If the ref is unsure then he should not be made to make a decision either way and hand it straight to the VT, scrap this finger tip control crap and get back to a full hand with downward pressure, then we don't have all the unsurety.

OK Wigan won convincingly, but what if it was a close game and that dodgy Try was the 78th minute match winner for either side? Very unfair rule and should be changed asap!

Write to HQ in Leeds.

Stop boring us with this thinly veiled pretence of yours.

How much does that gut you?

Are you a stalker? Reasonable debate this, join in or sod off with your childish drivel

Except it wasn't a dodgy try after all was it. It was a legitimate try within the rules of the game, the same rules which apply to every other team, the same rules which have allowed finger tip tries for other players, but shock horror let's change them now after a Wigan try.

And if the evidence shows it is/isn't then his guess is overridden. In your rule we would need a 3rd VR to prevent a tie, but only used when the ref hasn't given an unknown view to prevent another deadlock situation occuring.

No you miss the point. With the current rule the VR has to find conclusive evidence to overrule the on-field decision. It doesn't need a third ref at all. I am just saying that in some cases, rather than forcing the ref to guess when he really doesn't know, is wrong because it then biases the VR call.

Well said, i'm glad someone else is reading from the same page, its like pulling teeth with some folk on here

Clearly you have a special definition of the word dodgy. It was a try in accordance with the rules. Whether you brush your finger on it or slap your hand on it it's still worth 4 points. Lucky, yes. Dodgy, no.

How exactly? It's a simple majority rule, if more than 50% vote one way or the other the prevailing view holds. The VR have to be sure, through the evidence one way or another.

I think I would get more sense out of debating with a lamp post.

If you had read my previous post you would see that I had acknowledged that it was a try under the rules. That is not the issue. The issue is that there was absolutely no conclusive proof that he had touched the ball with his finger or any other part of his anatomy that mattered. The VR said so. Had that decision been against Wigan would you have been happy with the outcome?

None of which explains why the same system (more or less) seems to work pretty well in the NRL. but often seems to throw up these poor calls here.

I suppose the key is that this guff about "conclusive proof to overturn the on-field decision" does (or should that be ;should'?) have some wiggle room in it. After all, the VR is nearly always in the best position to judge, with slo-mos and multiple camera angles, compared to the ref's one quick look in real-time.

The ref has sent it upstairs cos he isn't sure. I don't see why the VR's decision should be hobbled by what the on-field official thought *might* have happened.