There endeth the lesson.

Absoulutely disgraceful.

Check your PM's

It's not a case of whether he should or not it's the fact he's not allowed to and has been reprimanded for it in the past already.

Thanks

Replied.

Now I don't think it is disgraceful. I think this is exactly what a VR should do. Let play move on and let him look at it. If it's a penalty then pull play back.

I do think we need clarification on it though. As far as I was aware the above use of the VR has never been made public.

Its use has been denied in public.

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.

Are you implying all games are fixed, or just the ones with video refs ?

You've got me there, unique for a Lanc, but what have I acknowleged? That the ref's decision is based on the evidence & severity of the incident, not that another player slapped another player last season? Raynor was rightly SO & banned for that foul, using VR evidence. I argued strongly at the time, against similar paranoia, on the Bulls board that the officials got it spot on. The inconsistancies (sic) are from the myopic Pie eyed.

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.

The next post I have to delete for either goading or taking the bait will find the poster taking a break. Grow up.

Agree, but what happens if there is an awful incident in back play that the VR picks up but the game has gone on 2 tackles? Are fans going to be happy in that knowledge?



I disagree for the reason you state in your last sentence above.

I know that people will always take sides and silly things get written, but lets not stoop.....and that means everyone.

I am a Wigan supporter, and a fans of Rugby League. I want our game to flourish and grow and it is only through this type of open debate that the powers at RFL or club level can pick up on what is going on within the game.

Now lets all play fair and be freinds

I am glad in a way that you do disagree. This is why it needs to be discussed at every level.
That is my take on it, from listening to the intercoms for quite some time. If anyone on here or the RFL can tweak the rules to suit the game better, then so be it.

Good luck everyone....................