Or how about each team gets 1 or 2 reviews like in cricket, then once there gone thats it. This way, only the really dodgy calls would be sent upstairs.

Yeah let's create even more arbitrary nonsense. Should it be 1 call our 2? Or maybe even 3? Let's flip a coin to decide. Any decisions that the ref can't make after his quota he has to guess.

The system was much more reliable before this silly nonsense about the ref sending it up as either try or no try. As many people have already said, it's safe to assume that if he sends it to the VR, he isn't sure; so who on earth decided that it would add value to force the ref to make a decision about something that he's already decided he can't decide?

The VR is an imperfect but better than nothing system - just do away with the addition of the ref's call; it is an experiment that has demonstrably failed.

This is a good example of someone creating a narrative to suit their own agenda:

You appear to have forgotten Saints leading by 18 points and then having a scrum chalked off the board (on Cas' line) after their winger was dragged into touch.

Bad refereeing decisions? I've got a lifetime's supply of that hurt.

Exactly! It's completely irrational. And on top of that the VR has to meet a much higher burden of proof in order to overturn a decision that the ref admittedly could not decide!

NFL went that way to speed the game up, seems a logical answer.

Defence in this game was truly shocking.

I've no idea. You'll have to explain why you chose to isolate one single decision as the supposed "turning point" whilst ignoring every other.

Logical? If the officials aren't sure of the correct decision and have multiple camera angles and slow motion replays at their disposal, how on earth is it logical to limit their use to an arbitrary amount?

It's as logical as saying touch judges can only make 2 calls a game (granted that would be quite a lot for some touchies).

remember when the VR was first introduced into the game?
it was mainly, IIRC, there to help referees in the rare occurence that he couldn't see what had happened etc, it was used sparingly, and usually only if there was absolutely no way the ref could make a decision by himself ( by that i mean without running the risk of getting it wrong.)

these days though every televised game is like a game show,
a try is (seemingly) scored, referee, usually near the spot of where the try was scored, then asks the TJ whether it was a try, TJ, not wanting to make that decision says he doesn't know, referee, who isn't sure himself then has to guess at whether a try has been scored or not, then sends it up to VR who take an age looking at the replays, to then give a decision.

back in the day referees used to award a try the moment the ball was put down if he was certain, it seems there is too much emphasis on the referee to refer tries to the VR that the ref is just plain guessing now.

for me, the VR has to go, let's get back to the days when a try was awarded/disallowed by the officials on the field, if we do have to have the VR then it should be used only in extremely contentious circumstances, there are too many tries referred to the VR just for confirmation now, if the ref has, or thinks he has seen a try then let him award it, if ,after replays hes shown to be wrong then that's just human nature!

I would suggest you are the one with the agenda.As a Saints fan trying to deflect from the fact that THAT try was 100% no try in anybody's book but the Video Ref last night and it had a huge,HUGE baring on the outcome of the game. Not saying there were not other instances in the game that were debatable, there are in every match, but that was inexcusable imo.

Their is a difference between the incidents though (not one I'm saying I agree with though, but one I've heard explained before).

Achurch (and Jamie Ellis the night before) were carrying the ball over the line in the act of scoring. Percival was going for a loose ball in goal that had been kicked, much like the Hall no try in the 4 nations last year, they apparently rule differently for incidents when it's come off a loose ball and they aren't sure of the grounding.

It also goes back to my point about them being ok overturning stuff like knock ons, foot in touch etc. But obstruction they still struggle with even if it looks clear as day.

I think that's because they asked to tick a checklist of points
- when did he pass it
- was it before or after he went around
- how far away was the dummy runner
- did the defender move towards the dummy runner

Etc. etc, etc.

These refs have reffed 100's of games in their careers and will have watched 100's more. I know we like to think they don't know the game but if you just asked them ONE question....."would the defender have gotten to the ball carrier" yes or no? They'd probably get it right a lot more than they do currently.