I'm sure there has been talk on many other topics on this board about the inconsistent decisions of video refs, but thought it deserved a thread of it's own.

This weekend alone, there was the Mcguire try, which in my opinion one of the views showed a clear grounding, if not clear, at worst case scenario 'benefit of the doubt'. Then there was the Scott Donald pushed off the ball (very contentious, although the rule book probably just about backs the ref), and in the St's game, the last try that was blatantly off side.

It seems particularly over the past month or so that it is a complete lottery as to whether the try is given or not. I've lost count of the number of times I've been watching a sky game and been stunned by the decision that has come back from the VR.

With the benefit of the doubt ruling being put into place, I fail to see how they can get decisions wrong or even leave any sort of doubt.

To be fair, it's not only the VR decisions that seem to have no consistency or logic, there have been numerous disciplinary results that have raised an eyebrow.

Anybody else get this feeling whenever a try is passed up to the VR?

It was the correct call = NO TRY

It was also the correct result - a comfortable Leeds win.

Wanna bet?

Why do people keep babbling on about the mcguire try?

He didn't have full control when he grounded it. Some of those are given, some aren't. It's a 50/50 call.

But will people stop saying mcguire had a ''clear try'' ruled out because it wasn't clear.

It appeared clear enough that McGuire had his fingers wrapped around the ball when it hit the ground. It was the impact with the ground that caused the ball to run free after the 'try' was scored.

Perhaps the RFL should consider investing in a HD set-up.



There were St Helens players in front of the kicker. They stayed 10 meters away as the ball was allowed to bounce by the Hull KR defenders, at what point are the St Helens attackers allowed to rejoin the play? Do yhey have to stay outside the 10 until it's touched by a defender or until the kicker plays them onside?

If so, I agree they were offside and it was a terrible call by the video referee.

As a Bradford fan, I hope i am not upsetting anybody by simply being on this board



the Mcguire disallowed try was a poor decision. at no point did his hand lose contact with the ball, so it should have been a try.

the wonder try when he caught the kick should have been reviewed, but the ref just gave it on first view. Using sky plus, I looked at it and it was very close to whether Danny was onside when the ball was kicked. I could not believe that silverwood just gave it! On reflection, it would almost certainly still have been given, but it should have been checked.

the whole area of the video ref needs reviewing. Our sport led the way, but the inconsistencies are massive. I am not sure how they could do it.

perhaps a 30 second review period on every try on TV games. wher the VR has 30 seconds to look at the try and check things. if the onfield ref wants a review, then he gets longer, but every try is confirmed by the VR?

If some of the 50/50 decisions had gone the other way on SUnday, the bulls could have been 18-0 up at half time. However, even with only 2 fit bench players I think Leeds would have come and still won. It would have been much more of a spectacle for the viewers at the ground and on sky too. what could have been a classic ended up being a bit dull in the end. Roll on the playoffs and hopefully next time we play you, we can get some of our players back, as losing 3 players has a huge impact on us, whereas your squad can carry 5 injuries to some key players much better.

I felt that McGuire had his hand UNDER the ball when it was grounded.

Given the requirement for "downward pressure", the correct call was made IMO.

There was simply no way that he could apply any downward pressure from below the ball, even though it was still in/on his hand until he made contact with the floor.

Is downward pressure an actual requirement when the player is already in possession?

Genuine question.

The video referee both sides of the globe make some terrible calls. In this morning's State Of Origin a try was awarded when the ball clearly (in my view) straightened after contact with the hand of the tryscorer five meters out.

A sympathy decision perhaps as it turned out to be the final play of the game.

why can they not use the aussie system of referees call?

silverwood obviously saw something amiss with the push on donald and smiths dropping late on do referred both upstairs but in my opinion he should have had the balls to call them without asking alibert
mcguires disallowed effort will always fall into the 50/50 catagory where if its against your team you'd say he lost control but could convince yourself it was a clear grounding if you support leeds

after watching state of origin earlier today its worrying to know that even with 2 onfield refs and a video ref they can still get a decision wrong cos if nsw grounded the last try legally then i'm reading the rules all wrong

If the SOO is representative of the refereeing standards in the NRL it's not the only issue they need to look at. Instances of flopping on the tackler, passing from the ground after the tackle is complete, running into contact with a raised forearm/elbow, using the head as a lever to bring a player to ground, the grapple tackle were all missed (or simply ignored) by the officials.

