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.

I like the rule where the ref can say he thinks it is a good try but he wants the VR to check for offside or a foot in touch etc, that the ref couldn't see.As for the obstruction rule, it is still going to be the opinion of the ref as to whether or not the defence was obstructed, I can't see the new rule improving the situation.When a try is scored and it appears that a defender was impeded, one set of fans will be happy ,the other set of fans will be furious , nothing has changed.

whilst all that is true, what use is it to us?

I cannot imagine a situation where we get a better decision by relying on a referee who had one look in real time rather than a VR who has multiple looks from multiple angles.

With regards to consistency, im not sure that being more consistent but getting more wrong is better

I don't think either system will make much difference to be honest. The VR will continue to get most calls right, I want to see the daft, blatantly wrong VR calls eliminated. I know theyre few in number but they're incredibly frustrating and unnecessary. What I want to see is much more money put into the training and development of referees right from the lowest level. And a 2nd referee. But not in the NRL style, I don't like the swapping over of ref's, I don't see a need for it. The 2nd ref should like a roving touch judge in my opinion, who can give advice/instructions to players around the ruck much more easily and obviously have a better view of incidents in the tackle and the ruck.

As for obstruction, I thought the system was fine last year. If teams, coaches didn't try to push the line so close with obstruction they wouldn't have received so many penalties. In the end of you don't want to concede a penalty for obstruction don't send players into the defensive line who are in front of the ball.

Sin bin, very much underused. It's a great tool to punish players and teams without totally distorting the game. So the more it's used the better in my opinion.

But we're relying on the ref in non televised games, and in the televised games, if the ref has got it wrong, the VR will over turn the decision - but the 50/50 calls are given by the on field ref - that to me is the fairest way. He saw it real time and made an instant judgement (like he does thousands of times a game, and like refs in non-televised games have to). If there's no proof that he got it wrong, then the fairest way is to go with his gut decision and be consistent with non-televised games.

That we don't have a VR at every game is obviously unfair. I don't think not getting the best decision when we can makes it any fairer.

yes, the 'wrong' decision may be given in a non-televised game, but I can't understand why giving that same 'wrong' decision in a televised game is better or fairer? Im at a loss as to why getting two decisions wrong though more consistent, is better or fairer than getting one right and one wrong.

The only time this situation will become relevant is when the VR after multiple viewings and angles disagrees with the referees instant gut decision but can't conclusively prove it was wrong. I cannot for the life of me imagine how this will get us more, better, decisions.

I think Andy Gilder is exactly right with the Hall example, the difference between a VR making the best decision and checking a refs decision meant we ended up with the wrong decision. The VR should simply going through the checklist, did he touch it first, did he touch it down, did he knock it on, he ticks those boxes and says try. When you through in 'was the decision so egregiously wrong that it should be overturned, we get a different answer.

The change to the VR approach speeded things up a lot in the NRL. The pressure on both the on-field ref and VR is lower - the ref makes a call knowing any obvious mistake will be overturned, and the VR supposedly only looks for really clear evidence to make an opposite call.

Previously we had cases where the VR was getting tied up in knots endlessly reviewing tries, clearly looking for something, anything to chalk off a try because the buck stopped with them as the on-field refs virtually gave up all responsibility for making a call.

After the farce at the televised Leeds vs Hudds game last year, where the Ref said to VR 'Check Everything!' I'm glad now he will have to make a decision.

Doubt at the game in question he had cause to disallow it. Looked good to the majority of fans in the stadium

So for the purpose of avoiding one farce we will now have umpteen situations where the on field ref is unsure but will call try or no try just for the sake of it. Well it makes as much sense as every other RFL policy I suppose.

if anything it would make that 'farce' even worse because we would have a VR checking everything trying to disprove a decision the ref just pulled out of his ar5e. We have a situation there where a ref simply had no idea and was admitting he would have been guessing and we are now demanding he does guess and applying more weight to that guess than a VR who has watched it over and over from multiple angles. Its an unbelievably silly situation to put ourselves in .

Works one hundred times better in the NRl this year. Its sped it up and reomved the farcical benefit of the doubt. Ref makes a call as he sees it, video ref has to disprove the call. Fair and understandable for the fans. Its a big improvement.