Can we please start listening to what they are saying whilst making their decisions rather than after? it cleared a lot up during the world cup and was a great feature so much a lot of the aussies are pleading for it in the NRL. union have now implemented it.

Cleared a lot up during the World Cup? We must have watched different games!

Hearing the video ref is naff and takes away the excitement. After that freakish try on the wing at Wembley for example as a neutral you want to hear the commentators getting excited/debating a great piece of football, not Ian Smith sat asking for a camera angle.

yes it explained the video ref point of view and not just the decision.

Half of the time i think they are looking for reason's not to give tries rather than seeing if its an ok try.

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.