I've no issue with the field referee sending it up as a try / no try. What he is essentially saying here is "unless you can find evidence to the contrary, I am going to award a try". I think that's a better and more transparent system than the "benefit of the doubt to the attacking side" approach we had previously.

Most of the issues of the VR seem to be rooted in interpretation. The VR is great for binary questions ("did the player's foot go in touch?", "was the player behind the kicker?" etc). Where it becomes problematic is where the VR is asked to judge any shade of grey - things like obstructions or whether an aerial challenge for the ball was fair - because we're moving into one man's judgement over another. Football is experiencing the same issues with VAR.

Thursday night's game and Hull KR's disallowed try was a classic example, where the VR was asked to rule whether "Carl Ablett might have possibily, had he not been impeded (if indeed he was impeded), effected some sort of challenge on Danny McGuire that may have affected his kick". We'll see incidents like that referred to the video week after week, and different weeks the same referee will give different decisions.

Not sure it needs to be a detailed appraisal when he nails it in his comment. Not sure what else you need with a video ref other then speed and accuracy.

I don't think he does nail it when there are clearly cases where our system isn't quick, and when we don't always get it right.

Nothing is 100% efficient. You cannot quote a handful of cases when the vast majority are dealt with swiftly and without controversy.

I would be interested to know the average length of time it takes for a VR decision to come through. 60 seconds on average? Isn't that the length of time a kicker has to tee up a shot after a try? Perhaps they should encourage the kicker to tee up the shot whilst the VR is decision is pending. There would be no time lost in that situation.

Correct, and that should be it. The VR then goes back to the ptb, to see if there are any infringements leading up to, and the actual grounding of the ball,then make his decision.

That sums up my thinking completely. It’s the “shades of grey” decisions that are the most contentious and take the most time. I think a time limit should be in operation for those. If no decision is arrived at in say 40secs then go with the onfield ruling.

I see it a bit differently. If there were no video referee at the match, the on field referee would have to make a decision. So he is really saying to the video ref, ' If you weren't here I'd give a try / no try - unless you can see I would be clearly wrong...?'

I tend to agree; sending it up is a clear indication that he doesn't know - so why weight it with a decision that, by inference, is a guess? Just send it up and ask the VR to make a decision, without the daft caveat of finding incontrovertible proof that the referees guess is right or wrong?

I also think it should be used for foul play - watching a player continue to have an influence on a game only to be banned afterwards is galling in the extreme, and hands the benefit of the ban to teams who haven't been victims of said foul play; if the technology is there, why not use it?

Going slightly off on a tangent here, but does anyone else think that there should either be a VR at all games or none at all?

All games. In SL that is.

I’m not too fussed, but I just believe that it should be all SL games or no SL games. Not a VR at televised games only

Shouldn't go to NO VR at all. It'll only take a few occasions especially in a big game possibly the GF where a try is allowed when it shouldn't be and people would be crying foul that the sport took a backward step in getting rid of technology when nearly every other sport has embraced it now.

Would get rid of the on field decision or tweak it where if the footage is inconclusive then the VR can send it back down to the on field ref who can then signal and decide what he originally thought. The VR shouldn't haven't one armed tied behind his back like he does now.