Quote: i hate pies "I have just watched the game back and yes I am a warrington fan.
Now don't get me wrong, at no point on the video replays do I see the ball touch the line, however while going through the replays the commentators stated that Thaler said the ball ended up on the line.
Now they also said and I agree, there was no evidence to suggest a try and also no evidence to suggest a double movement. Taking this into account if it isn't a double movement and the referee says it's ended up on the line then maybe this gives some clarification as to the decision?'"
The ref will ask the VR to look at something specific. Did Ben Thaler
only ask for clarification of a double movement? If he did then he must have been sure the ball touched the line. It looks like in this case the ref thought the ball touched the line but was unsure about the double movement - once the VR was sure there was no double movement a try was awarded. Even then I believe the VR can overrule the ref and decide 'No Try' if video evidence shows it did not touch the line.
All in all a dog's breakfast and why IMO the VR should only be used when all the officials have had their view of events obstructed. They are closest to the action. Make a decision and get on with the game. If honest mistakes are made then so be it but it would be better than 5 mins of fannying around only to make a decision that is more contentious than it would have been if the ref gave it there and then. As I said before that's 5 mins of lost after match drinking time. Just think of how much drinking time that equates to over a season!
The only plus side I can see is that my liver hasn't suffered as much as it would have without the VR.
