I wouldn't put money on that TBH. They will be VERY conscious not to seem biased by trying to level it up towards us.

I don't really have a problem with the Meli try, it was very tight and can understand why the ref / linesman got it wrong. They make a split second decision. if it had gone to a VR and been given then I would have a problem.



Watching the Sl show there were a couple of tries very similar to that one.

This for me compounds why video refs should be used at every game.



Making an apology after the event doesn't make up for it, at the end of the day its a fine line between making the Playoffs or even being relegated this season.

I agree in OZ don't they have video refs at every game but don't have the big screen at every game they have red and green lights I believe that would help

To be honest I'm sick of video refs. They are now looking for reasons to disallow tries that are really perfectly good tries, this was debated on this weeks Superleague show by both John Wilkin and Josh Hodgeson both said the obstruction rule is going to far now.



Stick with the ref in the middle, add an extra one maybe cos I can live with an interpretation taken real time far more than another Ganson type balls up.

100% agree with this. I can live with human error and as long as it's a level playing field it should balance itself out. Bentham made some poor calls last Saturday, but I never considered the Meli try as one of them (and I was stood right in front of it). You know every time they rule out a try for crossing, that it would have stood without a VR, that surely isn't good for the game.

Why? It's not like they always make the correct decision!

Or not at all!

Good post. Even worse now they have 2 of them.

The referee should make a decision in all cases but have the option to refer to the video ref who can only over rule in the event of clearly conclusive contrary evidence.



The video ref should then be allowed a maximum of 3 replays before it is concluded that any verdict from the video ref will be no less subjective than that of the referee and the original decision should stand.

Why the arbitrary three replays?



Possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read.



For every VR decision there'll be at least three camera angles, he get's to look at them all once or each one three times?



Let's have the technology but use it in such a way that makes us hamstrung.



The sort of logic I'd expect from someone who writes for "Kisser" magazine.

The best and only use of the technology would be shoot all the referees and video it so I can enjoy their demise over and over again from multiple angles in HD.



Then to spoil the whole experience on the 80th replay of Ganson's head exploding the RFL state he's actually alive and not even bother with the charade of declaring benefit of the doubt on the death certificate they announce him video ref for tomorrow.