It would be a good idea if used correctly and not as much.

It came very low down to the pitch during play, it could be off putting for players and obstructs fans views. It should stay fairly hight above the field of play, instead of coming low down.

I must be the only one who liked the ref cam. It showed you exactly what was being said to the players and what they where saying back!

The spider cam on the other hand, annoyed me watching in the stadium and did nothing when watched back to tv :/

I thought both the camera systems were absolutely quality and in no way distracted me from what was a fabulous Sunday of Rugby League.

I work in TV, so it's nice to see the folks at Sky put some effort in to creating memorable television that is innovative.

I was in no way distracted by the presence of the Spider Cam because I was watching the players on the pitch - not constantly moaning about how it's whizzing 20-25ft over the action.

Brilliant idea and well executed.

i thought the camera was good gave a different dimension to the coverage however i have only recently got sky sports back and what certainly needs changing is Eddie and Stevo, they maybe pro RL, but there opinions are taking the coverage of the game backwards and at times is down right embarrassing

Spy camera was an interesting addition but it was overused.

Ref cam is quite good if used right. We don't need to see someone put the ball down totally unopposed, but if the ref has given a penalty for something then it's good to have some indication as to what he actually saw in order to give it.

ref cam used correctly, ie when he's boloxing a player, is good.

spider cam, like the roving overhead cam they use for GF is awful...you cant tell where abouts on the field the players are, and the angles distort things...camera on halfway is fine..its fixed, and thats the kind of view the people at the game get

Disagree with that I'm afraid.

I'm with you in that it didn't distract me from the game, but watching the 4 games on TV on Saturday, and then watching our game back some of the angles it offers are dreadful. When the ball goes out wide, it's not up to scratch, yet.

In that instance, I'm sure they now realise some of the angles don't work and there's only so much you can do with something of that nature. In order to know that however, you've actually got to get out there and use it and that's what I'm applauding.

They tried some innovative techniques, they nailed it when it comes to showing how expansive the play can be for example, but some other ideas will probably be scrapped for the future. I still think they did a good job - I'm a massive geek when it comes to camera technology and I love Rugby League, so personally it struck a chord.

I'm waiting for Sky to introduce the 'Moron Mike'.
Y'know, the studio microphone that automatically turns itself off when tweedledumb and tweedledumber spout their usual gob-excrement

With tweaking the spider cam could be good. Like someone said it needs to be used to gain experience and utilise it properly. The Ref cam I like the idea but thought they never used properly. In that it shown the players gobbing off to refs where it could show things from play from a refs POV. Some tries could be a brilliant from the ref cam and spider cam if shown in replays.

I liked Cummins on it gave an insite into refs and one instance springs to mind when Bailey knocked on with SOL underneath him, I was expecting a penalty to Leeds and if Cummins hadn't explained why it wasn't I'd have been baffled.

I would like to congratulate the Sky team bar from Eddie and Stevo for a profesional job they carried out. For those two cretins for the two days Bill Arthur and Co where stating that the refs had let a bit go to keep the action flowing. Then these two came on and started going on about the Ganson incident every two seconds (or it felt like) then calling for penalties left right and which wouldn't have been in any of the other games. It's about time these two left.