So says Jezza Guscott: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/ ... _129622878 he's right of course...we all know it. Its such as shame our game doesn't get the credit it deserves from its attitude towards innovation.

So says Jezza Guscott: www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/ ... _129622878 he's right of course...we all know it. Its such as shame our game doesn't get the credit it deserves from its attitude towards innovation.

"With the video referee in rugby league, decisions happen really quickly. They've got it spot on and they rarely make mistakes. It's very fluid and rugby union should be learning from it.

In rugby league it's a very slick operation"

Wouldn't really agree with that.

If he's talking about the NRL's "Bunker" model, then I'd agree with Guscott. If he's talking about the Super League model, then I don't agree.

Guscott doesn't actually say much about the parts of RL's video referee model he likes. He just says "it's quick and we get it right" - and that's a very broad generalisation to make.

I had a giggle to myself at the "really quickly" part, as most of the time it is anything but, but i tend to agree with the rest of that statement.

They could make the system a whole lot more efficient though by giving the video ref full control of the decision rather than having to be 100% certain to turn over an on field decision, that for me is a little silly.

I'm perhaps in the minority then, in that I think the video ref can make tries anti-climatic, and negatively impact the atmosphere at games. I'd reduce its use to a coaches' challenge system. Coaches can have 2 challenges each, which can only be used at stoppages. Let them keep challenging if they are shown to be correct. This would also hopefully reduce the amount of criticism they throw at refs, as the simple retort would be "Well why didn't you challenge it at the time?". Of course there is the chance that they could keep challenging correctly, thus undermining the on field ref, but that would probably deserve scrutiny, if it happened. I'd also extend use of video ref to include serious foul play (i.e red card offences only). We don't want players staying on the pitch, then getting long bans afterwards.

Other than that, leave it with the on-field team. Having a better atmosphere/product is more important than the odd difficult call the match officials may get wrong IMO, and we would do better to focus more on the action, and less on the refs.

Personally I’ve gone off the whole thing. I think there are so many decisions where it’s unclear that the video ref doesn’t offer any added value at all and their decisions are just as contentious as if the on field ref gave a call.

In SL decisions can take an age and it detracts from the game. I’d sooner go back to the on field ref making the call and that’s it. They’ll get some decisions wrong but they even out in time. The video ref for me isn’t eradicating poor decisions and is often a source of them itself and becoming a talking point which is the opposite of what it’s there for.

If we are stuck with it then it should be the same at all matches at SL level. Inconsistency of approach isn’t healthy.

It’s not clear if Guscott is referring to SL or NRL. The NRL bunker is much quicker which is good. Maybe they make fewer contentious decisions too? I don’t know as I don’t watch that much NRL. If he’s referring to the NRL then fine but I suspect he isn’t.

There is some merit in your ideas, I particularly like the coaches challenge thing; it seems to work in tennis.

My problem with a challenge system is it could be even more anti-climatic. If a team scores a late try and the opposition has a challenge left, they would just use it speculatively and hope something is wrong, and that would take some of the excitement of a late, winning try away.

I think it works well as it is. If the ref is sure, then he awards a try. If he has any doubt then he can go to the VR. By making the match ref make an on-field decision, this means that the VR has a default position if the decision is unclear. The one thing I'd change is to restrict the VR to the number of replays he can view. After viewing the play from every camera available, give him one more look from one camera, and if he still can't make a decision then go with the original match official decision.

i have 2 issues with the current system, firstly the ref sending it up as a try/no try is nonsense, if he ref has to send it up it means he isn’t sure so let the VR make the decision. Secondly I think there should be a time limit on a VR decision, if he can’t make his mind up within a set period of time a try should be awarded.

I've no issue with the field referee sending it up as a try / no try. What he is essentially saying here is "unless you can find evidence to the contrary, I am going to award a try". I think that's a better and more transparent system than the "benefit of the doubt to the attacking side" approach we had previously.

Most of the issues of the VR seem to be rooted in interpretation. The VR is great for binary questions ("did the player's foot go in touch?", "was the player behind the kicker?" etc). Where it becomes problematic is where the VR is asked to judge any shade of grey - things like obstructions or whether an aerial challenge for the ball was fair - because we're moving into one man's judgement over another. Football is experiencing the same issues with VAR.

Thursday night's game and Hull KR's disallowed try was a classic example, where the VR was asked to rule whether "Carl Ablett might have possibily, had he not been impeded (if indeed he was impeded), effected some sort of challenge on Danny McGuire that may have affected his kick". We'll see incidents like that referred to the video week after week, and different weeks the same referee will give different decisions.

Not sure it needs to be a detailed appraisal when he nails it in his comment. Not sure what else you need with a video ref other then speed and accuracy.

I don't think he does nail it when there are clearly cases where our system isn't quick, and when we don't always get it right.

Nothing is 100% efficient. You cannot quote a handful of cases when the vast majority are dealt with swiftly and without controversy.

I would be interested to know the average length of time it takes for a VR decision to come through. 60 seconds on average? Isn't that the length of time a kicker has to tee up a shot after a try? Perhaps they should encourage the kicker to tee up the shot whilst the VR is decision is pending. There would be no time lost in that situation.