What I mean by that is that if the on field ref can not state with 100% conviction and award or deny a try himself, they send it to VR without any pre judgment. Then it is purely down to the VR to rule if it’s awarded or denied based on the evidence they have available.

Simply down to poor coaching mixed in with a lackadaisical approach and boys club attitude rather than a drive to better each season.
I’ll no doubt be hammered but Radford was a poor choice and Head coach for top level SL. Yes we won 2 back to back finals at Wembley but I firmly believe that was more down to the leaders and quality we had in the squad at the time. The failure to build from that is there for all to see along with the start of the decline once we lost and didn’t replace those leaders.

Just hoping Wigan do the business today. Better chance then of the Dobbins winning uck all.

The question remains though, how much evidence would the VR need? I suspect that the Burgess try may well have been chalked off by the VR based on balance of probabilities… but the ref sent it up as a try based on balance of probabilities from his viewpoint, which wasn’t the worst.

Aside from that specific example, if they go with ‘clear evidence’ there’ll be controversies when there’s deemed to be a lack of common sense, and if they go for more of a judgement call, there’ll be complaints about a lack of consistency. Yesterday highlighted a problem with the current system, but other systems have problems too.

If it helps you all get over it the words from Liam Moore was “ I saw the ball on the line and instantly up it was worth checking” they you go he was 3 foot away and had no hesitation. TV don’t show his view. Peace and love.

Joe Burgess conceded that he hadn`t scored a try in his post match interview on SKY TV.

A while back the VR system incorporated a 'benefit of doubt' call which effectively amounted to an 'educated guess' scenario in 50/50 calls. That system tended to provoke even greater howls of outrage from those on the receiving end of 'dodgy' calls.

The question surrounds the parameters of decision. What criteria has to be satisfied for a decision to be ratified one way or the other? If it becomes a case of there has to be complete evidence of a ball being grounded, that will most likely cause as many ructions as the current system does, with inconsistency and accusations of guesswork being floated around each week. This is especially true in cases such as last night where, unfortunately, the ball is shielded from camera view by a defender's leg at the precise moment of grounding.

I'm not sure any system is perfect here. Even if the VR rule is altered to 100% evidence = try awarded, 99% evidence = try disallowed, there will still almost certainly be any number of 'controversial' incidents, particularly around ball grounding which is always difficult to see due to the number of arms and legs in camera shot.

Leigh brining in their big game players for the semi. Asiata, Hardaker and Holmes all start

Knowing our luck Asiata will be sent off and get a four game ban.

He made a joke out of saying he’d definitely scored and then, more seriously, said the ball reached the ground but he didn’t know if it reached the line.

Hopefully we have about 8 pre season friendlies to chew up any bans

Impressive so far from Wigan.

I think this could get ugly for Leigh , they just been strangled with the ball and then stretched out wide without..

On this type of form nobody comes close to them

French toying with Leigh. Mental try.