Can't see the problem. Works fine for me.

I've made no secret of my dislike for the on field decision. If the ref sends up a dodgy grounding as a try the VR has to conclusively prove separation to overturn it, but if he sends it up as a no try the VR has to conclusively prove downward pressure.

How many times do we see an angle which quite clearly shows proof only seconds after a video ref decision has been made? Instead we see 3-4 repeats of inconclusive footage then a decision is made based on the ref's call and then lo and behold a different angle is shown whilst play re-starts. Frustrating.

Absolutely. Surely the least the video ref can do is arm himself with a diagram of the fixed camera positions around the pitch and ask for them if they want, none of this "Do you have anything else" stuff we hear on the games with video ref sound. Admittedly Sky/BBC aren't exactly being helpful ifthey can't quickly produce the required footage but the ref could be a little more proactive.

Has no one figured it out yet

The video ref is there for entertainment purposes.

Suspense, controversy, anticipation, stupidity. It's all there, refs should have the balls to mAke the call without sending it "upstairs". Makes the ref look incompetent.

All in the name of entertainment.

Can you show any evidence that's it's 95%?

Of course, why improve the game, why make it fairer for all?

All I can repeat is I don't understand why it seems to be going so poorly in SL when it works well in the NRL. My main gripe is that there are clear instances where the VR overrules the ref's on field call without clear evidence. That wasn't and isn't the intent of making refs make a call. The other gripe is using mega slow motion to show a player has lost a ball for a nanosecond when in real time that is impossible to see.

I hate the dreaded blurr, They should use high speed cameras as used in nature programmes.

Go back to how it was if the refs not sure send it to Video ref but do not say try or no try job done

It's a shame Thierry Alibert isn't a twin or we could have one as the on field ref and one as the vid ref. [iThat[/i would be entertainment.

The theory is fine. The video refs just need to implement it better and be more accountable when they make decisions that aren't properly justified.

This was introduced to stop forcing the VR to make a decision when the footage wasn't conclusive. If we get rid of the on field decision then what happens if the VR can't prove it? Either they guess like in the old days in SL (I'm sure we could dig out a few threads on 'benefit of the doubt' from a few years back). Or they have 'refs call' like the NRL used to and it goes back to the in field ref which is the same as this but in reverse
This way reinforces the on field ref being in charge and stops them just passing the book. No system can be infallible but this feels the best way to me.

Or... they simply say, if the ref's not convinced he's seen a try scored, it's no try. If you didn't see it, you can't give it. I'd be happy with that.

For me there should be just one person making decisions and that's the referee.
If he's happy after consulting with his touch judges, he gives it.
If there's something he couldn't see he asks to see the video. Then he makes his decision based on all the available evidence.
This could be used at non-televised games too, just with fewer camera angles.
Just need a decent techie operating the video.
Awarding tries by committee is just cumbersome and dull, but sky think controversy is more entertaining than sport.