The RFL Are At It Again!!!!

[ancientnloyal]

With only 3 cameras would one presume a lot more 'benefit of the doubt' decisions? groundings, offsides, handling errors etc potentially will have 1 camera view...

nice idea but it needs a think through which no doubt the RFL will be doing in the trial stages

[Kittwazzer]

Aren't there only six full time referees?
If we are to have video refs at every game these six are going to be very busy. Unless of course contentious decisions that could decide the outcome of the match will be decided by refs who weren't deemed good enough to be offered a full time contract.

There are already some VRs that aren't referees - Kershaw for one.

I believe referees who are past the age for being on the pitch can serve as VRs. Kershaw must be into his 50's! Certainly Ian Ollerton was over 50 last time he was VR!

[GeoffN]

The main issue is the expense... the RFL need more money to employ more fulltime match officials, the ideal is a pool of 8 officials so there's competition for the 7 SL matches. The clubs, on the other hand, won't want to shoulder the expense as it takes away from what they can spend on things like youth development.

But they'd be saving, wouldn't they, Rob? One VR instead of two in-goal judges? Incidentally, it would also presumably be a help to the disciplinary, surely? I believe at present the club is responsible for providing a video of the game (if not televised) - but normally just one camera.

[gpartin]

What they need to do is get rid of the benefit of the doubt and hand it back to the ref to make the call. VR at non televised games is a good idea though I think.