it needs binning off.........for over a century we lived with bad decisions made in the heat of a game..........

russell Smith vs Wigan in 1994 particularly chokes many a wire fan ............

but imagine having some in a booth re-watch that incorrect decision on the big screen only to confirm wrongly that the ref was right to award the wrong decision.... thats what happened to Cas today...

its had its day it was a big novelty in 1996 or whenever it was brought in but its made crap refs worse, its made the game worse.... the point of our game is to score a try and celebrate like love...

now we half cheer go oh hang on hes going to the screen i think ....ohh yes he is...... TRY...... told you ........ what were we singing again......

it off with the Super 8's ..........

Good point on how the celebration of a try has evolved (for the worse) since the advent of the referral system. It is now more of a stop start affair.

Maybe instead of binning of the video ref we can get proper referees?

Definitely like that idea... Would make games more interesting too! It still doesn't solve the problem of video refs getting the wrong decision though. I have zero confidence in the video refs, and I am probably speaking for 99.9% of rugby league fans. Something needs to be done because it really is ruining the game!

The 3 referral system by defensive team sounds good idea, something has to Be done,, I personally think the natural standard of refereeing is in decline because they rely one video feedback too much, and it's almost like they forgotten how to ref or make a decision,, and at least if it does go upstairs get it right,, last nights decision of not obstruction was so e Helens it was unbelievable rubbish!!!

Cunningham has his say on the matter-

From the BBC web-site-

I think he picked on the wrong one there.

Wilkin one - Clearly not a try. Short initially then held up.
Quinlan one - Controversial, but a try for me. Roberts made no attempt to tackle Quinlan, misreading the play initially and choosing the accept the penalty rather than make the effort to go after Quinlan. The rules have changed this season, there has to be proof he was disadvantaged and if he wasn't attempting to make a tackle he can't have been. (Similar to how you now can't be given offside and within the 10 from a kick if no one attempts to catch the ball).
Percival one - The one Cunningham should be ranting about. That was an appalling decision. Sent up as a try, no proof on the footage shown of a knock on. Compare to the Ellis and Aichurch ones from previous weeks, almost identical groundings and a different decision given. Percival clearly has his little finger on the ball when it's on the floor, so if the other two are tries that has to be as well.

Another thing annoying me is the use of the replays when players are injured. Saints at 18-0 kicked wide and Solomona was clearly in touch, but it wasn't given by that old, blind touchy they still have doing shuttle runs up and down the line for some reason. Saints questioned it, ref ignores them and gives an incorrect decision. Cas then score off the resulting play. Later when Cas drop it and Greenwood drops on it, the ref gives play on, ball to Saints on Cas 40. The Cas played was injured in the tackle so Sky, for some reason, decided to show about 7 replays of the incident from every angle they had, as if they were reviewing a try decision. After about five or six the crowd gets restless and senses there may have been an imaginary knock on and starts abusing Thaler, he then decides to change the decision and give the ball to Cas. Again they score off it. That has happened to Saints several times this season. Injuries should not be used as an opportunity to re-referee the last few minutes to find some possible infringement. Sky shouldn't be allowed to show any replays live, other than the angles used by the video ref to decide on tries. If I was a player now and knew a bad call had gone against my side, I'd be laying down and pretending to be injured to get it re-refereed.

The video ref system is fine with a good ref on both ends. The problem comes when under pressure referees refer everything. They should clarify it by making the ref state why he's not given a decision and having the video ref confirm back with the interpretation given. E.g "Referring as possible obstruction" and "Try given as Roberts gives up and not attempting to tackle Quinlan".

But none of the issues with the system would be issues if the officials were of a high calibre. They are not.

The vid ref is used FAR too much.

If they've got a try on the field, ing give the try. They'd give it on a Sunday so have some balls on tele and give it then too.

It doesn't help when they don't give the right decision when referred up anyway neither. How can two qualified experienced top level refs give some of these decisions they're giving?

Sort it out!

hudds v cas the other week a hudds player tickled the ball over the try line with hus little finger yet after several replays a try was given..it was never a try but these clueless bafoons seem to think different..get shut of it

It's beginning to get on my thruppenys, now.

20 reruns of an incident
"Ohhhh...he's got a pinky on that"
"You can't go for a forward pass on VR" ...when you could, years ago
remember when you could pick fault with ANY play, in the set of six

Common sense has been lost from the game, as well as competent refs.

We're in a Catch 22 situation, with refs.
We have the big screen, to stop blatant cheating going on.
Years ago, bias and blatant cheating was rife from referees.
Today, we have incompetent refs, but we have the VR to help them out (some times).

I just wish the VR made decisions quicker. That hold up try, early on in the first, was pathetic. 20 views of the same incident, not one showing the ball making ANY CONTACT with in goal grass, and he's still dithering.

Refs make mistakes it's all part of sport. I don't believe any are truly bias. Video ref has gotten beyond a joke to the point of embarrassment for our sport.

I still say, keep the decision with the on-field ref. The "video ref" is there to merely shuffle the images (on the refs instructions) on the screen. The on-field ref is the one that knows what he thinks he did and didnt see. Let him make the call. How often do we hear "we have a try but can you check the grounding".......... and the video ref goes back 3-4 passes. He said "check the grounding"you muppet!!

If they cant says agree or disagree within 2-3 runs through, the evidence is not conclusive....... simples. Or at least it should be.

Brad Fittler on this week's footy show when asked what he was most disappointed with this season. He said the video refs. ...he reckons they need an over haul. He should watch ours..!!

I'm watching Fridays storm roosters game and the opening 2 tries both went straight to video ref. a simple winger in the corner try. ..Yes you guessed it can you check touchline and grounding. ...Both not even in question on the live images. .

And the second a prop under the sticks with bodies on him. ref thought he was short and awarded no try. On the live image the camera angle wasn't great. But the first video reply showed a clear simple put down. It also showed the ref stood right over him yet he sends it up as no try...It was correctly turned over as a try.

So the issue after all that wasn't actually the video refs themselves they got it spot on in one replay for the first and 2 for the second. ....

It was simply poor refereeing and an over reliance on the VR . ....It all needs sorting. ..

Of course there is an over reliance on the VR in Australia considering the refs over there get ten bucks from KFC for each referral they make. KFC sponsor the screen at games so its good exposure for them.