I can see what you mean but, a lot of the Saints players were almost in front of the play of the ball at times, it was ridiculous.

Things like penalising the blind side when Catalans went open was pedantic though, and as said if that happened every time, we'd still be going.



Anyway, sounds a LOT of penalties in the Salford vs Warrington match (following it on Twitter) as well, including a sin binning, so it looks like it's this years riffing fad ...

That is illogical. Unless a VR is present the referee simply [iMUST[/i make a decision, with only the other on-field officials for assistance. What do you think the ref would do if there was no VR? Shrug his shoulders and say, "Fook me, I have no clue what that was", and halt the game?



In fact, the referee's job is, several thousand times a game, to make decisions. About everything. Every little thing. Making a decision is basing your decision on what you see and what you know. He isn't "guessing". He is simply saying "IF I WAS REFFING THIS GAME WITH NO VR, THEN I COULD NOT GIVE A TRY, BASED ON WHAT I SAW".



The new arrangement sensibly has it that, if the VR actually does see something which shows the try WAS scored then the VR awards the try. I know the hysterical Sky team like to say this is "overruling" the ref, but if you understand the process, it actually isn't. It is making a more informed decision armed with more complete information.



Of course it also does cover any case if a ref really did "guess" at a decision" but I don't see how that affects things, as no ref's call will be "overturned" unless it's clear it wouldn't be the right call.





No! If on video review there is no reason to say the ref was wrong, then why the hell should his judgement call not stand? There isn't and never has been any requirement that a ref must "have proof" that each and every ecision is conclusively correct with zero doubt. It has always been the case that the ref makes a call on what he sees and that is very often not much.





Once again, the ref is not "guessing". In this situation he is usually saying

"If there was no VR then I would award/not award that "try". As it is my job to make a decision. But I have doubts, and so given there IS a VR, I am asking them to have a closer look".





Indeed!

I like the 'NRL' system they're using now. Refs need to take responsibility. And, as noted, it sits better with the comparison with games where no video ref is available.

The new VR process is a joke, if the referee isn't sure he shouldn't just be made to guess just beacause they do it in the NRL.



We have already seen some strange VR decisions and we have only had 2 TV games

The current crop of refs may have their critics but surely one thing you can't accuse them of is not taking responsibility? I mean, the odd televised game apart, what have they been doing as professional referees week in week out for many years? None of them seem that shy to me

At a non televised game it is necessary for the ref to make the call one way or the other. At a televised game it isn't necessary, so it is without a doubt illogical to force him to do so. Sure, there will be times when he has little doubt, and I'm all for communication between the on field and off field officials to state their perception and surety of a call and thus improve decision making, but there will also be times when he genuinely doesn't know and will be forced to make a call for no other reason than" that's what he'd have to do if the VR wasn't here."

Say what you like about Bentham, he deserves a lot of credit for querying the quality of Greg Bird's moustache during the Four Nations Final!

Nope. He's a ref. Making calls is what he does. There's no "forcing" involved. He's the man in charge and his call is law. All he is now doing is announcing what his call is, just like he otherwise would, but allowing a review of his decision if he thinks there is sufficient doubt that he'd like it re-assessed with the benefit of video replays.



I think cases where the ref "genuinely doesn't know" (and nor do his assistants) would be rare indeed but in those circumstances he doesn't go home, scratching his arrse, he decides "no try". I don't know why you can't get your head around that simple point.

How did sport (and we aren't the only ones especially when you think of the DRS system in cricket) ever survive make it to the 21st century before technology came along to aid officials?



Especially baffling when the same officals manage to cope ok when Sky cameras aren't there.

I'd hazard a guess that TV coverage might have played a part

I thinks perhaps that you need to "get your head around" the fact that not everybody has the same opinion.





The new system is [iunnecessarily[/i restrictive. At a non-televised game (which you seem to think should provide the basis for how the referee conducts himself) he has no choice but to make a call regardless of how much doubt he has because he simply does not have the benefit of the VR. At a televised game he does, making it fatuous to use "what would he do if the VR wasn't there" as a basis for his available actions.