Do refs and touchies really have problems with their eyesight?

There's no flaw Mushi, refs often make calls because they receive instructions like letting the game flow and that can mean letting go a pass that travels two metres forward, ignoring an incorrect play the ball, etc. As I said below, we'd still have guys scoring tries who were yards offside from kicks, until they bunker decided it could adjudicate. Suddenly that part of the game has cleaned up considerably. What's the difference?

You're first question's a good one. This would only be used, (at least initially), where a howler decision has led to either a change of possession or a try within a set of 6 tackles. The video replay official would be able to call it, and the on-field officials could also ask for it, but I can't imagine that happening too often. You're right the NFL doesn't use this technology, but that's not the fault of the technology, only an unwillingness to embrace change. One final thought. Tries that are scored from kicks are almost always referred to the video ref and the first thing that person checks is players being onside. That came about because of the howlers, with guys often being yards offside, but still being awarded tries. This has cleaned up that part of game almost overnight. Why is what I'm suggesting any different?

I might nmot have been clear Grey Hand, but the example I was talking about was in an after game show, not in the actual game. I don't know if it would work in the NRL or not because nobody's tried to use it, not even in trial games. The only issue is how long it would take, every time it was called to be used, but again, I think it would only be for really bad calls and there aren't a lot of those in most games

hi Barry, I have no issue with “it all balances out in the end” view point if ALL rules were being refereed. The Doggies game last week was a perfect example where the whistle was put away about ruck infringements. I can't see how there could be any balance, not only in that particular game but across that round, where the rule was more strictly enforced. The point of this piece was to identify a really poor decision ( in this case a non-decision about a forward pass) and suggest refs & touch judges in particular were missing things right under their eyes. More to the point, we now have digital technology that could be used to determine clear howlers without taking a lot of time. I have no issue with 50/50 calls, because that's part & parcel of Rugby League and I hope it doesn't change. Really bad decisions are costing sides games and I'd rather they took a minute or two to use 21st century technology, than come out on Monday morning with an apologetic statement from the refs boss saying they'd made a mistake - again.

even more laughable are those who can't write a comment without insulting the author.

hi Mushi, all I want is to eliminate the howlers. 50:50 calls about a lot of decisions is part and parcel of this sport, the same as they are in nearly every other sport and that's the way it should be, IMO. A howler is a decision where even the most rusted on opposition support could agree it was wrong, assuming they were a reasonable person and not completely one eyed. I watched some American football after game shows last season and they used EXACTLY the same tape, enhanced it using 3D technology and were able to manipulate the angles. In one instance, they wanted to see if a lateral pass, one which MUST go backwards, did so and they clearly showed that it did, even though it appeared that it didn't. This technology is obviously available in Australia, it's just a shame the powers that be won't even trial it. Or even reconsider a captains challenge.