On the other hand the play the ball was correct (under the current guidelines of an attempt with the foot being sufficient) 99% of the time and there was comparatively little messing about at the ruck.

I fully agree.

Even though I was rooting for NSW, if that was a try then you can clearly score whilst knocking on AND not having control of the ball (rolling over the line after it slipped through his grasp).

IMO, they should get rid of the "Benefit of the doubt" call.
If the ref has had enough doubt to send the call to the VR, then if he still can't decide it should be an automatic NO try.
There was doubt in the ref's opinion, so it should stand that any doubt on the part of the VR "confirms" the ref's suspicion.

I suspect that the only reason for giving the try if there is doubt is that the VR probably wouldn't be able to see enough to make an informed decision on either who gets the ball (attack/defence) or how the game should restart (scrum/penalty/10m ptb).

For that reason, they take the "easy" option of awarding the try.

It was a clear try. A wonder try as you admit.

Why check something that was a clear try as that?

Wastes time. Prolongs Dulls' defeat.

i heard phil clarke say before the game that the referees allowed a bit more during origin games but yesterdays reffing was a joke
if silverwood or ganson had been the ref in that game they would have worn out the whistle and sinbinned half the teams before half time
maybe they wanted to promote the biff element but using the head as a lever is banned cos of how dangerous it can be not cos it doesnt look good

as well as the last try looking dubious so was thaidays, all the video refs views were from the behind the goal cameras but once he had awarded the try they showed the angle from half way and it clearly showed inglis's arm knock the full backs arm away so allowing the ball steal and made it a clear penalty as the rules stand

There was a try given to Saints against Salford a couple of weeks ago (Scott Moore I think??) as a "benefit of the doubt" situation that, for me,was the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to video ref decisions. If that try can be given, then quite frankly anything can. Granted, given that the video ref was Ganson I shouldn't have ben too surprised, but from the camera angles given there was no evidence that the ball got anywhere near touching the ground, so surely benefit of the doubt should have been given to the defence? As for the last NSW try yesterday, allowing that was simply farcical!

He was loosing the ball. He had a very loose fingertip grip and the ball was coming free as it hit the ground. It's a 50/50.

Some referees will deem it's suffificent downward pressure, some will deem he doesn't have full control as he grounds it.

What it wasn't, was a ''clear try'' as some are suggesting.

If the same thing happened against leeds and the try was awarded, you'd get the same people on here claiming to award that try was a disgrace and he didn't have full control. They'd say it was a ''clear no try''.

The problem is alot of decisions come down to interpretation and will depend on who the video ref is. When decisions are down to interpretation you will get inconsustency. What is a no try to one ref, is benefit of the doubt and try to another.

I speak for no-one other than myself.

It matters not to me whether Leeds or the opposition stand to benefit from the ruling, I'll state my view of the incident on it's own merits.

IMO it was a clear try. McGuire had his fingers holding the ball all the way down to the ground where on impact it slipped away from his grasp and as that was after he had the neccessary control on grounding didn't prevent it being a try.

Do you still think Delaney caught the ball in line with where Sinfield released it?

Not sure why but SLTV has included the Bradford no try in the highlights but neither of the Leeds no trys in the second half- admission of guilt perhaps?

[size=50However there is a slow motion replay of the Sinfield pass to Delaney[/size

Theres an element of seperation between mcguires hands and the ball just before he grounds it. It does a small bobble on the ground because he's holding it sideways. It's not a clear try. Some will give it, some won't. But there's certainly doubt. IMO he doesn't have full control.

And it's an opinion you are entitled to hold.

What about the pass to Delaney now, is it still in line with where Sinfield released it as you stated on here the other day?

Can they not appoint one person with the sole job of video reffing every game? I'm not aware of an occasion where two games using video refs in England were being played at the same time. At least that way there would (or perhaps should would be more appropriate....) be a lot more consistency. With a different person being video ref every week we're bound to get inconsistency down to one person interpreting something differently to the next person.

That's a hobby-horse of mine, I've been asking the same question for the last few seasons.

The ideal appointment IMO would be Ian Smith. I rarely find his decisions anything but correct when he's in the role and that isn't a situation I find with any of the others on a consistent basis.

Of course Smith is also one of the 'magnificent seven' so it's unlikely to get off the ground until he's ready to hang up his whistle.

The other day delaney was level, but since then, he's decided to alter his position to about half a metre in front of sinfield.