We started using the video ref for forward passes? I mean if they can look at a kicker who is running at full speed kick the ball and then look at runners on the other side of the pitch (!!!!) to decide whether or not they are infront of him. Surely they can check for a forward pass!

Lets go the whole hog and video ref the entire game.

balls to that, lets just play it on computer.

Video ref decisions should be time limited to 30 seconds.

Forward passes would be a nightmare to regulate imo.

Well the way the refs are scrutinsed, they may aswell.

I think it's a workable idea, but it won't be implemented until the NRL do it first.

Too short IMO. Needs to be 90 seconds minimum if your going to impose a time limit, not that I agree with a time limit in the first place.

The whole idea of the video referee is to make sure they get the decision correct. While some may argue that they are totally inept and a waste of time, imposing a time limit will force the VR to make a rash call which could see even more decisions being called incorrectly.

should only be used when a dodgy try is scored

No different to looking for a knock on, which is essentially what a forward pass is, in a wierd way.

Didn't we used to look for forward passes when the video ref first came in until it was decided you couldn't tell properly because different angles told different stories?

I think the video ref system is fine as it is tbh.

maybe they should bring a system where each team gets a certain amount of appeals on calls that are made and can request to go to the video ref any reason including forward passes

maybe give each team 3 appeals per game maximum if which they can use if they think a decision is incorrect etc

??

should have video refs at every game imo

Firstly I think that if the video referee has to spend in excess of 60 seconds and view the incident more than 8 or 9 times then there must clearly be a degree of doubt. It annoys me when the video ref looks at the same incident again and again and again from different angles and speeds then says No Try. If there is that much doubt then it is a try!

Secondly I would prefer a system similar to that used in the NFL (American Football - Gleeson would be made up ). The referee should make a decision based on what he and his assistants see and then the video referee can only change that decision if there is clear and undeniable proof that the on field decision was wrong. If it is unclear then the on field decision stands.

Finally, I would never expect the referee to have to explain any of his decisions. He sees the game once, at one speed and through one set of eyes (or should that be five sets!). BUT the video referee has plenty of opportunity to review the play and as such should be able to, or even forced to, explain the reasoning behind his decision. It could be a 'one way' (he needn't get involved in a discussion) mic after the decision explaining to Pinky and Perky (and the viewing fans) why he disallowed, or gave, the try.

Certainly would at Knowsley Road and Headingley. Games would be lasting three or four hours.

Im a junior ref and the reason you can't do forward passes is camera angles, grounds have poor angles and hand movements and the movements of the ball look different on different angles. Personally however I think we should look at forward passes by video refs but there you go!