Should Mr Hicks have been asked to state try or no try over the Hull grounding. Given that he let Gildart run the length of the field and then said try on the field it would suggest that he would have gone no try for the Hull grounding. What would the video ref have done then?

I think he did say try for Wigan, no try for Hull (although strictly speaking he didn't need to as they are mutually exclusive; by explicitly stating try for Wigan he is implicitly stating no try for Hull). Thaler then took an age because he had to overturn Hicks. Had the on field decision been try for Hull it would have been much quicker as there definitely wouldn't have been any evidence to overturn it.

He did. I watched the replay last night and he said he had try Wigan and no try for Hull.

Going off recent decisions (Peyroux, Tierney etc) I've got no idea how he could say he was 100% certain that was a try after having 75 looks. Without the prejudice of the 'no try' decision I could have just about taken it being given benefit of the doubt but with that in mind, it should never have been given.

The rule needs scraping. Thankfully it didn't cost us.

Thaler clearly felt he was in a bind because of the on field decision, it looked a try but going by the letter of the law I'm not sure it was possible to overturn the on field decision because it's hit and miss whether you get a camera angle that conclusively shows downward pressure. It was the right decision in the end but only because common sense prevailed. Had we got the try instead of Hull we'd have been back to howls of "corruption" and the like. Glad we didn't reach the GF on the back of a decision like that.

The on field decision definitely needs scrapping though, I've said that from the start. It's an irrational policy to make the referee guess and then to give that guess such authority that most VRs can't overturn it. Bring back BOD and let the on-field and video referees both make the decision together, on-field ref has the final say.

I don't see how that try was given to Hull, the Wigan try was given on field which must deem Hull's try a no-try on field. So the VR needed to be able to say with 100% certainty that the Hull try was a try, you wouldn't need to watch the same try over and over again if you were certain it was a try.

The good news is that the result didn't hang on this try.

I'm not sure, it was brought in to give the on field ref (FR) more power as the VR was often taking too much time. With this being a tribunal now both VRs need to agree, if anything I think it balances the game in the right way as the on field ref has to make the exact same decisions in a game without the benefit of the VR.

Yes, the FR has to potentially guess but that surely just adds a pressure to be better at observing the game rather than be able to fall back to the VR.

The thing about time is that the VR is taking longer because they are having to judge not whether or not it was a try, but whether it is enough of a try.

The VR used to take ages before the on field decision rule was introduced

League 1 manages perfectly well with just a referee and two touch judges - have they though of trying this out in SL?

Enough of your radical nonsense!

as this thread perfectly demonstrates, people are now getting hung up over the try/no try decision from the ref, rather than considering whether it was actually a try or not in the first place. the system needs scrapping and the video ref system reverting to what it was before. also we need to stop using it for other things like knock ons restarts etc. games are finishing too late

It was clearly a try and you see similar ones regularly. Scrap the farce of the onfield decision and let the VR make the decision. Maybe put a limit on how much time he can take though

As tempting as it is to say scrap the on field decision, it did come in for a reason, to stop the video refs being obliged to look at every angle in case they got it wrong.

I think it would work if the refs were also allowed to send it up as unsure. They just can't tell at times, and that's what the technology is there for, don't make them guess.


RE: people saying it was a no try because he'd given Wigan's, surely he just had to rule on both, in case the first wasn't given.

FWIW, I didn't think it should be given, there was no control on it at all, although that only seems to matter these days if it's an Aussie ruling on a last minute possible England winner.

I think the majority of the time he'll be 90%, but just want to clear up for certain an infringement like obstruction, but it's ones like Hull's try, or where a winger borders the touchline where you can't expect them to decide.