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.

That is exactly the point I'm making. If it's a guess either way then the video ref is superfluous. Either give them the remit to properly use the tools at their disposal or get rid altogether and at least have the benefit of speeding the game up. To do neither is "rearranging the deckchairs."

At least we are closer to all playing under the same rules though than it being dependent on whether you are on TV or not

But in some instances it will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt if it was or wasn't a try so if we have the technology why not use it, if the VR is not sure then surely the decision has to go to the onfield ref which he has already given his opinion in advance

We do have the technology and we should use it.... correctly. Unfortunately we don't. Neither is the case that if the video ref is unsure it goes back to the ref. Again, that would be the correct way to use it but unfortunately we don't do that either. Instead we do the exact opposite by having the ref give his decision then challenge the video ref to overturn it with the proviso that "we don't really want you to contradict the on field decision anyway". Bizarre!

As it stands it's there to support the ref's decision unless there is sufficient evidence to overturn it. The problem is, as with all phrases of this nature, the word sufficient is open to interpretation. The wording (at least according to how we currently implement it) should be 'overwhelming' rather than 'sufficient'.

The phrase 'it went up as a try therefore it will be given' or similar has now become a part of the rugby league vernacular. So much so that people such as yourself think it isn't open to question. Yet common sense tells us that that is no way to arrive at a impartial decision. By its very nature it is already going to the video ref with a bias one way or the other. It defies, not only logic, but the very reason d'etre for introducing the video ref in the first place.

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.

Hang on, though; surely what people are advocating here is the system we used to have, where the ref didn't have to make a call on-field, and could send it straight to the VR. And then the complaint was that we got too many VR calls, slowing up the game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the formulation they use in RU seems the best compromise to me; we should use that. Either "Any reason I can't award the try?" or "Try or no try?"

Exactly this.

But I do think it is open to question, the ref says I think it is a try or no try he asks the VR to confirm, if he has sufficient evidence to overturn it he does, if not then the ref call stands, which makes it more fair on the non televised games, as they can only rely on the onfield decision

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