Didn’t we have this exact system in place years ago but they changed it because the decision making and review process was becoming long winded and extending games too long. Pretty sure that was the case.

Don't remember that Trojan, but my memory is a bit hit and miss nowadays.Would hope they were getting it right in that case,or we are stuffed either way.
Would sooner it took longer if it arrived at the correct decision.

Agree with all of the above comments, but the one that got me was when Newman was right in his face after the last St's try when Leeds had lost the plot completely, should have been yet another yellow or even red card for dissent but Grant just bottled it completely and sheepishly walked away

It's still the same Video ref makingvthe decision.
Personally I prefer this way. It took too long before and it took all the responsibility away from the ref so he just sent every try up.
If the video can't say for certain the ref is wrong, then he's right.

Hi Pops,if the VR just takes the ref out of the equation and gives his decision on the the balance of probabilities with what he sees, then I will be happy.

Unless he sees the balance of probability different to you?

Best fast session to me. No point having a ref if you aren't going to use him.
Use the VT when needed and if it takes longer than a minute, go with what the ref said.

Shouldn't that be if the ref gives it on the balance of probability you'd be happy, because he only gets one chance at it, whereby the video ref gets to see it from all angles and has a more informed view.
Maybe the systems flawed, 3 games tomorrow one game gets the video ref, the other two has to take they're chances with the ref in charge, which one would you prefer?

Hmm! Balance of probabilities wasn't the right words to express what I was trying to say, but I stand by my original post that the VR is quite often reluctant to overrule the ref when there is evidence to the contrary.Once again this is only my opinion.
PT -I wouldn't mind the VR taking more than a minute if it meant the right decision.
Chissitt -do you think Grace's try was legitimate?

The two people that matter did if that helps.
Grant sent a Leeds touchdown upstairs to the VR as a try, the VR overruled him and gave no try, fwiw the most important thing for me is that the correct decision is made, not how long it takes.

Fair enough Chissitt,i'll leave it at that, and if the VR gives his decision on exactly what he sees i'll be happy.

I stopped watching it after the Grace try, I thought it should have been pulled for obstruction earlier in the passage of play, then he goes and drops it over the line and still its a score.
I'm not sure how much of the refereeing vs the obvious fact the game was not going to be contested turned me off.
If I'm gonna pan the ref for the score, it would have been for the obstruction, I mean, if the ref ain't sure and the attacking team gets the benefit of the doubt, it has to go up like it did, then its a toss of the coin what the cameras can prove.

I thought it was a try. As the camera stopped, you could see Grace's fingers on the ball, just, so I don't think he ever lost control of it.

The system is better now, as I take the view that the referee makes the same decision as he would if it wasn't a TV game. I prefer the NRL system, where the bunker can look at it as the kicker lines up to take the conversion, as it stops all the waiting.

One thing I hate is the "rules by committee" speak. All this "video referee to match commissioner, I'm looking at a knock on, can I look at all available angles" nonsense they have to say. Twenty seconds have passed before anything happens, and then the blurb they have to say at the end. It has control-freak Ganson all over it. At least the "I have a decision" in the NRL has a bit of "ta-da" about it.