The RFL Are At It Again!!!!

[turf]

Taken from www.bbc.co.uk/rugbyleague:

The use of a video referee will be trialled at a non-televised match this weekend for the first time.

At present, only matches screened live have replays but cameras will cover the Hull KR v Hull derby on Sunday.

There have been regular calls for a video referee to be available at all games in the interests of fairness.

"We will review the success before deciding whether it is practical to introduce it full-time," said the Rugby Football League's Stuart Cummings.

"For supporters in the crowd it will be like a TV game but without the big screen broadcasting the decision and is similar to what we already do in France for televised Catalans Dragons games."

The only two non-televised Super League matches to have had video referees were at this year's Millennium Magic weekend event in Cardiff.

A normal live television match is covered by 12 cameras but Sunday's trial will feature three - one on the gantry at halfway and one behind each goal.

St Helens coach Daniel Anderson called for the widespread use of replays after his side lost to Huddersfield back in March, while Hull KR coach Justin Morgan joined the debate after the 24-18 Challenge Cup quarter-final defeat by eventual winners St Helens in June.

Rovers had two tries disallowed in the first half that might have been given if the match had been televised, as two of the four ties that weekend were.

"I will live with the decisions but it was a good advert for video referees at all games," said Morgan after the game.

Another initiative from the RFL that won't work?!?!

As was said on another thread the other day, why can't the authorities leave our game alone??

[mikey-warriors]

i think its a good idea tbh beacause it will prove that it is a try if they send it up to some 1 and then we wont complain.

[KOOCH]

i think its a good idea tbh beacause it will prove that it is a try if they send it up to some 1 and then we wont complain.

In theory Mikey it should work.But have you taken into account of the two bent ba****d's ie Ashley Klown and bung that bung up mi jumper Ganson?Should work but won't work until people like these are either taken outside and shot or strung up from the highest branch.Mind you saying that,Ganson would probably pay to have a blind man take aim.And gor someone to have sawn through the branch.keep smiling turf we love you mate.

[cpwigan]

Either all or none at all seems better to me so I am not against this trial. However, I hate the way the VR slows the game up and I never want to experience another Ganson.

[KOOCH]

Either all or none at all seems better to me so I am not against this trial. However, I hate the way the VR slows the game up and I never want to experience another Ganson.

Yes i agree with the principle cpw.I can see the benefits it could bring and the fact that some refs would prefer to go straight to vr rather than make a judgment call that would upset either set of fans.However,do we really need the likes of ganson making a name for himself via the marathon decision of the other week.Can you imagine several of these contentious calls?because i can.Often after a match it takes me an hour and a half returning home up the m6.I have visions of returning home on a regular basis gone midnight.Not a happy travel at times i can assure you. :conf:

[cpwigan]

In principle Kooch I would rather not bother with the VR for the reasons you outline. VRs still make mistakes IMo so I would rather just accept a referee making the mistakes and getting on with the game.

[MrDave]

It would be annoying for the fans to know the ref is using the video referee but with no idea what the video referee is looking at, at least with the screen you can see what the video referee is looking at.

When the screen isn't there fans just go off what they saw in real time as does the referee.

[Shaun1967]

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.

[GeoffN]

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.

[robjoenz]

It would be annoying for the fans to know the ref is using the video referee but with no idea what the video referee is looking at, at least with the screen you can see what the video referee is looking at.

When the screen isn't there fans just go off what they saw in real time as does the referee.

That's how it works on Thursday night National League games


Don't think 3 cameras is enough personally, it may be useful for calls on obstruction, they're often difficult to call in real time if they're not blatently obvious.

However, for tries in the corner where you're checking touch / touch in-goal and the grounding a single camera behind the sticks isn't going to be that useful, it's often the camera in the corner that gives the best view (when there's ample lighting that is lol)

Interestinly, I think the officials will have to go with referee's call if there's only three cameras as I think there's a high chance the video's not going to be any use.

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.