Well given your stance in this thread at least something good has come out of it.





People just want consistency so everyone knows where they stand. The lack of consistency in interpretation is appalling at the moment and that is down to Cummins rather than the referees.

It wouldn't, but as that wasn't what I was saying it's an irrelevant point.



The VR should look at whatever it specifically is that has concerned the referee about a try. Not go through every single little thing leading up to it in case there was something he missed - which is very clearly what happened in the Catalan v Saints match, and has happened in Wigan matches. For Heaven's sake, at one time these idiots were allowed to go back three or four tackles - and that's what they used to do, until it became too embarrassing even for the RFL and was abolished.



By some folk's logic, we should video ref every moment of every game before deciding who the winner is, or failing that, all the other 'long plays' in case they too affected the outcome.



In any case, as the VR is only used in Sky matches, it can hardly be deemed that important a tool by the referees and their controller.

Nothing will happen until the chairmen & coaches collectively grow a pair & demand Cummings goes or bring in someone who knows what they're doing bangs the refs heads together & puts proper standards in place.

They're all scared of saying anything that could be interpreted as disrespectful or "bringing the game into disrepute", even when it's what everyone else is thinking.

The RFL board & refs make North Korea a progressive democracy in comparison.

I thought you were suggesting that VRs should [inot [/ilook at those transgressions when adjudicating tries. thee on who mentioned them you know..







So are you or are you not suggesting that VRs shouldn't look at the transgressions you listed?





And if it had transpired that Catalans had knocked on, why should they be awarded a try? (A paraphrase of my earlier question, you will notice.)





And that would be a strawman. Just because I don't think the VR should be as limited as you do doesn't mean I think it should be unlimited.







Are you really suggesting that the limited use of the VR is down to the referees and their controller based on their opinion of it's efficacy rather than an inability to fund it?

So your position is basically it's hard job, they'll never be perfect (but they're better than you lot would ever be), and even if they were perfect, you lot (who know nothing by the way) would still be moaning.



Thanks for your contribution.



This thread is about the lack of consistency from the head of referees to the interpretation of rules by officials on the day to the role of the VR who is only used for 2 games in each round. Originally I had high hopes for an improvement in ref standards when they became full-time - it hasn't happened though and for that I blame the man in the charge.

do you think the NRL refs have improved by the fact there are now 2 of them on the pitch

No, I wasn't. I was saying they shouldn't try to find anything they can to disallow. Which is what seems to happen on far too many occasions, the dummy runners for example, as on certain occasions that is stretching the notion of obstruction to near-absurdity. What direction was he going in? Let's slow it down even more to see if his body language suggests he had intent ... gimme a break.





They should, but only if those transgressions are specifically asked for by the referee.





They shouldn't. But that doesn't mean you should search high and low on ther off-chance they made any other infringement.





Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think for that matter, as the evidence thus far is that it's used fairly indiscriminately and quite inconsistently.





No, I guess it's down to funding, but however you spin it, it doesn't look good that it's used so extensively and pedantically in Sky matches - as if it's vitally important we 100% guraantee there was nothing the ref didn't see - and yet we can happily do without it for all the rest.

But why shouldn't they try to find anything that might disallow the try? Only tries should be awarded, right? It seems to come back to this notion that "try" should be the default position. As for the obstruction problem, it is one of interpretation, imo, caused by different VRs having their own personal ideas about what counts as obstruction. The solution isn't to instruct VRs not to look for obstruction but to instruct them all to look for the same thing.





And if the on-field referee misses something that the video referee sees? Why should he be compelled to ignore it in favour of awarding 4 points for a non-try?





I'm not convinced anybody "searches high and low for an infringement" as opposed to simply "looks for an infringement".





I wouldn't say it's used indiscriminately. I'd say it's used every time an on-field referee needs it because he can't be sure if a try has been scored. As for consistency, that's a refereeing issue rather than a video refereeing issue.





But you can't say it's down to funding and then say they happily do with out it. The fact that it isn't used across the board isn't some indication that referees or the RFL don't rate it, which that implies. If it's down to funding then they are making do without it [ibecause of funding[/i, not because they think it's poor, and would use it across the board if they could.

I’m sure you’d love to hold question-and-answer sessions ad infinitum, but attempting to pick holes in this argument by focusing purely on whichever last post I happened to make will not change the overall fact that the VR is over-used to the point of self-indulgence, in which respect it is a wider reflection of our current referees (and their controller’s) egoism and pedantry. Enough said.

The VR is asked to look at a particular "infirngement" offside, obstruction, foot in touch etc but sometimes they do go over board the Catalans last minute try against Saints for instance, it could end up with a RU type call to the VR "is there any reason I cannot award a try"

"it could end up with a RU type call to the VR "is there any reason I cannot award a try"



Yes, 5 play the balls earlier on the halfway line there was a bit of obstruction by the player who played the ball. he stepped 6 inches forward to prevent the marker making a tackle....pmsl..... Let's have a system more like in cricket.. the ref gives his decision and the team the decision goes against can refer it to the VR but have to state on what grounds... they can only make 2 wrong referals and that's it....lol

I wouln't let Wellens in charge of Saints referals! Does "flappy arms" ever believe a try is legit?

I'm not sure why you're getting your knickers in a twist mate, this forum doesn't exist for your views alone. I disagree with you. Get over it.



P.s. opinion ≠ fact

Performance comes from the top in any industry. A good boss will get the very best out of his/her staff, so don't be surprised that Cummings is first in line for criticism.