Please stop the guessing game

Agree with everything you've said. What makes the 2 disallowed tries worse is that Clarke basically contradicted himself. The first one, Stanley, was given a NO TRY by the on field ref. On replay it looked like a Try and everyone thought it was, but he disallowed it on the 'Not Conclusive" excuse. The 2nd Try, Lafai, was given a TRY by the on field ref. On replay it looked like a Try once again but this time Clarke somehow found enough eviidence to overturn the decision on that one.. it was 100% conclusive apparently. There is no way he could be 100% conclusive to overturn and disallow the Lafai Try when he wasn't 100% conclusive on the first one, which looked a lot more conclusive to everyone sitting at home. It's not a mistake, it's blatant cheating, and these new rules give the refs more discretion. They can choose whether to apply it or not. The very next night he gave an identical Try to Guerra just to prove my point even more. Clarke has always been a cheat. Also in the Dogs/Panthers game was the Panthers Try from offside, what was the go with that? Anyone with eyes could see him in front of the kicker, there was clearly more distance to the 10m line. I'm not even sure what loophole Clarke tried to use here, was it "not conclusive" again? Lol it's ridiculous. I originally thought these new rules would be better because we have refs making more decisions on the spot, more responsibility. But in reality they don't have any more responsibility and it gives them discretion and more room to cheat. Most of the time the on field ref has no idea anyway, they look at the player who scored and judge from their reaction, if they are sending it upstairs it's because they don't know.

Mike I think the apt comparison would be the holden cup where this has been implemented. I don't think captains challenge is such a bad idea, but proper measures would need to be put in place to make sure it doesn't become a stop start affair with every decision challenged.

I agree with you about the guessing game. I have never liked the system of calling it and then sending it upstairs. It takes all of the excitement out of it for me. At least when they just sent it straight upstairs previously you would be on the edge of your seat. Now you get a little excited when they call it, and then a little excited when the video Ref agrees. But it's not the same, especially when you are at the game. It deprives you of that edge of your seat feeling - which is sports greatest feeling. Secondly cricket is a bad example IMO because there isn't much going on. It's like 3 things they have to look at and they have technology to do it for them. Snicko and such. I wonder if there is some sort of paint that could be applied to the ball and lines that would only show up under a special filter applied by the video ref at the time of checking that would make it easier? There's a million dollar idea sports bra gps company. And thirdly I think that the NFL is where we need to look on this one. They have a war room or bunker or whatever it's called, but basically all of the video decisions are made by the same group of people in a central facility so there is continuity. The room is set up with multiple TV's etc. So that they can get the best picture possible. And fourthly, if only there was some way to get a clearer picture. It is almost as if the cameras that the broadcaster uses are old technology that don't offer a clear view of what is happening. Hmmm, don't know if there is any solution to that one.

It doesn't matter anymore League is dying as a game. I have never seen so little interest in it as I have this year. Very sad indeed. Channel Nine have well and truly made this a TV game which no one attends ( spectators). I hear no one talk about it anymore no one cares - RIP RL.

I wonder what sort of arrangement they have with KFC and the advertising space on the big screen when ruling on "TRY' or "NO TRY" Do they charge a flat rate but guarantee x amount of video decisions or do they charge per video decision? Are referees encouraged to go upstairs x amount of times?

What makes the 2 disallowed Try's worse is that Steve Clarke basically contradicted himself. The first one was given a No Try by the on field ref, but on replay it looked like a Try for all money, everyone thought it was, but he decided not to give it on the "Not 100% conclusive" excuse. Then the next one, the Lafai one, was given a Try by the on field ref, but in that instance Clarke was somehow 100% conclusive to overturn it. (And then decided not to the very next night with the Guerra Try) There is not a hope in hell for him to be 100% conclusive and disallow the Lafai Try (considering everyone thought it was a Try anyway) when he wasn't 100% conclusive on the first one, which looked a lot more conclusive to everyone sitting at home. You can't say that it's a mistake, it's blatant cheating and these new rules give the refs more discretion. They can choose whether to apply it or not. To make matters worse, Panthers later score from an offside position which is clearly visible to anyone with eyes. The player was in front of kicker, clearly more distance from the 10m line than the kicker. I'm not even sure what loophole Clarke tried to use in that situation, was it not conclusive again? Lol it's ridiculous. And I'm annoyed at Des too, where's the passion? Take off the leash. I'd prefer him to carry on like he did at Manly than not say anything at all, ever. Fire up Des! I originally thought the new rules would be better because you have refs making decisions on the spot but it's created more room for them to cheat. It's also a guessing game most of the time by the on field refs, half the time they look at the players reaction to judge. If they are sending it upstairs it's because they don't know.

Eventually they will use sensors implanted within the ball / ground to determine whether the ball has touched the ground for a try or touched the line. Players will have addressable microchips too so the video ref can determine whose hand grounded a ball. TV coverage will include Infra-red images and real-time frequency analysis of on-field acoustic reverberation to assist in adjudicating all types of infringements. Player's jerseys will be equipped with angular momentum sensors to determine if a player attempted to use his arms or committed an illegal shoulder charge. Exciting stuff - its what the fans want.

I don't understand why they don't zoom in so all you see is the ball and the line or the ball and the ground and strategically place cameras so you can get a better angle.

