In the World Cup in 2017, the referee and video referee communicated with each other. I recall in the England vs Australia group match, a call was handed to Thaler (as video ref).

He started considering possible interference on a chaser and the referee told him he was happy with it and to move on. I would like to see a similar approach in Super League.

If a video referee can't tell, or its debatable, I don't see why he couldn't just say to the ref, what did you see, how confident are you? The ref could then say whether he had a good view, or was unsighted.

At the moment, we have a situation where a call can go up as a no try, say on the basis of an obstruction, yet be disallowed because of a questionable grounding, when the referee didn't ask for that to be checked on the assumption of a "no try" on field call and sufficient evidence therefore being needed that the grounding was fine.

No. If the ref has sent it to the VR,then why send it back to the ref when he wasn't sure in the first place?

Agreed. If the on-field ref is unsure, and the VR is unsure, it should be No Try. And lets have none of this BOTD rubbish; the principle should be, both for on-field and video ref, "If you can't see it, you can't give it".

Do not misunderstand me. When I say BOTD I am talking about calls like the Hardaker and Broncos no try and by extension the England v Aus of a few years back where the argument is was there enough downward pressure. Anything else would have been an easy yes or no. I agree that you cannot give a grounding that you cannot see but once again that is easier if the game is televised and I hate to see different rules for televised matches.

But you're making the assumption that the ref sends it up as a try/no try because he has seen enough to make a reasoned decision. Under those circumstances I would agree that it's fine. Unfortunately, under the present system, he has to make a decision even if he hasn't the first clue! The onus on the video ref is then then to confirm this guess unless the evidence is overwhelming the other way. As I say, that is no way to arrive at the correct decision (and after all, that is the supposed purpose of ANY system of this type).

How many times per round could you say "if that had gone up as a try it would have been given" (or vice versa)? In fact how many times PER GAME can you say it? Barely a match goes by where this isn't the case. This alone tells you the system is flawed.

The ref has to make a decision on every potential try with or without a VR, countless tries are scored where the ball is not visable to the ref and even the VR, but the ref has to make a call based on what he believes, the VR is just an extra official to help make the right decision, just like when he consults a TJ