Good post. I wondered if Moore could actually see the ball being grounded from where he was stood, which makes me think there should be another option for referees other than try, or no try. He could state that he's not sure and refer it to VR's call, who can then only give a try if they're in absolutely no doubt that a try has been scored.

I like the idea of a permanent video ref, for some consistency, but the problem with that is that games could no longer take place at the same time.

They've been doing this already on some nights this year. Just not for all 6 matches, We've had a central video ref in Media City (not the same one every week like I would prefer though) who gets a feed from all the different games, and refs it remotely. The only issue is that there can be a delay if two games need a decision at the same time.

Only Moore will know what he saw or more accurately (pun intended) what he thought he saw. Looking at some of the views on TV review Moore is on the far side of the potential grounding so I don't think he could see anything, I think it was a hunch.

IF there was a signal of Not Sure/No Idea I wonder what it would look like? A simple shrug has that air of 'couldn't care less' and there's enough arm waving from players protesting an infringement, I'd go with I'm a little teapot.

From the moment he (Moore) came running round for a better look I was convinced he guessed. Nothing since has changed my mind.

Why does the video ref have to be 100% certain? It just comes down to probability.

If someone is only 70% confident, but has seen the try scoring attempt multiple times, from multiple close-up angles and in slow motion, why would you then defer to someone who has seen it only once, from one angle, at a distance and in real time and with only a few seconds to make a decision?

Captains challenge is in for next season. BUT the nonsense of the try no try is still going to be here

I've been vehemently against this, but the furore around the try in the playoff has sort of put me off, because even without that rule, it'd have probably been given with benefit of the doubt.

There is no perfect system but I think I'd go with giving the ref. the option of try/no try/don't know. If he says try or no try/ ... the video ref. has to have have sufficient evidence to over-rule.
Whatever we do believe me it is better than the days without video when all sorts of awful decisions were made.

The game shouldn’t have a “I don’t know” call unless all games at all levels have the ability to review the call…
Or, SL becomes effectively a different sport than RL.

How does a ref in the championship or on a Sunday afternoon BARLA game get a decision when he calls “I don’t know”?

I'm afraid the game without cameras is a different game.
So it is reffed in a different way. I suppose lots of tries are given because "in all probability a try was scored" after consulting with the assistant refs or touch judges.
There is no perfect answer.

TBH I prefer the days of no video ref, yes you are right about shocking decisions made I have witnessed many over the years (Billy Thompson)but it was the talking point after the game. These days there is a lot more anger over decisions made by video refs because even though we can often see it he will go with the live call made by the on field ref.

You are right that there is no perfect answer but I would have at least preferred it if the video refs decision was a standalone and not driven by the on field decision. Let the video refs give is own decision.

March 13, 1983, quarter final

Warrington 4 Hull 10 (T: Phil Ford; DG: Eccles)

Attendance: 11,218

Referee Billy Thompson disallowed three tries.

That game was atrocious, crooked officiating in front of a bumper 11k crowd too.

I was right in front of one of the disallowed try’s and you are right crooked is the only word to describe it. But I would still rather do without video ref in its current format.

I had the pleasure of his company on a jolly boys day out at Elland Road for a GB test v Australia, the coach stopped to pick up a mystery guest en route at Ainsley Top on the M62, and it was him.

He was the half time speaker and was full of it on the journey. From memory, and I'm sure this won't come as a surprise he was quite unapologetic about his Yorkshire bias and his refereeing in general, a case of decisions being made based on meritocracy as he saw fit, with transgressions being let go if the victim was asking for it.

The good old days

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... es-9767295

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... es-9767295

Happy to see the clampdown on the play acting and attempts to get penalties

Absolutely. It was getting silly & needed action. 2 minutes missing game time should do the trick.

I don't understand the drop out thing.

There will be more teams trying to kick short drop outs (i.e just over 10m line). If it fails to reach the ten metre line all that happens is that the kicking team lose the ball rather than a penalty.

As was the case in NRL last year. It reduces the value of a good short kicking game significantly. It might increase Toby King's value immensely.

Not watched the NRL but I'd guess drop outs will suddenly become a contest with lots of collisions. Did that happen?

I'd say something like 60% of drop outs became short drop outs. Some very high with no angle but more out on either side to the centre area. Of those, I reckon about half were retained by the defending team. About 10% probably resulted in the tap to the attacking team.