Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"I just get the feeling that we are starting to loose our way a little with video ref's and the consistency of decisions both across one game and games that do and do not have a video ref.'"
I don't believe that is anything new though, rather just a by product of having video refs in the first place.
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"The Hall take is a great case in point. I tell you what I think, I think the reason that he looked at the McGuire incident is because Wigan touched the ball down. If that ball had run dead or he had taken it but just not managed to get over the line with the ball he would never have asked the Video to look. He would just have re-started play as appropriate. Because, later Hall did take the ball and got seemingly up-ended in similar circumstance, but did not put the ball down or get the ball away for a score he does not look. Surely that is wrong, he should look as it was in the similar circumstance, it was just the final outcome that was different?'"
The referee was possibly inconsistent between the two incidents although I'd have to review the Hall incident before commenting further. It's always been the case that the video referee will find offences the match day referee may let slide by without his involvement. Again that's the nature of the beast.
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"Actually, I don't think he is wrong with the other Hall incident, I think he is completely wrong with the McGuire incident and he should never have asked the video to look for the reason stated above. The ref is being inconsistent in asking the video ref... if he then does not ask elsewhere!'"
The video referee (I don't believe) is restricted by what the match referee asks him to check for and it's perfectly possible the video referee in this case would have called the tackle in the air either way.
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"We were told that the idea of the video was to confirm a ref's doubt to whether a try had been legally scored and the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. However, Bentham ask Smith to look at four things...I don't think this is right, because in actual fact he is asking the video ref to confirm it was not a try, not that it was... if you get me!'"
The question should be 'Try or no try' and leave the video referee to check the play in it's entirety. A foot motioned but not touching the ball at the PTB is still OK for me if that is how the game has been conducted by the on field official.
Quote ="Inflatable_Armadillo"If we are heading down that route then the video ref has to watch the entire play right from the last play the ball to the score, and confirm a try or no try. I don't want that to happen, so in that case do we need to be more strict about the video? I would suggest that the video ref always checks the grounding, whether asked or not for obvious reasons and that he is always ref allowed to ask for off-side on-side, again for obvious reasons, but he is only allowed to then ask the video for ONE other item of doubt in his mind. I suspect most of the decisions that video ref's make fall into this 'rule' by default but the McGuire one did not!'"
Sorry but some of this makes no sense to me. There could be several questionable instances to check on and they shouldn't be limited in any way from doing so. Getting the decision correct is what matters here not the number of incidents asked to rule on in a single play.
