If this thread proves anything it's that some people will whinge for the sake of it, whatever system is in place.

First, the ref HAS to make a decision a million times a game, on every single thing that he sees, assisted where relevant by the TJs. This includes whether or not a try has been scored.

It is pretty dumb to think that, if there was no VR, the ref would be 100% certain about every call. Some of you need to give your heads a shake and get it through that we ask the refs to give their porfessional OPINION, for the full 80 minutes, and that is what they do. It should be stating the obvious that throughout the game, there are shades of grey, and if you really think a ref running around a field can be 100% sure of every single happening on the field then you must be mad.

Also, each of you that gets so uppity and dang certain that what you claim you saw is 100% right, YOU might have been the ref; another poster who is equally certain you're worng, HE might have been the ref. This may be sometimes due to team bias, but basically it is normal that two people can watch the same thing and decide what happened differently. The fact that people on here are disagreeing with your certainty should be enough to make the point.

With regard to "ref's call", this is a great system. It restores the on-field ref to the position he had before VR. That is, someone goes over for a "try", and he HAS to decide whether he's giving it or not. If there was no VR, that would be the decision, and everyone would have to live with it.

The new rule that the VR has to see positive evidence that the ref was wrong is eminently sensible. We don't want one ref substituting his mere opinion for another ref's.

In the case of the Shaw "try", the fact is that he did lose touch with the ball as it went to ground, then he looked to regain some sort of contact with it, but none of the angles could conclusively show anything one way or the other. As was clearly the VR's take on it, seeing as how many times and views he analysed it. You can't say it was a try, and you can't say it wasn't. None of us can, not for certain. You can make a case either way, The on-field ref wasn't convinced and so wouldn't have given a try.

The VR wasn't convinced it was a try, and so rightly cannot substitute his best guess.

What some of you seem to be really taking issue with is that you think the VR SHOULD HAVE been convinced it was a try. But that is just your opinion and I see a roughly 50/50 split of opinion on the incident. It was very hard on Shaw, as he did well, but then again, had the try been given, it would have been very hard on the defence, because they did enough to dislodge the ball and make himlose control. It was thus a classic decision of a hard call, which has to be given either this way or that, and everyone needs to get over it.

Over the years there have been some appalling VR blunders, but this wasn't one.

But if the ball is clearly on the ground, which it was, then surely a try has to be awarded. You can't say "Well the ball was on the ground, but it was a pretty good defensive effort to try and stop it so we won't give the try."

We had a few last season.

There's a difference between the ball, clearly being on the ground and how it got there.
you can't just award a try because the ball is on the ground, or at least in my opinion you can't, but it seems anything goes these days.

King went into the challenge and for the line with full possession of the ball and shortly after the ball could clearly be seen on the ground. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King had at any time lost control of the ball and I'm assuming, because he awarded the try, that the referee at no point called held. Maybe it was a great effort by the Catalan players to prevent the try, but it wasn't enough. Having the try awarded by Child before being passed up there was absolutely nothing the VR could have seen to disallow it.

You suggest that good defence should be rewarded, but shouldn't a good, strong, determined and ultimately successful attempt to ground the ball be rewarded too?

both defence and attack should be rewarded, but when there is no evidence that he actually grounded the ball then, the defending side should get the B.O.D, for me, anyway.