Yes, but that's just not a good enough justification for the current set-up. It's not a question of the refs having a "success rate", since the dice are loaded by the ref having to give a decision on the field. No-one doubts that Hull KR would have had a try the other night if it hadn't been sent up as no-try. This overly slews the VR's decision. If we're going to the VR because we want "the truth" (or as close as possible), why tie his hands in coming to a decision as we now do?

Reluctantly I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a RU-style "Try: Yes or No?" option for refs if they genuinely aren't sure/can't see,

And very unnecessary. IIRC the NRL rarely has more than 3 games on the same day so all you need to do is have 3 video refs.
That's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than the "bunker" system. It's only because the NRL (and Australia generally) are obsessed with America.

9 times from 10 the Shaw try last night would have been given, I have seen a lot less certain tries given, shame as we would have gone in with a commanding lead. While I don't believe referees 'cheat' most fans know which ones their team gets less than a fair shake with, Childs is one of ours, if there is doubt it rarely goes in our favour with him.

Agreed - seems a monumental waste of cash, but will be interesting to see how it works out... They'll also no doubt have it sponsored to try and recoup some costs. It's KFC time....

My preferred option would be to have the VR at all games, but they can only be used to review touch/in goal lines, grounding and knock ons (from kick tap backs etc). Anything that needs an interpretation such as obstruction should be left to the on field officials.

If this thread proves anything it's that some people will whinge for the sake of it, whatever system is in place.

First, the ref HAS to make a decision a million times a game, on every single thing that he sees, assisted where relevant by the TJs. This includes whether or not a try has been scored.

It is pretty dumb to think that, if there was no VR, the ref would be 100% certain about every call. Some of you need to give your heads a shake and get it through that we ask the refs to give their porfessional OPINION, for the full 80 minutes, and that is what they do. It should be stating the obvious that throughout the game, there are shades of grey, and if you really think a ref running around a field can be 100% sure of every single happening on the field then you must be mad.

Also, each of you that gets so uppity and dang certain that what you claim you saw is 100% right, YOU might have been the ref; another poster who is equally certain you're worng, HE might have been the ref. This may be sometimes due to team bias, but basically it is normal that two people can watch the same thing and decide what happened differently. The fact that people on here are disagreeing with your certainty should be enough to make the point.

With regard to "ref's call", this is a great system. It restores the on-field ref to the position he had before VR. That is, someone goes over for a "try", and he HAS to decide whether he's giving it or not. If there was no VR, that would be the decision, and everyone would have to live with it.

The new rule that the VR has to see positive evidence that the ref was wrong is eminently sensible. We don't want one ref substituting his mere opinion for another ref's.

In the case of the Shaw "try", the fact is that he did lose touch with the ball as it went to ground, then he looked to regain some sort of contact with it, but none of the angles could conclusively show anything one way or the other. As was clearly the VR's take on it, seeing as how many times and views he analysed it. You can't say it was a try, and you can't say it wasn't. None of us can, not for certain. You can make a case either way, The on-field ref wasn't convinced and so wouldn't have given a try.

The VR wasn't convinced it was a try, and so rightly cannot substitute his best guess.

What some of you seem to be really taking issue with is that you think the VR SHOULD HAVE been convinced it was a try. But that is just your opinion and I see a roughly 50/50 split of opinion on the incident. It was very hard on Shaw, as he did well, but then again, had the try been given, it would have been very hard on the defence, because they did enough to dislodge the ball and make himlose control. It was thus a classic decision of a hard call, which has to be given either this way or that, and everyone needs to get over it.

Over the years there have been some appalling VR blunders, but this wasn't one.

I'm starting to agree on what the VR should be used for. We had the daft situation in the game last night where Bentham was going 80 metres back to look at an incident that he's already given a decision on. It's at the point where the attacking team might be tempted to take the tackle in this kind of situation rather than directly score a try.

For me the VR shouldn't be used for things on which the ref has already made a decision. So basically incidents that happen on/very close to the try line.

The ref's call last night was garbage because without the VR, it probably would've been given. It only wasn't given because there was doubt. Remember when that used to go to the attacking side rather than whatever the on-field ref guessed because he and his TJ were in such a poor position to see?

It wasn't appalling I agree, but we've all seen them given when they were less clear than this one, it just grits on me as fan that it cost us a decent half time lead. I though the ref was a bit whistle happy last night and we seemed to get some odd ones against us that gave Saints good field position and possession. All in all, I was happier than I have been with the effort, just a shame the players never reaped some reward for them.

We all give the ref's a hard time during the game, that's the nature of live sport, our teams are playing the opposition and the ref's, but ultimately, i usually find that they get most things spot on, if i am at a live game, especially on SKY, i try not to comment on things until i have seen replays etc.

and to be fair the ref's do have a hard job, and yes they do make mistakes, but do they cheat?? of course not, although certain officials do have "issues" with certain teams.
as for VR i wouldn't shed any tears if it was sacked in the morning!, maybe ref's would get more respect and leeway if we had to go back to just relying on their instict and decisions.

I'd disagree with this - the ref sent it up as no try, so surely that's what he'd have given had he VR not been available, otherwise he'd have sent it up as a try.... That's why the 'refs call' is a good thing - in 50/50's, it down to how the ref interpreted it at normal speed - just like it is when the VR isn't available.

FA, you stating FACT that there was seperation is a nonsense, there was no certainty at all that the ball came off the forearm/hand at any given point from the side, as for the foot in touch what the feck is the touchie looking at for gods sakes, his feet were no-where near the line (comparatively to many others)
I thought there was enough 'evidence' to overturn it and I'm an FC fan.
And if anything last night proves we need to have two onfield refs because clearly the touch judges aren't bothered with doing anything about enforcing the rules. That offside by Saints that led to rovers losing the ball and then Saints scoring was diabolical.

Talking about the VR at all games do the Aussies still have at none TV games just a red or green light for a try or not

The trouble with the system is when there are multiple reasons why a try might be disallowed.
For example, the referee sent the Shaw try as 'no try' to the VR based on the touch judge's opinion that Shaw was in touch. There is no way whatsoever that the touch judge could see the grounding of the ball. As the effort was sent up as 'no try' the VR then had to prove conclusively that Shaw had not gone into touch - which he hadn't. However, he then had to prove that Shaw had grounded the ball, which he couldn't- hence the decision of 'no try', even though this was not the reason the on-field referees had made the initial on-field decision.
What the system lacks is the ability for the referee to say "I think it is 'no try' based on the player going into touch, but if he did stay in the field of play I feel the grounding is sufficient to award a try". As the system stands, the referee has to make a blanket decision despite the fact there could be more than one decision to be made (obstruction + grounding/ touch + grounding / knock-on / touch etc). The referee needs to be given the ability to make a decision on EACH reason the try may be awarded (or not) for the system to be improved.

An excellent post,you only have to listen to the sky pundits to know that they all see the same footage but will interpret it differently,it's human nature