It's the system that's to blame.... Why not send up a decision and if the video ref can't decide send it back down as refs call, at least that way the ref can have a few looks at it before giving a decision if it's a 50/50. Simple. We still however should have still beaten one of the worst saints sides ever seen in the SL era, I used to love watching saints sides.... Dunno whats happened over there.

You can scrap the entire VR concept as far as I'm concerned. The majority of games played without one seem to pan out ok and are all the more enjoyable for the absence of the delays, errors and bullsh"t that accompany the video ref. If there was one thing I could change to improve the spectacle, this would be it.

But that is because the games not on TV, you only see the tries scored from one camera angle from halfway when viewing the highlights so can't usually tell if a dodgy try should've been chalked off. If you're at the match you get to see it ONCE in real time and IF you're sat/stood in a good position to the incident.

On a Sky game you'd still see several replays from several angles of a dodgy try and people would still kick off as much as they do now that a VR could've chalked that off if we'd have kept it.

Most sports nowadays have some sort of video review thing, it would be a backwards step to remove it. It (and some of the rules) and the way it's used just needs improving.

What do you want from me? a running commentary of all the decisions here or there that may or may not have been dodgy and changed the course of the game, we could say that in every game couldn't we? Again i'm talking about the one decision that was disgracefully wrong and definitely killed any hopes Cas had of winning the game.

I don't think there is really anything else to say here, however i will let you have the last word if it will make you feel better

Still find it stupid that some games have benefit of VR and others dont, that shouldnt be the case at all and allows games to give/deny tries that might have otherwise been counted.

Either all games have it in some form or non do imo.

Yeah, I agree with all that. But my post was solely about what would most improve the game for me. Obviously never going to happen. Why? For exactly the reasons you've given. The only way it could would be if our broadcast partners were to decide that the way they cover the game does it zero favours. It would require them to stop showing the tedious third, fourth or fifth repay of some blackguard guddling about for the ball in the ruck and instead make the simple comment that the ref has awarded a penalty for ball stealing. A novel approach would be to show more replays of skilful plays instead - who knows, the first time viewer might enjoy that even more than being shown O'Loughlin holding down a ball-carrier sixth time around. Why, it could even be used when covering tries rather than the current process of showing 8 different camera feeds until one makes a score appear dubious (or valid). Ain't gonna happen though, I realise that.

There are too many replays from too many camera angles. Rather than get rid of the video ref, I would reduce the video ref payload and just show the camera angle and decision from the referee position only and start to use the benefit of the doubt more towards the attacking team. Basically if you are over the try line then you award the try.

It costs a fortune.

It doesn't work.

Get rid.

What only a few people are acknowledging is that mistakes are made by refs on a regular basis when awarding or not awarding tries- and have been since the game began. Decisions that may have cost a game- but most of the time most people will be unaware of them.
Why people are moaning about them now is that they get to see the "try" from several different angles in slow motion and get to look at all the play that led up to it again and again. A luxury not afforded in all circumstances. So we either carry on allowing refs to make the same mistakes in all games, help them out in a few, or help them out in all. And notice I said "help them out" as some decisions are still open to a great deal of interpretation.

They question is, though - are we helping them, or are we just creating a whole batch of new problems?

Lately I'm thinking the latter.

We are providing them with the opportunity to review the circumstances. That's help. Still doesn't mean they get it right. It's the same with the justice system- evidence is provided but not everyone will agree with the outcome all the time.
Not every decision is simple and we shouldn't expect it to be.

But that's not how the video refereeing system was initially pitched.

The mantra was - "It'll stop all the controversy".

It hasn't. Moreover, it appears to be adding to it.

Predictably SKY has done what all high-tech companies do when they encounter a problem - they've thrown even more technology into the fray.

Now we get uncertainty at 1/1000th of a sec freeze frame - instead of uncertainty at match speed.

You've heard of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? The more you look - the less you see.

I should also add - SKY is now slowing replays down to a point beyond the time it takes for a command to exit the human brain and arrive at a muscle group.

I just thought I'd point this out given all the talk about "control".

I still have no idea why its not working in SL. It seems to be working well in the NRL, much better since they made the refs make a call.

That wouldn't stop Sky showing several replays from several angles. If a try gets awarded from the 'ref's view' angle and then it's shown afterwards from another angle to not be a try then again people will kick off.

You can't have Sky games and NOT have the VR. It won't stop the arguments because we will see the several different angles and replays. Sky won't stop showing them just because we've asked not to have a VR.

In cricket you can't get rid of the review system now because Sky will show a dozen replays of the ball hitting the stumps.

In football they'll show a dozen replays of whether the ball crossed the line.

In Tennis they'll show whether the ball was in or out.

You simply can't have TV match in todays age WITHOUT some sort of review system, because the TV company showing it WILL review it over and over again because they're more interested in showing controversial moments above anything else. Sky will spend 5 minutes discussing a dodgy grounding compared to 60 seconds talking about a great team try.