Well, it must be.



After the VR debacles we've had to endure for years, I lived in hope that they would have put some effort into getting better decision making and then - the very first game, a blatant ball held up by great defence, yet the VR awards a try. It didn't thankfully matter a lot, and that's the saving grace but really - if they can't get the right call still in such a basic and obvious scenario, then I'm afraid the game ain't worth the candle. Either permanently sack anyone making such an Olympic Gold Class clanger permanently from the VR job, or let's just abandon the VR as a great idea, but staffed by too many half-blind loose cannons. It is no good for the game for this shambolic catalogue of embarassing mistakes to continue.

Time to abandon the VR? No. IMO that's an idiotic suggestion. It may still have errors, but the amount of *correct decisions* is clearly going to be higher with the VR than it is without it.

Hopefully that will be the case over the course of the season but so far in 2010 it's 1-0 in favour of the headscratchers.



Personally I've always favoured a full-time video referee to try and (hopefully) bring some consistency into the decision making. I'd go as far as to suggest Stuart Cummings taking on the role himself.

How about an appeal system similar to that in Cricket?



At games where the video ref would usually be used teams would be allowed 2 appeals each, where they can challenge the call of the on field referee in a try scoring/saving situation - the video ref would then review the footage and either agree with the original decision of the on field ref, or overturn the decision if the video evidence suggested the original call was incorrect. If video footage is inconclusive the original decision of the on field referee should stand.

That and the rules for the NRL's All Star Game, we really are turning this sport into gridiron.

I think they have to stop using it to try and find a way to give something different that people expect them to. I think they are a bit caught up in the whole RFL media and Sky portrayal that it adds to the spectacle.



It just seems that they look for things that aren't there. The Ali try late on was never a try, there wasn't a single angle anywhere at any time during that incident where the ball hit the floor. Ali's reaction (After celebrating to try and kid the ref into not using the video) was honest enough, they lined up for the tap. That in my eyes is enough to not give it. I just don't know what they were thinking. The ball was grounded on the leg of the player and then someone else came in with both hands under the ball. The match ref told the video ref, who basically ignored the video footage and the referees call and came up with something totally different.



With touchie stood a metre away it should never have been referred. But then again touch judges do nothing in rugby league, they don't get involved in the slightest bit other than marking the 10.



It all comes back to the point though that match officials in rugby league are there purely because they've put their hand up. They aren't high calibre people, just geeks who didn't have the skill to play the sport so chose to interfere with it through officiating.



Another way to go with the video ref, other than the referal system which is a good idea, is to have 3 video refs. Two neutral former players and a referee. Sat in separate areas and giving the decisions independently of each other. Majority wins.

A lot of players don't have the skills to play the sport either!



They interfere with the game with their presence and rule breaking.



Just accept that it's the players who don't play to the rules most of the time that cause the match officials to "interfere" and that the match officials don't "interfere" unless the players mess up!

With touchie stood a metre away it should never have been referred. But then again touch judges do nothing in rugby league, they don't get involved in the slightest bit other than marking the 10.





THEY DO NOT EVEN DO THIS WITH ANY CLARITY.

Or with interactive TV now perhaps sky could ask the viewer to press the red button if they think a try has been scored, a time limit of 30 seconds could be set and after that period a graphic showing the results flashes up on the big screen.

I like it.

Not sure if it was a try? Lets ask the audience!

The system itself is sound.



It's the monkey pushing the buttons that is the problem.

beat me to it.