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

Said n the match thread that the VR's seem to be avoiding camera angles or repeated views that could overturn the on-field ref. They were so many bodies in the mix for the offside/kick/Powell try that he surely should've looked at it a few times to make sure he checked everyone. Likewise another look/angle at the potential knock on should've happened.

Last week Hardaker's no try double movement we didn't see the best angle of it until after the decision was made and that's happened a few times this year.

This

Someone with half a dozen different angles, super zoom and slow motion is in an infinitely better position to make the most accurate call, and that's what we should always be targeting. Look at Denny Solomona's disallowed try last night - if you can find me a single bit of footage that shows he didn't score then fair enough, but I certainly didn't see it and surely if you can't prove that he didn't score (and especially in cases where the difference is millimetres) then the benefit of doubt should - as it always has - go to the attacking team. Instead because the touch judge and Thaler, with the naked eye and in real time, determine that he didn't ground it the VR is left with no option other than to guess that they're right. You think that system is better?

In the past few Leeds games we've had a Hardaker try disallowed because the VR has guessed that it was a double movement and a try against us allowed because the VR has guessed that JJB jumped into an attacking player rather than being obstructed - in both cases if the call had gone up the opposite way I have absolutely no doubt that the opposite call would have been upheld. Supporting the referee come what may is not a solution. The on field ref sometimes has to guess, that's the nature of real time play and a clear indicator that they have is the request for a video referral. The video ref has the luxury of taking their time and can base their decisions on experience, multiple sources of evidence and the balance of probabilities - to place the referee's initial split second guess work above those factors is insane.

Send it upstairs, and if the VR wants the on field ref's opinion they can always ask for it, but the closest thing to the right decision is surely what we all want - we didn't get that last night.

The problem with the previous method was that they were being referred upstairs with no guidance, and "benefit of doubt" decisions were being made when the ref probably wouldn't have given it on the field.

The old Aussie system is better. Go to the video ref. If he can't tell, refer back to the onfield ref at that point. Ref's call. The onfield ref and TJ's will have had a view and opinion, and it's hard to criticise that when there is no evidence to contradict it.

Last night there were two tries that would have been given if the question was put differently. The Solomona no try cannot have been far away and the Sutton no try left me scratching my head. On the other hand the clear Luke Dorn(?) knock on was almost made into a try by poor camera angles. I still like Unions "Is there any reason that I cannot award a try"? as it is a clear statement that allows the video ref to get involved.
Having said all that I am still amazed at how often the ref gets these split second decisions right when a couple of hundred thousand armchair fans will be screaming the opposite at their TVs.

poor floodlighting didn't help a few decisions last night, could barely see the lines in some places.

why do they not just talk to each other, rahter than trying to make the decision in isolation - in the same way that THlar was trying to guide Alibert in France.

Rather than the split second decision by the on field ref taking primacy, they have a sensible conversation about what to look at, then review it together in real time - with the on field ref watching on the screen.

Let Barrie McDermott decide - he likes to award the try based on effort and desire; seems reasonable.

The problem inherently wrong with the system is that it doesn't take account of multiple factors.
For example, in a game recently a referee gave a "no try" decision based on a player putting his foot on the touchline before grounding the ball. The video reply clearly showed this was not the case, however there was some doubt that the ball wasn't grounded properly. The video referee (rightly according to the guidelines) stuck with the "no try" decision based on this, but this was not the reason the on-field referee gave the initial "no try" decision (indeed, as he didn't ask to check the grounding it is reasonable to assume the referee would have given a try).
Also take the Solomona "no try" in the Cas v Wigan game. The referee gave a "no try" decision based on a double-movement. Even though there was no double-movement, the VR stuck with "no try" as there wasn't a clear shot of the ball touching the line. However, this wasn't what the on-field referee asked the VR to look for, so again it can be assumed he was happy that the ball touched the line and if he hadn't suspected a double-movement, the try would have been given.

The other issue, of course, it the quality of the VRs. Whilst ever we have blatant errors (tracking the wrong player, not looking at the correct incident etc) then the principle is flawed.
I'd remove it completely. However, the key would be to also remove the big screen from the ground so that referees don't get immediately berated if they make a questionable decision.
For me, the VR has sanitized the sport and taken away a key element of the game. When my team score and the VR is in operation, it's hard to celebrate a try at the point of scoring as I know it's likely to be two or three minutes before the decision is made. Likewise, when the opposition scores, I'm hoping the VR can get us off by finding a technicality and disallowing the try.
I much prefer the decision to be made immediately by the officials on the field and I can accept they might make genuine mistakes. But it's embarrassing when the bloke with all the camera angles available does the same.