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.

Hardaker's no try against Wigan is the perfect example of why this system is flawed. There was no camera angle that showed conclusively that either the ball or the ball carrying arm had hit the floor and similarly there was only one that may have shown that it had not, what that means in the current system is that if it gets sent up as a try it remains a try, if it gets sent up as a no try it remains no try. No benefit of the doubt given to the attacking team means that they either score a try or concede a penalty when they're in a fantastic position, and based on what? Guess work.

The burden of proof on the video ref is, in my opinion, too high. We've seen this with the erroneous obstruction decisions over the last couple of seasons where legitimate tries have been chalked off and clear fouls have been allowed - all because of the ref's guess on the field. Either the VR is there to ensure that the correct decision is reached as often as possible, or they're their to confirm what the ref thought happened. Unfortunately you cannot have both because the human eye in real time will miss a lot.

So if there is no conclusive video evidence how does the VR make a decision? Without the VR we have to accept that sometimes a try/no try decision will be made by the on field ref with help from touch judges when it may be none of them had a clear sight of the grounding or a potential infringement. That's just how it goes and the rules allow for that. So why should it be different if the on field ref asks gif VR advice as opposed to touch judge advice?

I think the system is fine as it is. Sadly we don't have enough people good enough to be a VR, which it turns out is a completely different qualification than being an on-field ref.

For example, the other week, Silverwood failing to see what everyone else in the land could see, that a ball had been nowhere near grounded. I reckon because he was in a mindset of looking at other things, and forgot to look for the obvious.

As a result, we have had far too many VR decisions that were plainly wrong, on any reasonable view, and that just shouldn't happen.

The system was brought in partly precisely because it cannot be good for the sport to have televised games where a crucial and yet plainly bad call costs a team. The idea of using technology to eliminate or reduce such cockups is in principle sound. The problems now mostly arise when a VR who clearly should know better, misses something totally obvious.

I really don't see what is wrong with the primacy of the ref on the field. If no VR, he'd HAVE to make a call, in every case, and so we are being told what the decision would be, if no VR present. Then, the theory at least says, if there is conclusive evidence it's the wrong call, it will be overturned, but not otherwise. To me, (if the VR could be relied on to not do crazy things) that strikes the correct balance.

only saw the last 5 mins of tonights game and another try disallowed that should have been given