Team warning against us? You having a laugh? Wakey did ten times that amount of spoiling last week but got nothing from Hicks.

I'm not quite sure what all the whinging is about. I thought both refs in the televised games so far this round were pretty good.

The only issue I have is with Bentham going back 80 metres to check something with the video ref. I don't like that. You've made your decision.

Other than that it's the video ref. With the HKR one I agree the system is rubbish but I'm still not sure he held on to the ball anyway, it's not like it was a dead certain try.
As for the Hull game, yes they should've been 2 penalties for obstruction. The rule regarding whether the receiver has run past the line of the lead runner went out before last season so that's not relevant. What is relevant is that an attacking player, in an offside position, interfered with the defensive line, in both cases. Easy penalty every time. For some reason Thaler didn't give them both as penalties when he should've done.

Personally I like the fact the ref has to make a call - it makes them accountable and provides their bosses with tangible MI on their performance - I would like to see that MI though and see which refs send the most up to the VR and see what their success rate is with their original calls.

What it also does is minimise the impact not having a VR at every game has - as if the game isn't televised, the ref has to make a guess anyway - so in the 50/50 decisions where there is no conclusive proof, the same decision would be given regardless of whether the game is televised or not.

There could probably be some tweaks to the level of 'conclusive' evidence required to overturn the decision, but the looser you make that interpretation, the more pointless the on field decision becomes.

The real answer though is to have a VR and appropriate cameras at all games or scrap it completely. It will also be interesting to see how the 'bunker' works in the NRL this year.

What is the bunker please tell

Quote cravenpark1="cravenpark1"What is the bunker please tell '" 'State of the art' replaying that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and- NRL: www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html

Quote cravenpark1="cravenpark1"What is the bunker please tell '" 'State of the art' replaying that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and- NRL: www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html

Quote Wigg'n="Wigg'n" Quote Wigg'n="cravenpark1"What is the bunker please tell '" 'State of the art' replaying Centre that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and- NRL: www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html'" And it's the same refs making the calls on all games every week - which in theory should mean more consistency with decisions, as it will be the same individuals making the decisions at every game, every week. It's cost millions to set up though - we can't even afford suitable cameras at every game, so it's not something we'll see here in a hurry.

Quote Wigg'n="Wigg'n" Quote Wigg'n="cravenpark1"What is the bunker please tell '" 'State of the art' replaying Centre that will fast-trak the best views to video referees, similar to what the NFL uses. NFL: mmqb.si.com/2014/11/11/inside-th ... and- NRL: www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... n0ldz.html'" And it's the same refs making the calls on all games every week - which in theory should mean more consistency with decisions, as it will be the same individuals making the decisions at every game, every week. It's cost millions to set up though - we can't even afford suitable cameras at every game, so it's not something we'll see here in a hurry.

Yes, but that's just not a good enough justification for the current set-up. It's not a question of the refs having a "success rate", since the dice are loaded by the ref having to give a decision on the field. No-one doubts that Hull KR would have had a try the other night if it hadn't been sent up as no-try. This overly slews the VR's decision. If we're going to the VR because we want "the truth" (or as close as possible), why tie his hands in coming to a decision as we now do?

Reluctantly I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a RU-style "Try: Yes or No?" option for refs if they genuinely aren't sure/can't see,

And very unnecessary. IIRC the NRL rarely has more than 3 games on the same day so all you need to do is have 3 video refs.
That's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than the "bunker" system. It's only because the NRL (and Australia generally) are obsessed with America.

9 times from 10 the Shaw try last night would have been given, I have seen a lot less certain tries given, shame as we would have gone in with a commanding lead. While I don't believe referees 'cheat' most fans know which ones their team gets less than a fair shake with, Childs is one of ours, if there is doubt it rarely goes in our favour with him.

Agreed - seems a monumental waste of cash, but will be interesting to see how it works out... They'll also no doubt have it sponsored to try and recoup some costs. It's KFC time....

My preferred option would be to have the VR at all games, but they can only be used to review touch/in goal lines, grounding and knock ons (from kick tap backs etc). Anything that needs an interpretation such as obstruction should be left to the on field officials.

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.

I'm starting to agree on what the VR should be used for. We had the daft situation in the game last night where Bentham was going 80 metres back to look at an incident that he's already given a decision on. It's at the point where the attacking team might be tempted to take the tackle in this kind of situation rather than directly score a try.

For me the VR shouldn't be used for things on which the ref has already made a decision. So basically incidents that happen on/very close to the try line.