They are ruining the game at the moment The London try was never a try in a million years . Season ticket holders are not turning up because of stupid kick off days and times Tonights crowd was more like 8,000 than 9,901! i'm glad Eddie has gone. the only positive thing is my stopwatch said 85 minutes and 30 seconds in total rather than over 100 minutes in some games in the past! So they are not stopping the clock every 2 minutes!

Did you go?

The video ref nearly always sides with the ref if he had said no try like he did with Hardaker it would not have been given.

Tough to see properly from the South Stand but as the ref had given a try on the field, I felt that call was the correct one. It looked like he’d got the slightest bit of downward pressure with his wrist and it wasn’t 100% clear he hadn’t.

On a separate note we’ve really pi*sed the refs off this year. We’ve been pummelled most weeks and couldn’t even catch many breaks against a side bottom of the league, with even less go forward than us (somehow) and who’d come with a plan to slow the game down.

I suppose if you show as little enthusiasm for the game as we did then that’s your reward.

As always, it's the glaring lack of consistency. Last week Hardaker's slight/accidental/just about/maybe-maybe not 'downward pressure' was deemed no try. Yet this week, when London did it, it was deemed a try. Pathetic stuff.

I'm also sick of this 'try on the field' rubbish. If the ref didn't see it, why is he allowed an influential opinion? It should be a simple case of 'I didn't see it, what does the camera tell us'.

We're going through the darkest era of refereeing that I can remember, and I remember the age of Lindop, Thompson and Eric Clay, so that's saying something.

The refs call is awful. If he has doubts he shouldn’t be guessing. Just say ‘check that I wasn’t sure’ and that’s that!

Absolutely. The fact you are sending it to the VR means you are unsure so let them use all of the technology at their disposal to get it right (as they do in RU) rather than try to disprove this that or the other. If there are no definitive angles or no actual evidence either way then by all means send it back to the referee for his decision but that is very few and far between.

The ref should send it up to the video if he isn't sure, but he shouldn't send it up with the words "I've got a try" or "I've got no try" if he sends it to the video ref then it is down to them then to make the call and the ref is out of the equation. If the video ref can see the ball being grounded (with downward pressure) then its a try simple, but the key is downward pressure and not if the little pinky grazed it. If the video ref can't see the ball or his view is completely obscured then it goes down to the ref who then makes the try/ no try call.
The decision of try / no try shouldn't be made before the video ref has had chance to review it

Worst rule currently in the game. Guessing has no place in modern sport. In fact we may as well get rid of the video ref altogether if its main purpose is to confirm a guess made by someone who clearly doesn't know what they saw. Totally bizarre rule.

I always preferred the idea of benefit of the doubt. Extended to both the London try yesterday and Hardakers non try against Cas, just assume that it is a try, send it upstairs if there is doubt and if it is not clearly no try then just get on with it. In both cases a try would have been awarded.

In the absence of a video ref though most of the tries scored in those circumstances are guesses by the referee, whether he guesses a try or no try, so by getting rid of them you are only going back to a best guess

I thought it was a try and I thought last weeks was a try with Hardaker. Both decisions have affectively been given off the refs hunch which imo should have no bearing on the decision as he clearly isn’t sure as he’s sent it to the video ref.

In my opinion the idea of giving the ref the try no try on field is to put the emphasis on who is controlling the game, ultimately if the VR can't make a definitive decision then it has to go to what the ref thinks, and in the current set up the ref gives that decision before rather than after the VR looks at it so technically it is the same outcome

I don't agree.

The current setup means that the VR's decision is not only swayed by the ref (who obviously didn't see it clearly), but that the decision has already been made, barring 100% proof that it was wrong.

This offers zero "benefit of the doubt", but also, the VR is reluctant to overturn the on-field ref's decision without overwhelming evidence (and sometimes, not even then).

I have always been of the opinion that if he didn't see it, he shouldn't offer an opinion on it.

The VR should be the sole arbiter of any "unknown" calls, with benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.

So basically, back to what we had a few years back.

See Tony Clubb at Wembley.

The BOD rule used to annoy me in the fact that if you can't see that a try has been scored then you can't give a try IMO. David Solomona at Bradford on half time in the playoffs being an example that LUCKILY didn't effect the result of the game. 4 or 5 angles and not one shows the ball being grounded but we were punished for outstanding defence.

The RU model is the one to follow for me. The referee sends it up, watches on the screen discussing it with the VR and then they come to a decision.