In tonights game it highlighted that refs havent got a clue if a try is a try or not. Some of the decisions baffled me watching on the t.v. tonight

I do get annoyed with the constant referral to the screen, it does make the referees look a bit clueless. I have always thought that a coaches challenge system would be quite good, say each coach is given 3 challenges which they can use if they want a try referring to the screen, would at least limit the number of times the video ref could be used.

Coaches challenge for the Griffin try would still be cancelled off because they aren't even applying the rules correctly.
Even Cummings said he (Ablett) was nowhere near the play so whatever minor interference would not have changed the outcome as was drawn to the dummy runner and too far away to do anything.
Running it at slo mo is just stupid anyway as that's not how it happens, it would clearly show Ablett would need to make 10 yards in 1.5 seconds from a standing start. Not even Ben Johnson doped to the gills could do that!
Even Ablett nor any (many?) Leeds players throw up their arms which is a sign even they didn't think it was obstruction.
Coaches challenge is fine in theory, the main problem is the decision making of the officials, in Australia that would not be chalked off and definitely not at the WC

Is it me or when we are on SKY do the majority of our scores get referred to the VR ....

I don't think it's any much more than most teams TBH.

What annoys me, is if Griffin was tackled a yard from the line, and then Washbrook dives over from acting half, they couldn't even go to the screen. Hicks deemed the play fine and even allowed the play to continue and then said it was a Try. In that situation he is kind of hoping that Hull score so it can be checked

I think the biggest problem with the current system is making ref's guess basically whether its a try or not.

Lets take the griffin no try for example. The ref had to give a decision at the time and called try, with no try given it makes them look inept and probably puts doubt into minds.

How easy would it be to say, "check this out for me, I have some concern about a crossing but the action was too spread to closely check - i'm happy with the grounding so just that"

I don't think how having the video ref should over complicate it when it should be used just to gain the right decision. yet as a sport we somehow manage too

Its a flawed system.They should do away with the referee giving try or no try on the field.
If the referee wants to refer the try to the video ref then thats what should happen with no influence on the video ref decision.
There should also be a 2 minute maximum time to make the decision.
last night we had nearly 15minutes extra time for video ref decisions.
We need the 2 referee system like in Australia it suits our style of play

No.There is too much referral for all Sky matches.The referees dont want to be shown to have made a mistake so simply refer most tries.

For me the video ref in SL has overall been a very good system however since the introduction of the on field ref giving Try/No Try before handing to the video ref just makes the whole system a mockery.

If the onfield ref is in any doubt and needs to ask the video ref to rule on it then they can not say Try or no Try as they do not know, they should simply hand it upstairs and let the video ref make the call as they did in the past.

Last night the try we had ruled out was in no way obstruction and was no different to Leeds try when they took out two of our defending players for Briscoe to score yet ours is ruled out and Leeds is fine.

I agree - get rid of the Try/No Try by the onfield ref - and the video referee can only check what has been asked for. For example, if there is a try from a kick, the referee could ask to check the challenge in the air - but then they always check onside/offside from the kick, and the grounding. Why???? He has only asked for 1 thing to be checked, hence, he is happy with the other bits. It just delays the game

This is the real problem at the end of the day. Not the VR system.

How on earth does Bentham, the VR, see that move as an obstruction?

Everyone who has commented, be that current players, ex players or pundits, saw nothing wrong with it.

The obstruction rule needs clearly defining and drumming into all refs until they fully understand it. Appreciate that is a big ask but something needs to happen.

Otherwise we coach our players how to run into the dummy runners and not be so honest (check how Washbrook runs around the back of the dummy runner for Briscoe`s try).

And remember. Without VR Briscoe would have had a hat trick because the try when he was in touch was actually given.

An obstruction should only be penalisable if it clearly stops the player from reaching the man with the ball which ablett had no chance of last night.

As for the VR, they're terrified of getting a call wrong because they're under close scrutiny whilst on TV and would come in for heavy criticism if they made an error.

The VR's in the world cup were impressive and took very few looks to decide on the try/no try decision. they should only have a couple of looks for me and if it's not clear the decision goes in favour of the attacking team. TV games last too long and the flow of the game goes

Probably not - just seems like it

And yet they still keep getting decisions wrong....