Quote: Big Jim Slade "Hardaker's no try against Wigan is the perfect example of why this system is flawed. There was no camera angle that showed conclusively that either the ball or the ball carrying arm had hit the floor and similarly there was only one that may have shown that it had not, what that means in the current system is that if it gets sent up as a try it remains a try, if it gets sent up as a no try it remains no try. No benefit of the doubt given to the attacking team means that they either score a try or concede a penalty when they're in a fantastic position, and based on what? Guess work.
The burden of proof on the video ref is, in my opinion, too high. We've seen this with the erroneous obstruction decisions over the last couple of seasons where legitimate tries have been chalked off and clear fouls have been allowed - all because of the ref's guess on the field. Either the VR is there to ensure that the correct decision is reached as often as possible, or they're their to confirm what the ref thought happened. Unfortunately you cannot have both because the human eye in real time will miss a lot.'"
So if there is no conclusive video evidence how does the VR make a decision? Without the VR we have to accept that sometimes a try/no try decision will be made by the on field ref with help from touch judges when it may be none of them had a clear sight of the grounding or a potential infringement. That's just how it goes and the rules allow for that. So why should it be different if the on field ref asks gif VR advice as opposed to touch judge advice?
