when the original trial took place it was costed at about £300,000 for the season and it was taken to the clubs who themselves decided that in the current financial climate that they didn't want the expense. The trial itself was successful and showed it could be done and work. It was down to the clubs to decide and no matter how much complaining Tony Smith does he knows this.

He also knows that a touch judge cannot chalk a try off. The job of the TJ is purely and simply to judge touch and goal kicks and "Advise" the ref nothing more than that.

If the RFL could get a deal with a production company to provide the equipment and crew, they could possibly recoup their money back via sponsorship with them as well as commission on better quality DVDs sold and possible sponsorship on internet highlights/replays (such as HullFC.tv, HullKR.tv, etc).

The front of the referees' shirts are still not sponsored either.

I like this idea lets tell the rfl

£50k x 13 home games is £650K not £6.5M

Did he mean six-figure number per club or altogether?

I went with £50k x 5 games x 26 rounds = £6.5m per season.

5 games rather than 7 because 2 are already covered by Sky, and 26 rounds rather than 27 because Magic Weekend is televised.

It would have been all together. The clubs wouldnt pay for the video refs, so why would he give the cost per club....i'm with you Wellsy

even sandy has said after talks about refs they should be video at every game see the mail

i think video refs are needed at every game otherwise it isn't a level playing field, even if its with less cameras at games a second look at 'dubious' tries is a must, i don't know the exact numbers but i would imagine Saints, Leeds, Wigan etc will have more games televised than say Salford, Widnes, Wakey etc. which theoretically gives the big teams an advantage too over the season. Dont need a big screen, as someone else said, a red and green light system or even just a word radio'd to the refs ear who could then signal whatever the decision is. I know cost is an issue but with some cameras at every game surely something could be done thats not too astronomical cost wise.

Robot refs, that's what we should have.

Honda could sponsor them and any back chat from players like that idiot Cross last week would result in a Chinese burn.

That'll learn 'em.

sandra you get dafter

And last night's game showed just how flawed his argument is.

When Saints 2nd "try" was chalked off for a knock-on, it was only one camera angle out of four that gave the evidence leading to disallowing the try. So using just the club camera would have offered no clearer indication of whether it should be a try or not.

As it stands the playing field is level, four teams each week know they'll have the advantage of numerous camera angles to decide on tries, ten teams will not. It's not the same four teams each week, so each gets a reasonable shout throughout the season.

If it's going to be introduced, then it should be done properly and most seem to agree that the extra expense that will be incurred is simply not worth the investment. To have four teams per week using multiple camera angles and ten teams using one is no improvement on what we have now.