Judging by this thread i'd say the blind school

Should we start up a new sticky

The make PB Giant accountable for all reffing decisions thread

no try then as mcgillvary was pushing grix back past the try line

The issue i have is that we were told the Video Ref was there to help get the decision right.

Time and time again we see them give the wrong decision, more over it has created a two tier reffing structure - ie those teams that get the VR regularly, vs those that dont. The game is no no longer refereed to the same rules and criteria which surely is fundamentally wrong.

The solution? Either we need the VR at every game, but that is too expensive we are told, moreover they dont get it right anyway so the answer is to get rid of the VR.

And if you say thats a stupid idea, why is it the NFL got rid of their video referees after just a few seasons, citing the fact that they didnt improve the on field refs calls at all, and just caused more problems.

The NFL removed the video referees as the process in refering decisions to it was wrong - i.e. coach driven. Decisions were coming 30secs+ after the incident in come cases.

In terms of the VR in SL clubs were asked if they wanted a VR referee at each SL game and the answer by the clubs was a resounding no. The cost to have the system was too high for the clubs to pay (Think it worked out at approx £20,000 per season but dont quote me on this)

What you have to remember is the VR referee is led by the on field referee. So if a referee asks to check the grounding (which is ok) but the player is offside then the VR cannot adjudicate on the offside.

Steve Ganson asked the VR to see if the ball had been stripped - not if the player was held. By doing this the VR cannot adjudicate on whether or not Scott Grix is held. He can only adjudicate on the ball steal. As no video proof was available to 100% say Rangi Chase did strip the ball the VR was left with no option but to award the try.

Perhaps a way forward is to have a Rugby Union style of VR whereby the referee asks "Is there any reason why I cannot give this try?" This would allow the VR to look for more things to disallow a try.

Having said that should a VR be looking at ways to disallow a try or ways to give a try?

Or they could use common sense and point out to the ref something he may have missed or not spotted and have a word back in his ear before giving his decision on the big screen.

A scenario for you son

Player grounds ball in the corner correctly but has a foot in touch, missed by all on field officials, ref asks just to check the grounding and nothing else, does the VR award the try?

Or can he say you've missed the foot in touch?

To quote an RFL document:

"The use of the video referee at all times is field led. The video referee should only
give input after viewing a replay and should only give information on the tackle count
during live play. When the field referee calls for the assistance of the video referee to
judge on a try he should always state what tackle the attempted try occurred on"

So he gives the try then

It would never happen as the TJ role in this scenario is to soley monitor touch. The referee would have the grounding covered. What you would get is a TJ call of "check it". This would indicate to the referee he cannot be 100% on the touch call. The referee would have doubt on the grounding so would hand it to the VR and say "tackle ???. Check touch and grounding"

And if the TJ is adamant its ok but the ref is unsure on grounding?

The VR ref situation has become a joke cos they can only be led by "on field" guidance, as someone pointed out earlier, it should be given as "give me a reason not to award the try" and then he can look at everything leading up to the try, if that was the case Rangi's try wouldnt have been given, as it was, going by what he was asked to look at, it was a try.

Farcial

The referee has no say on Touch and cannot over-rule a TJ on touch.

If the TJ says its ok then you give the try and boll**k the TJ later

But should we be looking at reasons to disallow a try or reasons to give the try?

Can we not over analyise certain situations?

I can see both points to the arguement and dont know which side of the fence I sit on.

Didn't Buderus have a try ruled out because he was 'down stream' when this was never requested to be checked?