Video ref at Wigan v Catalan

[Appley bridge dragon]

Bearing in mind the video ref merely confirmed the referees initial decision and at one point could have awarded a try on a rediculous technicality it seems to me that it is now a complete waste of time. It removes all the spontaneity of the game and it is a much poorer spectacle.

[M j M]

They got all the decisions right and on one occasion overturned Thaler's call. I can't see how it failed to prove its worth in this game?

[Dunbar]

The Auckland Nines are showing us that if you just let the officials get on with it they will get the calls right the vast majority of the time. Of course the video ref will occasionally find something that the refs miss but I don't like the intrusion of technology into officiating sport.

Some people say that technology removes the controversy but a lot of calls are not exactly black and white (obstruction etc) and there are still differences of opinion after about a thousand viewings... take Ryan Halls try/no try in the last 4 Nations.

In my mind the game would be better for removing the video ref altogether.

[Chris22]

I'd keep the video referee, but only allow them to look at what is asked for by the referee. In Thursday's game for Kevin Penny's try, the video referee was asked to look at the onside, yet he checked the grounding too. Why? The referee didn't ask for this or need clarification!

[Mark S]

We need to get away from the video ref checking stuff in general play. Some teams, Leeds being the main culprits take advantage of this far too much.

[Teessidewire]

We need to get away from the video ref checking stuff in general play. Some teams, Leeds being the main culprits take advantage of this far too much.

Please tell me how any team can take advantage of the video ref checking stuff in general play. Seems like a ridiculous one eyed statement to me.

[Chris22]

Please tell me how any team can take advantage of the video ref checking stuff in general play. Seems like a ridiculous one eyed statement to me.

 

I'm not accusing any specific team of this, as many were guilty last year, but I agree that this did happen. Usually, a player would get a slightly high shot and not get a penalty. Then, the player would stay on the floor and feign injury, instead of playing the ball. The ref would stop the clock and Sky would show a replay, so that they can justify Stuart Cummings salary. The replay would show a marginally high shot and a penalty would be awarded.

 

Another instance would be if a knock on was awarded. A player would stay down and the physio would come on (always holding the head, regardless of where the injury was), to ensure the referee stops play. Because of the break in play, the decision would be forensically examined to see whether there was a ball steal.

 

Ironically, this backfired on St Helens last year against Castleford in June. We got the ball back after we had dropped out from our own sticks at a crucial point of the game. LMS decided to slowly play the ball to waste time, the ref stopped the clock and then overturned his decision following a consultation with the VR, and correctly awarded Castleford a penalty as LMS had taken out the Cas player who attempted to collect the ball. Cas kicked the 2 points, and won the game in the final seconds.

[Saint Toppy]

Bearing in mind the video ref merely confirmed the referees initial decision and at one point could have awarded a try on a rediculous technicality it seems to me that it is now a complete waste of time. It removes all the spontaneity of the game and it is a much poorer spectacle.

At least this is one occasions the VR saw sense and made the right decision and not awarded the try on a technicality.

The touch judge told Thaler it was a knock on. He then gave a No Try so it would have been ludicrous for the VR to overturn him when there was no evidence to do so. The ball clearly went forward so right decision made in the end.

[Amber Avenger]

I'd keep the video referee, but only allow them to look at what is asked for by the referee. In Thursday's game for Kevin Penny's try, the video referee was asked to look at the onside, yet he checked the grounding too. Why? The referee didn't ask for this or need clarification!

 

Doesn't the VR check the grounding of every try (if they believe everything else is in order)? As far as I'm aware this has happened for years.

[MikeFletchersBarmyArmy]

Why don't we incorporate something similar to Cricket?

The referees decision stands with teams allowed 2 appeals each for a decision in a game.

That will encourage teams to only appeal against something they believe the wrong call has been made, whether in attack or defence.

That would at least reduce the amount of times a video ref is used.

[Teessidewire]

I'm not accusing any specific team of this, as many were guilty last year, but I agree that this did happen. Usually, a player would get a slightly high shot and not get a penalty. Then, the player would stay on the floor and feign injury, instead of playing the ball. The ref would stop the clock and Sky would show a replay, so that they can justify Stuart Cummings salary. The replay would show a marginally high shot and a penalty would be awarded.

 

Another instance would be if a knock on was awarded. A player would stay down and the physio would come on (always holding the head, regardless of where the injury was), to ensure the referee stops play. Because of the break in play, the decision would be forensically examined to see whether there was a ball steal.

 

Ironically, this backfired on St Helens last year against Castleford in June. We got the ball back after we had dropped out from our own sticks at a crucial point of the game. LMS decided to slowly play the ball to waste time, the ref stopped the clock and then overturned his decision following a consultation with the VR, and correctly awarded Castleford a penalty as LMS had taken out the Cas player who attempted to collect the ball. Cas kicked the 2 points, and won the game in the final seconds.

Not sure what you've been watching but it wasn't RL on Sky. If anything is referred to the VR it is done by the ref on the field. It's nothing to do with Stuart Cummings or Sky.

[Odsal Outlaw]

Not sure what you've been watching but it wasn't RL on Sky. If anything is referred to the VR it is done by the ref on the field. It's nothing to do with Stuart Cummings or Sky.

