit on the decision. If they cant find a reason to disallow try in, say 2 mins, then benefit of doubt to attacking team.

imo we need to do something to re-vamp the video ref system. You can understand when a game ref making a decision in realtime makes a wrong decision or misses something in backplay. But there should be no excuse for the Video ref, with the benefit of multiple viewing angles,slow motion and multiple viewings making the same mistakes. Sadly we're seeing incidents where Video ref gets it wrong pretty much on a weekly basis now.

Personally I think it's a good idea.

Thats a great idea, if there dicking about after 2 mins then there looking for something to not award the try

After 2 mins, try is awarded by default... would add a bit more excitement to the game

The term is benefit of the doubt. Something that refs are unwilling to use.

That's an excellent idea.

Works for me too

I'm not keen on the time limit idea. That will create as many problems as it will solve IMO. The first time a try is given because the time limit ran out, which is then proved to actually not be a try, there will be hell on. I agree it's frustrating when it takes ages and sometimes it can look like they're trying to find a reason to disallow it, but I'm a believer that they should get the correct decision, regardless of how long it takes. Fair enough if you put maybe a 5 minute time limit, but 2 minutes is nowhere near enough if you are doing that.

I do however like the idea of the VR not watching the game and only watching the incident he's judging on. It's human nature that if someone isn't sure about a decision, the decision will often swing towards the team who are losing, especially if it's by quite a way. That would minimise the chance of that happening.

agreed.

That's my sticking point in the system, if there genuinely is a moment where the VR can't decide, he'll be put under pressure as the time limit approaches to make a snap decision, which is more likely to be wrong.

Was unable to get to Forum on Wed evening. Would someone who did attend be prepared to give a brief summary of the points discussed please. I'm sure that I am not the only supporter that would be interested.

If he genuinely can't decide he should have the balls to press "Try - benefit of the doubt" rather than looking for divine inspiration in increasingly meaningless camera angles.

This is correct, imo and is part of the problem. We do expect the video guy to get it right, as you say there is little excuse, and this raises expectations in all of us, which as you also say, aren't being realised.

Rather than a time limit and award a try, I would say we should do as the Aussies do and if the video man can't come a decision in (say) three minutes, it automatically goes back to the man in the middle and he should go with his first impression. Whether the decision is right or wrong it's the same for everyone.