I'm happy enough as it is.

In the interests of fairness and consistency, Id rather have a video ref at every game....And before anyone says, I know that the financial ramifications dont allow it, but thats RL in this country isnt.....done on the cheap.

How is the present system "unfair" to any particular team???

I wouldn't, and I didnt, say unfair.

I'll give you an example..... a player touches down and there is doubt over an obstruction in back play and a suggestion that it was a knock on during rounding. The referee is aware of this....

In a game where there is a video ref, that doubt is referred to the video ref....and the try is disallowed. In a game without a video ref, that doubt turns into benefit of the doubt (to the attacking team) and a try is given. Those decisions can, and often are, the difference between winning and losing a game.

I like the video ref system because it A) defines whether a try is good or not B) generates consistency is its decisions and c) creates drama and debate in the ground, which I like.

There's definitely a way of creating a question whereby you don't have to try to determine the legitimacy of every single pass but can pick out the blatant cock-ups. The union bunch seem to have got this right.

VR decisions for suspect passes may/will/should only be brought in when/if we adopt the refs call, as they have in the NRL.

The issue with using TV shots, is that they are 2D and can be misinterpreted.

If a ref made a call e.g. "we have a try - but check the last pass", the try should ONLY by over-ruled if the replay showed WITHOUT DOUBT, that the the pass was indeed forward. Or vice versa.

Get rid of it. Make them do their jobs and earn their money.

Using video technology has its flaws, as we all know from some dodgy decisions in the past. But we still get the right decision more often than not. Whenever I talk with my football supporting friends, a few of them trot out the excuse that they don't want video technology because bad decisions give them something to talk about in the pub which I find ridiculous. Referees are human (contrary to popular belief) and sometimes miss things or make an error. If we can use something that can aid them in making the right call, that can only be a good thing.

It isn't ideal that we don't have it across the board though, as one person mentioned, but unfortunately we don't have the resources to implement it at every game in every round.

It seems strange how the video ref can't be used for forward passes, yet we have match officials on the ask the ref feature on twitter confirming which passes were/weren't forward after a video review of their game.

VR should only be used to judge matters of fact. We don’t have anywhere near enough information for the VR’s judgement of a forward pass to be a matter of fact. Letting the VR judge forward passes would be more trouble than it is worth, from some angles a pass looks clearly forward, from others flat, and from others backwards. It isn’t that it is impossible to judge a forward pass by video, simply that it can be deceiving from different angles. It would just lead to arguments after every try that from one angle, one pass looked forward. No need for it, leave it as it is, and the defensive team will defend like it was passed backwards, and the attacking team will attack like they need to pass backwards, its absolutely fine as it is.

VR for matters of fact onside/offside at the kick, groundings, in touch etc, on field ref for matters of opinion forward passes, obstruction, hands in at the ruck, etc.

Absolutely not IMO. We spend half a televised game looking at VR replays while they make their mind up as it is. To allow them to go and look for a forward pass virtually every try would be sent upstairs adding more disruption to the game.

I would change the VR rules. Firstly the ref should make a call of try or no try, the VR has 1 minute to agree or not. If after the minute is gone he can't make a decision then the original refs call applies.

I do agree with the original post although I would change my mind if there were two refs on the pitch! Two refs would be better when there are no cameras. Question is have we got the required number of qualified officials plus the required finance.

I feel that there have been many occasions in past seasons where a forward pass has been made in the run up to a try. I am sure that the commentary team have said "that was a forward pass - but the ref cant go to the VR for a decision".

I agree with the comments re "the momentum rule" which I feel is not understood by some.

I wonder do some refs tell touch judges to stay out of the game unless they spot mainly violence missed by the ref?

Defending the ref - he is forever running back towards the defending team following a tackle to mark each 10metres. No wonder he misses many marginal forward passes after the PTB

With televised games the RFL need to use every option to help the ref and to particularly ensure the passing leading to a try is legal. The VR should get involved with forward passes to ensure a correct result.

We already seem to be looking for every miniscule reason to disallow a try, when in actual fact more often than not if the ref made his instinctive in the moment call it would be correct.

Nearly every try off a kick get's referred, ''Can you check onside please''. Tony Smith made the point a few weeks ago on the SL show that this is something the in game refs should be picking up no problem.