Sutton wasn't blameless, he was just s***. If he's the best referee the Aussies can muster, then their roster of referees are just as bad as Super Leagues.

He isn't, although he wasn't bad on the day.

The problem with the VR has always been the assumption that just because you are a top-class ref, you are also best qualified to analyse VR replays. As a starting point, it is superficially attractive, but if I were in charge at the RFL then the penny would have dropped a very long time ago that there must be a flaw in that reasoning, because so many unbelievably bad errors have been and continue to be made by VRefs.

Often, the TV pundits do see the correct decision, even though they have no reffing qualifications. Maybe it is because they spend many hours professionally viewing and compiling and analysing and presenting thousands of hours of video footage.

The conclusion must be that the skills needed to analyse replays are different from those for refereeing, and that being able to do one doesn't [inecessarily[/i mean you will be good at the other.

People shout and scream that "it was obvious" and "how could they miss that" - but there is a huge amount of pressure on a VR. There is a great comparison between you criticising gameshow/quiz contestants from the comfort of your armchair while they get "easy" questions wrong. But in truth everyone would be different when under the pressure of actually being on the quiz. Being VR in front of an audience of millions is the same sort of thing and clearly some VRs just don't handle it well, regardless of the fact that if they were on-field ref, which they are used to, they could.

So I think they need someone with them whose role is to analyse the footage and report things they see. That person (VR technical assistant?) should have access to all information including an feed of the commentary team, as the more chances of something being pointed out, the better the odds of the right decision.

I think a big issue with it is that spectators don't understand the rules or don't want to. There aren't as many mistakes as people think/make out

I thought there had to be conclusive video evidence to overturn the referees on field decision, was that actually the case? From hearing it back when I got home I thought they said that the ball in contact with the torso was enough to be given as a try? Either way the restart decision was shocking in itself,

I see the problem with having current SL refs as decision makers in the VR booth is that they themselves do not fully understand how to apply the rules. On field they are seeing things real time & making decisions based on that, that has always being their bread and butter, they make allowances for minor infringements, decisions based on everything they know and are supposed to understand and act upon.

However in the booth they are making decisions not in real time for the most part, those decisions are also very far & few between compared to how many they make on field, the fact that a decision has being referred to make sure then puts them in a situation that is asking them for an absolute.
On field they cannot ever be 100% sure 100% of the time, their experience allows them to make a judgement hundreds of times over 80 minutes knowing that something they are 98% sure about gets let by and play on and mostly we see it that way too.
Analysing to the nth degree isn't possible on field so they are being asked to apply the rules differently in the booth to how they would on field albeit incrementally a very small difference, that difference in not being able to apply rules to the nth degree is where they fall down in the booth.

When you listen to the VR, often they seem unsure as to how they should be explaining things out loud and the application of the rules as an absolute is in conflict with their 'on field' referees multi decision making per second on the fly mind.
They need to set out for themselves how precisiely they are applying the rules for one thing, they need to ask the on field referee to also be a part of the decision making (A la NFL) they have a mic & headphone and are able to see a video on the field of play so should have the ability to confer with each other if need be.

That need not be related to the audience at any point, I think being acutely aware that open analysis of a situation can be a little intimidating when it isn't something you are used to doing. try analysing your motorvehicle driving decisions as per advanced driving with someone sat next to you.

I agree with pretty much all of what knockersbumpMKII says.

The worrying thing for me, and I thought this at the time and was flabbergasted was they didn't know the laws of the game.

How is that possible?

Not a try, correct call.

Kiwi player hoofs it out the back door, goal line drop out.

At least they've been dropped.

If that had happened in super league, they'd have been promoted.

Promoted to what, exactly?

Dutton, Sutton and the video refs have all embarrassed themselves here.

Dutton is wrong to say that the ball was kicked dead by NZ. It wasn't.

Sutton was wrong to go to the video ref when he did.

The video refs were clueless, not just on the Graham 'no try' but also when (or if, to be fair) they advised a re-start with a scrum after Nikorima knocked on on the last tackle.

They should all have a week off.