Allowing the use of video technology is still detrimental to any sport when involved in making decisions.

If it was that good there would be no need for any match officials at any sport, just people watching a screen and relaying a decision to someone wasting space on the field of play to tell the competitors what has happened and why.

But sadly the genie is out of the bottle so I don't think there will be any "controversial" decisions this season and in the future will there.

The video ref one makes perfect sense. The ref makes a call (as he would do without the technology), but allows the technology to review his decision. It is less the VR making the decision but eliminating any doubt in the ref's mind - an option the ref doesn't have when the VR is absent and would just have to make a judgement call.

The only alternative is the ref only gives a decision when he is 100% certain, which would just be stupid.

but if the ref isn't sure, why are we placing his opinion above that of another trained and qualified referee with multiple angles and replays at his disposal? How on earth is it going to lead to more correct decisions?

All it will lead to is us going with decisions that the referee isn't sure is right and the VR doesn't think is right and them being justified because 'it wasn't conclusive enough to over-rule him" It doesn't eliminate doubt from the refs mind, it just means when the decision isn't 100% clear, we go with the guess of the person with the least amount of information available to him.

Agree stupid rule change regarding the video ref. The referee goes to the video ref as he is unsure if it is a try. We are now giving the ref who is unsure on the decision the biggest say and making it difficult for the video ref to overturn a decision from the ref which might be wrong. Why not go to the video ref as normal and if not conclusive then give the ref the final decision or continue with the benefit of the doubt system.

Disagree, keeps it more real if the ref has to make a decision, most of us want refs to make more decisions. And comes in line with the more professional NRL, the NRL are usually right regarding new interpretations/rules.

Also these are NOT new laws, they're just tightening up or improvement of existing laws.

Allowing sin-binnings for foul play is new. Could be down to 10-a-side in the first few games if the rules are met with the usual initial enthusiasm.

I'm all for it though if it reduces the cop out that is on report.

Absolutely. I think the refs have wanted it for a whie. Fairer to the offended team too.l

Why is it [iless real[/i if the VR makes a ruling? And if most fans want refs to make more decisions, why does this not include the video ref? It seems some people care more about who makes the decision than whether the decision is right or wrong.

exactly, who cares which ref makes the decision as long as it is the right one?

Said during the Four Nations that making the on-field ref have a guess before he refers it to the VR is an absolute nonsense, and puts the VR under pressure to back up his on-field colleague.

Like the introduction of the sin bin for foul play which is probably not deserving of a red card like chicken wings and crusher tackles for example.

Just when we've finally got the obstruction rule to a point where the opinion of the referee/VR is irrelevant and it's a matter of fact, why are we going backwards? We're now asking them to make a subjective judgement on whether - in their opinion - a defender has been disadvantaged. That just opens the door to more inconsistent, baffling decisions. Give it a few weeks and a host of controversial calls influencing games and pundits, fans and coaches will be screaming for it to become a matter of fact rather than opinion again.

The problem with that theory is that not every game has a video ref - so in the non-televised games in the exact same situations where the ref is 'being forced to guess' there is no video ref to back this up. This is as close to consistency that we can get whilst ever there isn't a VR at all games - the onfield Ref is in charge and makes all calls - only ever overturned by the VR where available and conclusive proof exists to disprove the Refs stance.

It puts the onus on the ref to make a call - no bottling it and going back 50 yards to check for a dodgy obstruction that they initially let play on without nailing their colours to the mast first - it makes them more accountable and will provide MI on how often an onfield Ref makes the wrong call. All good for performance management of the Refs.

Will the new VR rule mean that there is no more "benefit of the doubt" decisions?

What I don't understand is, if there is 'doubt', how can you possibly give a try on the basis of probability and not clear evidence, that's just a loved up way of going about things. Benefit of doubt is utter shiate as it only favours one side.

As for obstruction, again we will have individual interpretations and the same as many other aspects it depends who is reffing (or indeed touchies) as to what decision is made.
Sin binning should be far more definitive. Players punching (be it two facing or otherwise), first offence sin bin, no ifs, no buts. Any subsequent yellow card offence for the same player should be sent off same as you would in soccer, however many that might be, that'll discourage players running in and windmilling and hopefully professional fouls
Obvious intentional head high challenges & indeed those especially late and/or leaving feet ala Bowen early last season should be a straight red. That said when a player is slipping or ducks at the last second then it's impossible for a player whom was aiming chest high to then change his direction in that split second and account should be taken of that.

I'd also like to see the video refs look at these types of incidents live (as per RU) because when you have a dirty shyster like Elima twisting a players leg right in front of the ref who then cowardly put it on report (& the touchies clearly didn't want to know either..s) the team whom may well lose a player to injury because of that foul play never benefit unless the ref has the balls to send the offender off which all too frequently never happens.