I've never liked this rule, and I like it even less now.

If the ref on the field has grounds to consider it a try, shouldn't he just award the try?

On the other hand, if he didn't see enough to award a try at the time, why hand it on to the video ref with an opinion that the try should probably be given?

It doesn't make sense. What he's in effect saying is: "I didn't see him score, and if you didn't see him score either, we should declare it a try anyway".

The video ref's role in disputed tries should be to step in if the on-field ref didn't see what happened. It should simply be: "I didn't see it ... have you got a better view?", and if no decision is possible, it's play on.

I wonder if this will change after last night? I don't think that is the first time this stupid rule has had a potentially very serious impact on an important game, but if I was a Wire fan today, I'd be apoplectic.

I agree

Whichever way it goes (current rule) or changed it will always be controversial as one team will feel agreived.

The current rule though is poor - from the replays last night Moore was not in a position where he could have definitevly called a try he was on the opposite side from the ball so I do not see how he could have sent it up as a try. If it is changed it should be ref call a try - end of, or it gets sent up as a no try or a not sure and the video ref makes the final call. Last nights was bad because it materially effected the result and with so much at stake was always going to cause controversy.

Will things change - doubt it, that would be a tacit admission that the current rule is wrong and the RFL would not admit to that.

Following that Joe Burgess interview you'd expect things to change. You'd be fuming if it was your team (although we've benefited on a similar this year with Wardle v Penrith).

That being said the first missed conversion by Thwellis was extremely poor and ended up being the reason they lost.

I remember the days of video refs spending 10minutes inspecting every frame of every angle available before watching every angle again. Absolutely infuriating.

The current rule throws up the odd shocker, but on the whole I prefer it to the old way

I don't know why it's a complex issue.

If neither of the two refs can be certain a try was scored, 'the try' is disallowed and play resumes.

I agree that any decision will be deemed tough on one side or the other, but that's competitive sport. Every refereeing decision puts someone on the back foot. At least, if neither ref saw a try being scored they can legitimately say "I can't award a try when I didn't see it".

That's what happened last night. They basically took Hull KR's word for it that they'd scored.

It feels totally wrong that you can be awarded points because you 'might have' scored, and then go off to Old Trafford on the back of that.

You could say the same argument the other way. If you scored a perfectly good try and the ref chalked it off because he hadn't got himself into a position to see it you'd be fuming. It's why we used to give benefit of the doubt to the attacking team

I know what the reason behind it is, but that doesn't make it right or even sensible.

I agree that's it's a no-win situation, and that someone will always lose, but on balance, I'd say that crowds are more used to seeing tries being disallowed - for forward passes, shepherds, off-sides etc (some of them very contentious) - than they are to seeing tries awarded that are not tries. So, they'd probably be more accepting of a 'no try - play on' rule.

I'd also suggest that if neither the on-field ref nor the video ref are able to tell whether it's a 'perfectly good try' or not, the vast majority of everyone else in the stadium will be in the same boat.

Hull KR might have felt aggrieved last night if that try had been chalked off, but seeing as they only had Joe Burgess's assurance that he'd scored, probably not for very long. Most likely, they'd just have got on with the game and mounted another attack. But as it was, instead of both teams remaining in the same position as before, Rovers were handed a game-changing advantage.

I just can't accept that a referee, who by his own admission didn't see what happened, is allowed to add "but it was probably a try".

Just send it up to the video ref like originally. No problem then. Simples

Just send it to the video ref to determine if the ball was legally grounded. If there is no video evidence that the ball was grounded then it’s no try, simple

Just let the referee make the decision and do away with the VR.

I like that even better

We have to have a system and whatever the system is there will be controversy.

For me, if the refs not sure sent it to the VR. Ref to indicate his thoughts of try or no try. Give the VR a set amount of time eg 2 mins to make a decision of most probable outcome, if the VR can’t decide on the balance of probability then go with the refs call.

Tbh, I really don’t think the decision is as egregious as is being made out, RL fans just really love whinging about the ref. It’s very debatable. You can’t see any kind of evidence either way from any angle about whether the ball was grounded or it wasn’t. It’s impossible to say. The ball definitely hits the ground short, then he rolls forward and then the ball ends up off the ground. It’s very very possible the ball touched the line during that sequence, which is all it has to do to be a try. Even under the old system, it was benefit of the doubt to the attacking team so the try would have been awarded.

I know everyone loves to hate on the on field call, but I remember the old system where everybody was saying the ref should be forced to do their job and make a call and see if the video ref can disprove them! It was brought in to stop the video ref taking forever to make decision. I shudder at the thought of how long that decision would have taken last night if the VR didn’t have a basis of “that’s a try so I’ve got to prove that wrong” to work from. There’s no angle to show proof of anything, so even without the on field call, the video ref would be guessing just as the on field ref was. Moore had the best view of it, so I’m assuming he at least thought he saw the ball grounded at one point and just wasn’t sure how it got there.

I’m not sure scrapping the refs call is the answer really. We’ve been there and it was just as bad and there were still many poor decisions. I’d suggest perhaps just lower the burden of proof. Instead of needing “definitive proof” to overturn the decision on field, perhaps just require “evidence that the decision was incorrect” or something like that. It will stop the most egregious ones where it’s obvious the ref is wrong but you can’t find an angle to definitively prove it

Dunno if I’ve made this up but when it was first introduced, I thought it was only used in the rare occasion where it was absolutely impossible to see what happened (people in the way, no camera angle etc)

All this needed obvious evidence to overturn it has ruined it.

The NRL do it best. Give 80% of the tries, the bunker will check and call it back while they are lining the kick up.

Or not give it and go straight to the screen.