This has become an absolute joke , half the time they are guessing , the decision goes upstairs and they stick with his decision when it is 95% clear that it should be reversed .

"and they stick with his decision when it is 95% clear that it should be reversed" ................ thats not an issue with the principal, its an issue with the video ref



To the viewer, "can we check the grounding" doesnt explain that what the ref might need to check is "was there pressure on the ball" or "did he lose contact".



I still have the idea of playing the video back on the TV screen, under the direction of the match referee, as only he knows what he's looking for/couldnt see, and let him still make the final call. (Backup rule, during the review period, any player who approaches the ref to "offer an opinion" is sin-binned)

Half the time they are guessing...... Which in a game without video is where the decision stops!

I don't have a problem with the ref making a call, I don't agree with that influencing the VR's decision.



I'd put a 2 minute time limit on the VR, if he can't decide in that time we go with the refs call.

The whole video ref situation is a farce, refs, one week are made to use the video ref and the next week play without one. It's just so amateurish.



Let's start playing the same rules for every team, either have a video ref at every game or scrap it all together, but don't have a league were teams are playing with different rules.



Is there any wonder that there's so much confusion?

Yeah lets scrap a rule that was brought in to close the gap in the difference of rules worldwide. Its great to have 3 different sets of rules... *sarcasm sign*

The silliest rule in the game, rather than sending it up as a try/no try why not let the video ref take a look at it and if he isn't certain send it back to the ref.

The whole thing is a farce. It's now basically used as a catch all for tries at big moments in games and whenever the ref panics a bit. Video refs shouldn't be allowed to send it upstairs to check everything, they often do with a 'can we check that?' shout. There was one in the Cas Leeds game a couple of weeks ago where he asked them to check the whole defensive line for obstructions. Either you've seen something and call it specifically or you haven't and you award the try. Otherwise there is simply no reason to have an on field official at all.

It's one of those things that you only see people whinging about when it goes against them.



Did not see, funnily enough, any Leeds fans complaining in the grand final when a "try" which had a knock on in the build up was sent upstairs as a try on the field. Strange that innit.

That Grand Final try would have been given under any variant of the video ref; you can't legislate for fans and commentators not knowing the rules though. The actual problem at present is the input of the initial guess from the on field ref. It simply shouldn't have any influence on the decision being made.



FWIW the complaint about one week having the video ref and the next not is utterly spurious as has been discussed many times.

Maybe so, but a different ref with a different interpretation could have easily sent it up as a no try.



I agree though, it's a flawed system at present; I struggle to think of a way of doing it that is infallible though.

Can't see the problem. Works fine for me.