Chris22 is right, if a player thinks he has received a high shot then he has two options, get up and play on, or stay down and feign injury. If he does the latter the video ref will review the challenge and and award a penalty if it was high. Happens in both SL and NRL, even if the ref doesn't refer it he will get a word in his ear piece from VR.

[LeeF]

Chris22 is right, if a player thinks he has received a high shot then he has two options, get up and play on, or stay down and feign injury. If he does the latter the video ref will review the challenge and and award a penalty if it was high. Happens in both SL and NRL, even if the ref doesn't refer it he will get a word in his ear piece from VR.

But a high ie head shot is a penalty

[LeeF]

Doesn't the VR check the grounding of every try (if they believe everything else is in order)? As far as I'm aware this has happened for years.

A ref can give a try without reference to VR but if it is referred to VR then they have to check the grounding

[Odsal Outlaw]

But a high ie head shot is a penalty

Agreed, but if a ref missed it then a player can fake an injury to get a penalty via referral to VR. I don't like this aspect of the game personally as it starts to go down a soccer route of play acting.

[M j M]

A ref can give a try without reference to VR but if it is referred to VR then they have to check the grounding

It's amazing that I can't find any coverage of this match on youtube but I think this followed on from an incident in the epic London-Canberra WCC game at the Stoop in '97 when a try was given by the video ref after checking something in backplay but when Sky rolled it on subsequently the player dropped it over the line.

[LeeF]

It's amazing that I can't find any coverage of this match on youtube but I think this followed on from an incident in the epic London-Canberra WCC game at the Stoop in '97 when a try was given by the video ref after checking something in backplay but when Sky rolled it on subsequently the player dropped it over the line.

Don't know the game but it was that type of incident that changed the rules

[Father Ted]

In this morning's trade press Stuart Cummings says that according to the rules Charnley's No Try should have been awarded.

The ref and VR are supposed to go by the rules.

[LeeF]

In this morning's trade press Stuart Cummings says that according to the rules Charnley's No Try should have been awarded.

The ref and VR are supposed to go by the rules.

Is that the "forward pass" / "knock on " one?

In he end the correct outcome was achieved as it was a forward pass so the try shouldn't have been awarded

[DavidM]

Nines were a joy to watch - making decisions , free flowing games , officials working together . Please let's go back to that !!

[Dave T]

In this morning's trade press Stuart Cummings says that according to the rules Charnley's No Try should have been awarded.

The ref and VR are supposed to go by the rules.

I suppose this is open to interpretation though. Whilst it was an attempted pass, it clearly wasn't controlled and there is absolutely an argument that he didn't get a pass out as he lost control and the ball came out as a knock on. I thought Cummings was particularly stubborn on that one and refusing to look at it another way. 

 

If the pass was controlled but went forward then I would agree with him, or had the player caught it on the full then of course the VR shouldn't comment, but the ball came out in a non-controlled way imho and hit the ground forwards. That is a knock on in my book, and I don;t think anybody should have a problem with it.

 

There was one other decision that baffled me in the Wire game at the weekend. It was the one where Russell was diving at the ball and somebody kicked it into his hands and they gave a knock on. When does that become a charge down? My understanding was that if the kicked ball was still rising and a play was made with the hands it is a charge down. Do the hands need to be raised or something? 

[Barry64]

Bearing in mind the video ref merely confirmed the referees initial decision and at one point could have awarded a try on a rediculous technicality it seems to me that it is now a complete waste of time. It removes all the spontaneity of the game and it is a much poorer spectacle.

I was at this game and it dragged on and on mainly because every 'try' was referred to the video ref.Three out of five were given but as far as I could see all five were clear cut.Games now take almost two hours.Ridiculous! Also the time taken for drop outs is bad.Added to the scenic walk from the station I spent two and a half hours .The second half started at ten past nine.Something needs to be done otherwise it will be like American football.

[LeeF]

I suppose this is open to interpretation though. Whilst it was an attempted pass, it clearly wasn't controlled and there is absolutely an argument that he didn't get a pass out as he lost control and the ball came out as a knock on. I thought Cummings was particularly stubborn on that one and refusing to look at it another way. 

 

If the pass was controlled but went forward then I would agree with him, or had the player caught it on the full then of course the VR shouldn't comment, but the ball came out in a non-controlled way imho and hit the ground forwards. That is a knock on in my book, and I don;t think anybody should have a problem with it.

 

There was one other decision that baffled me in the Wire game at the weekend. It was the one where Russell was diving at the ball and somebody kicked it into his hands and they gave a knock on. When does that become a charge down? My understanding was that if the kicked ball was still rising and a play was made with the hands it is a charge down. Do the hands need to be raised or something?

The key words are attempted pass hence why it wasn't a knock on

At the end of the day the correct decision, no try, was reached but by the wrong method

[Dave T]

The key words are attempted pass hence why it wasn't a knock on

At the end of the day the correct decision, no try, was reached but by the wrong method

do you have a definition that supports that? Unfortunately the rfl links on laws are poor and descriptions terrible.

There is a valid argument that he lost the ball while trying to get a pass out. I dont think it was classed as a pass as it was lost before he could pass.

[bobbruce]

The key words are attempted pass hence why it wasn't a knock on

At the end of the day the correct decision, no try, was reached but by the wrong method

So you've never seen a player knock on in an attempt to pass the ball?.