Hull v Leigh

[Ipinwigan]

I am sure there must be a directive to the Video Refs not to undermine the Refs decision, unless it is blatantly obvious.

[WarriorWinger]

I actually thought on the review they were blatantly obvious that the first decision was incorrect, although in fairness to the ref, they could easily be missed by the rest but obvious when under scrutiny on the playback.

On the second with Briscoe, if he was not in touch why did the linesman put his flag up, he never moved his foot any further back from what I could tell than when he planted his foot, so why put the flag up, I think the VR bottled it on two occasions and the head of refs should review the process again and issue guidance to refs based on the footage.

[Wiganer Ted]

Trouble was it was clear as day that the ruling on Briscoe's foot on the line was just plain wrong. Briscoe clearly had his foot on the line at the point he caught the ball.
To then suggest that SKY's pictures were "inconclusive" gave the impression there was more at play than just a ruling on whether the Hull player caught the ball whilst in touch.
The more replays the more people lose faith in the process and Rugby League is the loser.

Let's hope they have better judgement in tonight's games.

[widdenoldboy]

I think the only bin was for Rapana if only for him tackling with both feet off the ground which can be dangerous.

[medlocke]

Trouble was it was clear as day that the ruling on Briscoe's foot on the line was just plain wrong. Briscoe clearly had his foot on the line at the point he caught the ball.
To then suggest that SKY's pictures were "inconclusive" gave the impression there was more at play than just a ruling on whether the Hull player caught the ball whilst in touch.
The more replays the more people lose faith in the process and Rugby League is the loser.

Let's hope they have better judgement in tonight's games.

they showed the divot where his boot had been and it wasn't on the line, commentators even commented on it being in the field of play

[moto748]

Or, maybe, we just do what they do in the NRL, where if the ref gives the try on the field, the VR is checking it anyway meanwhile, and if they see the need to indicate to the ref to re-check, they'll do so. At least, it saves some time.

I don’t watch the NRL anymore even though I get it with Sky Sports.

So what happens, the ref awards a try/no try, but asks the “bunker’, "check that last score". The teams carry on playing while someone else is checking the try?

If whoever is watching then decides "Hey that last score wasn’t a try Mate". Do they then, say 10 minutes later, "wipe that last score off"??

That doesn’t make sense to me! But then again I’m thick!

And that is one of the reasons I stopped watching the NRL, they keep coming up with some of these ideas & changing the game.

Everyone keeps saying it’s a simple game, but it gets more & more confusing.

Then we have the RFL …… oh & the disciplinary…..


It was a good game with both teams deservedly getting a point. But without the "golden point" extra time please. I don’t like it

Well, frankly, that doesn't make a lot of sense, Josie. You admit you don't watch the NRl, but then guess about how the system operates there? I can assure you the system works well in the NRL, and if you watched it yourself, you might well feel the same.

[moto748]

The point being, it is actually a reform that has speeded up the game a bit.

[josie andrews]

Or, maybe, we just do what they do in the NRL, where if the ref gives the try on the field, the VR is checking it anyway meanwhile, and if they see the need to indicate to the ref to re-check, they'll do so. At least, it saves some time.

I don’t watch the NRL anymore even though I get it with Sky Sports.

So what happens, the ref awards a try/no try, but asks the “bunker’, "check that last score". The teams carry on playing while someone else is checking the try?

If whoever is watching then decides "Hey that last score wasn’t a try Mate". Do they then, say 10 minutes later, "wipe that last score off"??

That doesn’t make sense to me! But then again I’m thick!

And that is one of the reasons I stopped watching the NRL, they keep coming up with some of these ideas & changing the game.

Everyone keeps saying it’s a simple game, but it gets more & more confusing.

Then we have the RFL …… oh & the disciplinary…..


It was a good game with both teams deservedly getting a point. But without the "golden point" extra time please. I don’t like it

Well, frankly, that doesn't make a lot of sense, Josie. You admit you don't watch the NRl, but then guess about how the system operates there? I can assure you the system works well in the NRL, and if you watched it yourself, you might well feel the same.

Well, as I said I’m thick!

[WarriorWinger]

I don’t watch the NRL anymore even though I get it with Sky Sports.

So what happens, the ref awards a try/no try, but asks the “bunker’, "check that last score". The teams carry on playing while someone else is checking the try?

If whoever is watching then decides "Hey that last score wasn’t a try Mate". Do they then, say 10 minutes later, "wipe that last score off"??

That doesn’t make sense to me! But then again I’m thick!

And that is one of the reasons I stopped watching the NRL, they keep coming up with some of these ideas & changing the game.

Everyone keeps saying it’s a simple game, but it gets more & more confusing.

Then we have the RFL …… oh & the disciplinary…..


It was a good game with both teams deservedly getting a point. But without the "golden point" extra time please. I don’t like it

Well, frankly, that doesn't make a lot of sense, Josie. You admit you don't watch the NRl, but then guess about how the system operates there? I can assure you the system works well in the NRL, and if you watched it yourself, you might well feel the same.

Well, as I said I’m thick!

It's not that Josie, I think it's just you are misunderstanding of when the VR reviews the try.

If the Ref awards a try then it is reviewed, if it is not awarded then there is no review of the potential try, it is only if the game is stopped for the try that the bunker reviews it and then tells the ref that it needs an official review as it could be in doubt, they don't carry on playing and bring it back once play has restarted.

[Mike]

I actually thought on the review they were blatantly obvious that the first decision was incorrect, although in fairness to the ref, they could easily be missed by the rest but obvious when under scrutiny on the playback.

On the second with Briscoe, if he was not in touch why did the linesman put his flag up, he never moved his foot any further back from what I could tell than when he planted his foot, so why put the flag up, I think the VR bottled it on two occasions and the head of refs should review the process again and issue guidance to refs based on the footage.

For the briscoe incident correct me if I'm wrong here. But if briscoes foot was on the line when he catches the ball it's a penalty for Hull on half way right, for putting the ball straight dead? So wasnt the point of the challenge that his foot *was* in touch when he caught it, vs catching first and then stepping into touch. The VR accepted that the refs call that the foot was in touch could not be disproven, and he had clear evidence that it was placed there before he caught the ball so surely the challenge is successful. I think the VR thought he was being asked to say that briscoes foot was not in touch, which isn't really what they were challenging?