Good summary.

Another new match official in the making.

Which I think highlights the problem of forcing the referee to make a call under these new rules. If he can make the call he makes it, if he can't he still has to.

I have already explained to you why this is a ludicrous summing up, so why are you repeating it?

He is a REFEREE. That means he HAS to "make a call". It's his job. You seem to assume that just because a ref goes to the VR, that must be because he "cannot make the call" but that is obviously wrong, for the simple reason that if there was no VR then the ref would have no choice but to "make the call".

I do not exclude the possibility that rarely there may just be some incident so obscured that the ref actually "cannot" make a call nor can any of his assistants - but such a case would be once every 25 years I think. And even then, you'd be wrong - because then his call would have to be "no try", under the rules, since if he literally saw no evidence on which he could rule a try was socred then he can't award a try. So in all cases he CAN, and DOES make the call. He may on occasion not be "certain" but that's just part and parcel of his job.

Previous seasons IMHO diminished the refs' authority by not adopting the present system. Changing the system so that the ref's decision must be upheld except where it is indisputably wrong is a big improvement.

A better question would be why are you following me from thread to thread making the same hysterical noises?


If you think a referee being unable to make a call comes around once every 25 years then you clearly don't watch much rugby league. As for his authority, it is no more diminished by the VR than it is by a touch judge making calls on the ball going into touch. We have at our disposal a specialist position in the VR who, like the touch judge, has advantages over the referee in particular decision making circumstances. When we have a VR the question of what decision a ref would have to make without a VR is totally irrelevant and, as I keep saying, unnecessarily restrictive.

The fact the ref goes to the VR shows there is an element of doubt in the decision he has made otherwise he wouldn't need to go to the VR at all.
If there is doubt then asking the ref to make a call one way or the other gives a conscious bias to the end decision rather than the absolute correct call which the past version would be looking for (albeit not completely foolproof in itself)

I don't agree with benefit of doubt decisions (is that still in effect?) which are a nonsense, either you have evidence to support a decision or you don't, if you don't then it's no try you can't make guesses based on assumptions.
The system is flawed and should be changed asap.

Follow you? Are you drunk? I have merely patiently explained why you are mistaken. If you can't handle that it isn't my fault. When you post that is just the same as when I post. Or anyone posts. If people replying upsets your equilibrium then maybe you should choose some other diversion.


No, I haven't watched much these last 4 or 5 decades.

The biggest investment the RFL can make to try and stop alienating speccies and help improve the quality of the product is to have video refs at every single game. The big screen doesn't need to be there maybe a similar system to how catalans used to use it.

The problem is that it is a lottery at the moment when a video ref is not involved, and at KR yesterday we saw 2 incidents on review which would of been reviewed and dismissed if a VR was present. One was so blatant it did not need a VR but the ref made a clanger. If the RFL are going to continue using the tag line every minute counts then they need to ensure the people making it count are the 17 putting their bodies on the line week in week out and not some ref in the middle struggling to keep up with play or making bad calls dependent on what mood he is in.

It's a more accurate system the VR, and is usually correct. In the interest of fairness across the sport this needs to be implemented ASAP. Yes some investment is needed, but every game is recorded now and with a little bargaining with sky for an extra camera or two it should help eliminate a large proportion of the mistakes. Hell you could get ex pro's involved who maybe can not physically run any more and give them the job to help bring people back into the game.

Our current ref's need help which is a fact, and the current crop are not getting replaced any time soon. Seem's the best solution to me.

At a push you could have the on field ref double as VR, eliminating the need for additional personnel. As you say, each game is now recorded so we are part of the way there.

And you are absolutely right, we need to be pushing forwards with the VR, trying to get all games up to the standard which the VR allows, but there has always been a vocal opposition to the VR which pushes for moving backwards and not utilising the advantage the VR represents.

Ben Thaler allowing Leeds a try at a crucial point when it was as clear an obstruction as you'll get is up there with some of the clangers on display.

We have 3 fully trained and qualified referees, 1 gets 1 look in real time. 2 get time, mutual angles, and slow motion.

For the most difficult decision, when it can't be conclusively proven. We have decided to go with the referee with the least amount of time and information available and under the most pressure in the worst environment.

I corrected you when you repeated a previously corrected mistake. That is not a "difference of opinion". I am not debating with you, I am posting my twopennorth in a public thread. I of course never took any issue with you posting anything but if you were just posting a reply "to someone else" then may I suggest you use the PM system as otherwise we are fooled into thinking you're posting to the forum at large.

Your arrogance is quite amusing. To actually question other posters as to why they keep having an opinion different to yours when you've been so good as set them straight. You have such a transparent and telling need to convince yourself that differing opinions can only come about through a lack of intelligence too don't you? What's that about I wonder...

My opinion on the new VR set up is clearly expressed in my other posts on the subject, so no point keep raking over old ground. I can accept a difference of opinion even if it's an alien concept to you.