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.

it doesn't seem that popular in Australia, for exactly the reasons outlined in here www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... bfed79839c Though I assume it has become more popular since the exact same situation led to an incorrect decision wrongly keeping them in the 4 nations

it doesn't seem that popular in Australia, for exactly the reasons outlined in here www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... bfed79839c Though I assume it has become more popular since the exact same situation led to an incorrect decision wrongly keeping them in the 4 nations

And yet it wasn't a try, so it's a good job they checked everything!

What would really be a farce is if we decided that pushing people away off the ball is now a legal tactic

whether it was a try or not it is a very good example of the problem.

So much went on that incident that the ref just didn't know if it was a try or not, there were a million offside possibilities, a couple of knock on and a possible push (which was a very insignificant one) what was wrong with him letting that play run on and leaving it to the VR? That incident didn't have particularly clear evidence of anything and I would bet a pound to a penny that NONE of the incidents in that play would have been over-ruled by the VR and we would have been left with a ref guessing something he admitted he just didn't know.

It seems absolutely nuts that we are now demanding the ref 'have a guess' and try and disprove that rather than just making the best decision from the information available.

I think we should give refs more credit here. I don't think they go through matches just guessing decisions. No matter how much it appears that way from the terraces and when a call goes against your team.

Refs call it as they see it and this rule change doesn't change that. There is the option, as before, to check that they were correct. It doesn't really change anything at all. If he/she 'guesses' at a decision, because they did not see what happened (e.g Hall), then the VR will find 'sufficient evidence' if they look hard enough to come out with the correct decision.

This is probably a way of justifying the decision to go to to the VR maybe? Or clarifying why exactly they are asking the VR to look at it: 'I saw it as a try, but can we double check the offside?', for example.