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.

I agree Bulliac.

Give the decision back to the referee.

I would say after 2 minutes though.

Do you really want a video referee rushing through and not watching things properly though? That's surely just going to cause more incorrect decisions.

TBH, how many VR calls take longer than 2 minutes? If you're still unsure if it's a try after 2 minutes of watching the same 5 seconds of footage then, as the rules state that the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking side, the VR should award the try on a BotD basis

not sure if they did it last season or not bu sky have a timer on screen for video ref decisions now and it was when it got to 2 mins and over that people in pub were starting to ask what the heck he was looking for last week.

If he can't decide after two minutes he's never going to decide. Might as well let the referee give the decision as he would in a normal week when there is no VR.

By the way, i also agree with the lady who thought that the Video ref should not be watching the game, just the contentious tries. You can't help but feel that their decision is sometimes swayed by the state of the game.

I don't agree. I think all it will do is make the VR rush through watching each angle, to make sure he's seen them all within 2 minutes. Think about the times they go to super slow mo to see if a ball has been grounded. You can watch it slowly from 3 or 4 angles before you see the ball touching the floor (or not). That sort of situation, he may have to give up before he sees the bit that makes the decision.

I'm all for speeding the game up and everything, and agree it's frustrating to be waiting for a call for so long, but a 2 minute time limit will only mean we get more wrong decisions, which I for one don't want. I'd rather it take 10 minutes and know the correct decision has been made, than be rushed through and get robbed from a dodgy call.

And we all know what would happen. The first time the time limit ran out and a call was rushed, which then turned out to be wrong and cost us a vital decision, everyone would be on here moaning about how we've been screwed and it's a disgrace.

Do you think after 10 minutes he will still make the right decision. If it takes that long it's because he's not really sure,and he could still make the wrong call. You can bet your life that one team will agree, and the other not.

I'm not saying we should have a strict time limit. Two minutes should be sufficient time though. Anything more, and it's just stopping the flow of the game.

Yeah, it may get to 10 minutes and still can't make a decision. What I'm saying is rather than having any time limit, I'd rather the limit was simply "when he's made his mind up". If he makes his mind up that he actually can't tell if it's a try or not, and no angle is going to help him with that, then you either go Benefit of Doubt or Ref's Call. But to me, the Video referee finishes when he is satisfied he has seen enough to make a correct decision, or is satisfied that no angle can give a definitive answer. Not when a clock ticks over.

And I would argue there is little difference in how much the flow of a game stops whether it's a couple of minutes or half an hour. Once you go over a minute or two of stoppage, any flow or momentum has pretty much gone anyway. Hence why teams often try and waste time at drop outs and scrums.

Wonder how long they'd have taken to get the infamous Withers "knock-on" from the 1999 Grand final right?

What knock on.

Has there ever been a benefit of the doubt try given? Is it even an option?
What about the referees call thing? Do they still have that in Oz?

Yes - they do give benefit of the doubt tries. It's just that the Bulls never get them.

Yes - they do still have refs call in Oz. Unless they've dropped it this year.

Don't mind them watching the game as long as they also watch the replays which Silverwood patently forgot to do.
On a more serious note I would like to see use of the NFL method where instead of having a seperate VR the match ref watches the replays himself and does the adjudication. Cases of penalty try and others are down to the refs opinion or interpretation of the rules. When using a VR then you are using two different people to give their opinions.

I think it would help if they try to limit the amount of video refs they use. I presume now that Ian Smith has retired he will take on the majority of video ref decisions? It might help get some consistency in the decisions.