That's what the RU Video Ref is asked, "Any reason why I shouldn't award the try?"

In the NRL the on field ref has to say whether he thinks its a try or not. The video ref can then only overturn that decision with clear evidence.
I've always felt the system we have discourages the on field ref from taking up the best position because they can just refer it upstairs. Problem there being that as all games don't have a video ref they may not take up good positions when they don't have the video ref.

It's the same in American Football, and is a much better system IMO. You have to have conclusive evidence that refutes the decision made by the referee for it to be overturned, otherwise the decision stands, no matter how dodgy it is.

We have a fast moving,high speed collision sport and promote it with nano second frame by frame indecision taking minutes . It's then biased because all games in this country are not televised and some clubs benefit / fail by being on TV more than others.
The system just is not beneficial to the game.

Our system is not bad but could be improved, and IMHO this season has got worse rather than better.

Our VR system has long been cursed by occasional bouts of complete incompetence, but the people responsible remain in post because presumably they can't be sacked. It's like any job, some are better than others and we have suffered with some people who have shown it is not their forte.

I agree entirely that the ref should make his decision known, and then it is only overturned if there is conclusive evidence he is wrong. Indeed, that is my definition of why we should have VR at all. I don't think giving it primacy is good for the game, or the spectacle, or indeed the on-field refs.

I have mixed views about a time limit, as there may be several things to check, but I tend to think there should be one, and quite short, as the breaks in the game by endless replays from endless angles are (a) irritating and (b) only show that you can't be really sure, so if the ref on the field had primacy, it shouldn't take long at all to say "it's obviously not crystal clear on video, therefore ref's call stands". Whereas now, the VR's seem prepared to stop the game for 5 minutes if need be to take over the decision making process and analyse anally to vainly try "to reach the correct decision".

Union hasn't "now" implemented it, they've had it for years.

Not a fan of it myself. It makes the game look amateur. Much rather hear commentary than some numpty asking for a different angles 8 times. Doubt the NRL will go down that route.

no they don't, they announce the decision to the ref. Also a lot of commentators and pundits have said that NRL should implement it. Its a lot but to gain some understanding of the decision rather than argue about it for a week.

North Queensland v Canberra......cowboys go in in the corner...ref says "no try" but let's check......video shows a clear grounding before the attacker is in touch...TRY given (correctly) game decided!
Bulls v Blues in Union...ref asks about knock on or grounding on the line......Replay shows a clear double movement but even though the TMO says this to the ref, as there was no Knock on and the ball was grounded on the line...TRY given (incorrectly) not a big decision.

I'd take the ref being put straight by the TMO any day.

Agreed, surely everyone should want the correct outcome (regardless of how this comes about)
The only issues with the VR, is when they actually get the decision wrong, which has happened on a few occasions this season.
The sky coverage of the 2 guys "playing" with the screen adds nothing to the process but, the explanation as to why the try was given/ disallowed is ok and we should be trying to get to a stage where there is a VR at each game, not just the televised matches.

Lets use the video ref correctly then if the argument is the correct decision is seen to be done.

Each play stopped so that hands, on the ball could be checked, head high tackles checked, play the ball correctly done etc etc.,

FFS
The game would take so long it would be beyond a joke that the current VR system is.

Let the match officials make decisions, it's what they are there for. Yes they will make horrendous blunders, but no more than the players do.

People are expecting perfection. It's sport and human beings are involved.

Just ain't gonna happen.

I think part of the problem is that those damned sky commentators rabbit on about decisions [sizeRELENTLESSLY[/size, so it gives people a complex about officials and mistakes made.

If you watch some sky games you'd be forgiven for thinking it was the biggest misjustice in the history of human kind, such is their propensity to dispute and disagree with every decision made.

It shouldn't be possible for the VR to make a mistake, especially as there are now 2 of them
Nobody is asking for every play to be dissected and agreed by a third party, just for the VR to make the right decision when they are asked to clarify something.
In cases where the VR is not certain, we ought to have a "refs call", although there is of course the "benefit of the doubt" if this is needed.

I think League fan was taking the "p"

But a call is either right or wrong. Hearing the video ref make a wrong decision isn't going to prevent controversy and people whinging about decisions for the next week.

I don't see what understanding there is to be gained? The commentators will explain what the video ref is looking at anyway so that people who don't understand the game have an understanding of the decision making process - or at least that's how it works with the NRL. I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard commentators talk through replays, "They're just looking for an obstruction here Rabbits... just checking the ground, blah blah blah."

I really cannot see what the NRL would gain from it. How is a video ref tediously asking for front on, side on angles, slow it down, rewind a few frames, no that far back, a bit forward please, run it through for 5 minutes, yawn, etc, preferable to the excitement and 'WOW' factor that you get listening to commentators blowing their load in videos such as 'Ben Barba - Try of the Year' or even 'David Nofoaluma Flying Try'

I'm with Ganson's Optician from this one. Even if the NRL or fans were in favour of it, which I doubt very much, I can't see the television networks buying it.

And I'm pretty sure rugby does have it. I remember watching it and hearing the TMO talking through a decision? Thought in rugby they also have a video of the TMO guy who sits there with a shirt and tie on that pops up in the corner of the screen?? Either that or I'm misremembering something else. Think it was on ESPN and has been a feature since around 2012?

I like the NRL stance on the use of VR, with the on field ref making a judgement in real-time, before handing the decision to the VR, with the on-field decision only being reversed if conclusive evidence exists to over rule. This approach has a number of benefits;
- It puts the onus on the on-field ref to be in the right position, and to make a 'real-time' decision. I hate it when a potential obstruction/crossing happens, the ref waves play on, and then a try is scored later in the play - the ref then sends the decision to the VR to check for obstruction/crossing, having previously waved play on. In these instances, if the team hadnt scored, and had instead been tackled, it would have been play on, and they could just as easily score from the next play the ball. The refs should be made to make a decision and stand by it.
- This approach mitigates agaisnt the issue of the VR not being available at all games, as any 50/50 calls will still be decided in real-time by the on field ref based on their gut instinct, as only the decisions that can conclusively be shown to be wrong will be overturned.
- Most importantly for me, it gives a tangible performance measure for all referees. We can measure how many times each ref sends decision to the VR that are subsequently overturned (meaning the ref had made a wrong call). This can be used for feedback/training and also trend spotting - seeing which decisions the refs are getting wrong most often.

As for how the VR is used by sky, I dont think the current format of watching the VR's watching a screen adds anything. I personally would prefer to adopt the method where the viewers are shown the footage that is being reviewed by the VR, with the commentary team passing comment on what's being reviewed, but then once the decision has been announced, the VR gives an explanation on why they made that decision. This keeps the suspense of the decision, as although the commentary team are giving their opinion, we wont know the outcome until its shown on the screen, but then subsequently, you get the full explanation of why the decision was made - hopefully this would also help reduce the number of blatant Ganson-Esq mistakes, as they'd be more inclined to get it right knowing they were about to explain their decision live on air.

Also - they really, really quickly must lose the X-Factoresque pregnant pause before the decision, how excruciating is that?