Quote: tigertot "I was not questioning that, though I too would like clarity on whether he can or can't, I was questioning whether the poster thought it should be used.'"
Sorry, been off line.
I do think that it should be used. But the way it would be administered would need to be very cut and dry.
When the radio system first came out, many of the referee's would take the earpeice out as too much information was shouted by everyone. Now it is far better with touch judges only commenting using set terms and phrases, and this helps the clarity of what is being said. The video ref would need the same discipline and there should be a guideline perhaps that if play has gone on beyond the next ptb, it could/should not be called back, just placed on report. Otherwise we risk slowing the game down to a sereis of penalties and scrums.
I would like to see the video ref used to clarify each penalty or knock on and he would ONLY speak if he disagreed with the referee's decision.
This way, the ref would feel secure in that the major decisions are being checked on a continuous basis and unless he hears anything, he knows he was correct.
However, the perceived integrity of the whole system hinges on the RFL changing their usual stance and adopting an open and honest stance so that everyone can hear what is going on. The biggest hurdle to this at the moment in my opinion, is Mr Cummings. I think that his small minded approach sets himself on a pedestol as 'one whom must not be questioned' and until he goes, our game will suffer this type of debate every week.
Mr Cummings replacement??
Look no further than Karl Kirkpatrick. Now retired and still an active interest in the game. With the new remit of open honesty to work with, I think he could be perfect for the job.
