Give them full control of the camera angles they have available and allow them 90 (id prefer 60) seconds to review. After that, back to the ref

The video ref should only be used if the ref is unsighted and can’t see that tge ball has been grounded or if he has reasonable doubt that the ball was grounded correctly. Anything leading up to the grounding should be for the three officials on the pitch to control, they is what they are there to do.

The worry with a time limit is that another camera angle might come up 'just' after the time limit has elapsed which goes against the decision completely.  The decision is given and Sky show the new camera angle a dozen times on the big screen.


I dont know what the answer is, but it just all seems so much slicker in the NRL.

At the very least, there should be a time limit on the VR. In the NRL too, although they are usually quicker.

I don't understand what has happened to slow the whole process up. I'm trying to recall a controversial incident, where they made a wrong call too quickly but I'm struggling. That sort of incident could lead to this but nothing is jumping out. Only a couple of years ago the commentators seemed to be laughing about how they thought the VR's were having a competition to make the quickest decision.


I'd go to the NRL model personally. It would help the nervy refs like Jack Smith (and anyone reffing Wigan and having to send up everyone of our potential trys) and speed things up in the main. 

Is it because now they're having to talk through their decisions to a live audience? So they're trying to not say anything wrong as well and explain their process to everyone.


I agree that there should be a limit, but that should be when all camera angles have been seen (in slow and fast motion if needed). There really is no reason to look at one angle multiple times.

Yep. One minute time limit if after which time they haven't decided, the on pitch refs decision stands. I know this would mean things like Miski's try at Hull wouldn't have been awarded, but it would be fair for all teams involved to know this is the time limit, and the impact it would have on the game as a spectacle would be improved. 


If a team is still unhappy after the minute has elapsed they can use their captains challenge.


Which is another thing, captains challenge is good in theory but in practice its yet more time for the video refs to look at 27 versions of the same angle. This is adding to the hour long halves. 

They just don't seem to have the courage to make a quick decision. It makes me think Bentham is a hard task master behind the scenes because something has changed. In the NRL the captains challenge is so much quicker. The VR has a very quick look and unless it clearly an error on the refs part, they just seem to move on. Our guys have look after look at issues and from various angles. I didn't like the captains challenge when we used it in the last World Cup, especially when you're in the stadium and have no idea what is going on and was disappointed to see it brought in and it's not changed my mind so far. 

If we want to make a real change to the system as a whole, why not just make the on field ref give trys or don't give them and allow both captains a challenge or 2 challenges each, to use on whatever they see fit. That way we're not going up for anything and everything, the captains won't waste challenges on nothing decisions and if you think you're team has scored and it's been turned down or you think the opposition hasn't scored but it's been given, you can look to challenge them. It would be similar to the system in cricket with LBW decisions or decisions on batsmen having edged the ball or not. 

I like that idea, NK, but you're asking for what, wisdom, now, from the RFL?

I'm sure between the production team and the VR they could easily speed things up as a starting point.  

The amount of times the VR will say play that through slowly and they rewind 30 seconds, go through again at full speed, have to go back again etc.    

Then they ask for a better angle and they go for the worst angle possible, then Sky show the angle where it clearly shows what happened  - after the decision has been made.     


It's just poor from SKY - as is the majority of their production.     



The one aspect I thought worked well was the post game analysis with a player  - and they dropped that a few years ago....  

I think a big part of the difference is that the NRL just don't tolerate criticism of refereeing the way we do. I think they actually go too far in trying to limit what players, coaches and the media can comment on but it does help the refs. Here, the referees know Sky will go over every decision ad infinitum, sometimes banging on about decisions for the whole match. It's no surprise to me if they're a bit over-cautious.