All due respect to the author but what is suggested here sounds a hell of a lot like how the system was before it was tweaked, and the old system was producing far more headscratchers and complaints than we get these days. Bad calls are not just a part of our game but they are a part of sport, doesn't mean we shouldn't try and minimise them but we can't expect perfection either. That would be an unfair expectation on our part. We used to have it so that the ref would just refer to the video without giving an opinion, at which point the video ref became the sole decision maker. If the video ref felt that the video was inconclusive, he would award benefit of the doubt. This is pretty much the system that the author proposes we have, but it wasn't working largely due to the whole 'benefit of the doubt' aspect. "He shouldn’t have to work off a guess by the two men in the middle, he shouldn’t be bound by benefit of the doubt, it should come down to common sense." The referees are no longer bound by benefit of the doubt, it was done away with when the tweaks were made. They also aren't working off a guess from the man in the middle when you think about it, it is an educated opinion based on four sets of eyes (2 refs, 2 touchys), at which point the video ref is able to make their own interpretation. They aren't bound, because if the video is conclusive it won't matter what call the on-field ref makes. Benefit of the doubt in "rare instance(s)" (there is no such thing as rare when it comes to benefit of the doubt in rugby league) is horrible because it will always leave a sour taste in some fans mouths. BOTD will leave fans of the attacking team happy, but it will ALWAYS leave fans of the defenders sour because they can forever say 'it wasn't conclusive'. By letting the man in the middle make a call and then letting the video ref make one, we do away with BOTD and instead we 1) put onus on the man in the middle to make a call, something they were heavily criticised for not doing in the old system, and 2) it means that unsurety is not always rewarded with 4-6 points to the attackers EVERY SINGLE TIME a conclusive call can't be made. Tries are far too valuable to be handing out every time we aren't sure. THink about Origin as an examle where quite often there is no more than a try between the 2 teams at the end of the 80. BOTD creates too much of grey area. What is 'good enough' for you may not be good enough for me and vice versa. I know the author will probably argue that he says there should be no benefit of the doubt, but that is precisely what he is arguing for by saying that "if it looks like a try, it's a try". We want to rule on whether IT IS or ISN'T a try, not just on whether it 'looks' like one. Looks like a try is the same as "good enough" which is essentially BOTD. The refereeing problems that do exist (that imo are much more mild than they used to be) are due to consistency of calls, not the system. The system is better now, it is the consistency that still needs to improve. Most complaints these days boil down to 'they called it one way last week but differently this week', the days of 'OMG how the hell did they award that a try?!?!?' are largely gone thanks to completely doing away with BOTD. I personally haven't felt that a ref has decided a game in quite a while, I used to feel it every other week before the changes came in. Things are fine, there will still be times where we don't always agree with the refs but that will forever be the case in any sport. Happens in NFL, happens in Cricket, it doesn't matter what refeering system we have it will still happen from time to time, we need to just accept that and move on rather than always dwelling on it.

I agree with Barry. I hate waiting 10 minutes while they watch 6 different replays in super slow mo over and over again. It really kills the game. Just watch it in normal time and only in the event that the referee is obstructed or there is some obvious contention.

I'd be happy if the referee just made a decision and then every decision was reviewed by the video ref, but once only at normal speed. If the referee had made some obvious error reverse the decision. If it needs 10 looks to decide whether he is right or wrong, bad luck, stick with the decision made. The interminable replays suck the life out of the game and we don't end up with decisions that everyone agrees with anyway.

You must be joking. Have you watched any cricket since the introduction of the DRS (Decision Review System). Referrals and Challenges slow down the game. The current NRL system is fine the way it is - the on-field ref calls it the way he sees it and it is not simply a guess. Then, the video ref only intervenes if he believes that the on-field decision must be reversed. What we need to do ASAP is stop captains (and senior players) whinging and whining every 2 minutes for what they perceive to be a bad decision. Bad decisions tend to even out over the course of a match.

The use it in the U20's already. It has shown that it works at that level, can't see why it shouldn't move up to the next level.

The captain's challenge is a great idea and needs to be implemented expeditiously. It would also stop captains crying, whingeing and complaining to the on-field referee whenever they think a wrong decision has been made. I think another thing which has to be introduced is the timeout. 1 per half for each team but if you challenge incorrectly then you lose the timeout. Finally, having the 10 minute warning (like it's 2 minute counterpart in the NFL) could be an option so that in the final ten minutes, all potential tries are automatically sent up to the video ref. If we're going to borrow the challenge from the NFL we might as take its timeouts as well.

Captains challenge eh? I am at this stage assuming that this concept arises from the coaches challenge in the NFL, and I believe it is a viable idea. However, in the NFL, if the decision goes against the challenger they are penalised, therefore eliminating the hothead response that is seen so often in passionate NRL Captain/ players. They are also limited in challenges. If there is no penalty applicable or if the number of challenges is not limited in our NRL , then the usual suspects will challenge as automatically as they draw breath, stuffing up the game further. Gentlemen, I throw the idea open to those more knowledgeable than I am.

Just want consistency in the Video Ref box. How is it that Lafai's try can be ruled no try yet last night, the same video ref can overule an onfield decision to award Aiden Guerra a try? I agree get rid of the guessing game but there needs to be consistency.