All of you who complain incessantly about refereeing decisions must be elated. You would now be able to scream cheat at the video ref for his decision under the captain's challenge.

This.

Jeffries shouldn't have been penalised, but once he was the sin bin was the right decision.

Which would we be appealing? The original decision or the sin binning?

A few years ago it would have been inconceivable to challenge an umpire in a cricket match - yet now they have a limited number of referals for each team.

With modern technology I would think it would be possible monitor 10m at play of the ball - imagine not having to shout "Get em on side"

This thread follows on from Robbie's article in the Times about the game needing to show some more innovation to get media attention.

The game will become like WWF where the content is secondary to the gimmicks.

I hate the way them pandas steal the attention with their on/off breeding and that.

Wouldnt it be simpler to use it the same as the NFL where each team gets say 3 challenges to use throughout the game and if the challenge is correct then they get that challenge back but if the challenge fails the team who made it loses an interchange this would make teams only use they if they believe it is necessary otherwise it would harm their team.

I really don't see the point in this for SL. The NRL has a video ref at every game, we do not. We already have a situation where the referring is different in 2 matches of every round. I wouldn't even consider it until we have a video ref covering all matches.

Am i just imagining it or did SL use to have a VR at every game? But not a big screen

problem would be lack of camera angles at the non sky matches. Most clubs video all their games but only with a single camera. so video refs at non sky matches dont have the multiple angles available that sky provide. to be fair it needs to be all matches non-video ref or all matches video ref using same quality of coverage. Unlikely the latters ever going to happen due to finances.

The ref would need to know who the captain was first. Thaler thought it was Gale.

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.