As far as I am concerned they should get rid of the video ref for everything except the act of putting the ball down for a try. Anything else let the three guys watching the game decide.

I dont see why the VR isnt treated the same as the touch judges.

For some reason there seems to be an attitude where the VR is treated like the ultimate arbiter of a decision, whereas the touch judges just offer advice.
The VR should be treated the same, we should allow the VR to advise on anything they wanted and allow the referee to do whatever they want with that advice.

Then it becomes a training issue, with the controller of refs making sure the VR knows the limits of the certainty of the advice a VR can give in forward pass situations.

I still think the video referee is the best possible use of the red button feature ever. "Press red to vote TRY, press blue to vote no try". Would be brilliant, interactive and thoroughly innovative.

With the added bonus Wigan & Leeds would never get a try awarded via video ref too?

Because

Offside is judged on the absolute position of the players on relation to the pitch.

Forward passes are judged on the direction of travel of the ball relative to the player making the pass, who is likely to be in motion themselves, not the pitch. TV footage from a fixed camera angle, or any number of them, will not only be unreliable, but positively misleading.

I knew it wasn't forward. Can all the Hull fans wind their necks in now please?

Remember when we used to have a crane mounted camera at every televised game?

Anyway, using the pitch markings, you can see the point at which Player A releases the ball, Player B's position when Player A relases the ball, the point at which Player B receives the ball, and Player A's position when Player B receives the ball. It cannot be that difficult to infer the relative motion of the ball from all of that data.

ETA: Sky overlay graphics on the pitch LIVE, that rather sucessfully appear static as the camera moves (teams badges, SL logo, 5th tackle indicator etc). It cannot be beyond the wit of man to translate that system to track player's relative position in playback.

Some sort of super accurate tracking chip could be inserted into the ball, have 4 or 8 or whatever sensors evenly spread around the ground (most of us have slightly less complicated versions of this tech in our mobile phones these days for christs sake) overlay said tracking data onto a virtual model of the pitch, note the position which its passed etc etc. many teams also use GPS tracking vests now aswell, make it mandatory and along with ball tracking you have all the data you need for super accurate forward pass judgements. you can even download software capable of this online for free. I use a similair but less elaborate system myself for Exercise performance analysis using a £50 hand held HD camera, and aBasic sports performance motion tracking software (which was a free download) surely the RFL could sort this at relatively small cost? it would lay all of this rest.

As mentioned by others, it's because of the difference in the rules. Run forward with the ball, drop the ball behind you, the ball will still have travelled further up the pitch from where you released it despite it being released backward.

It's an interesting one about the VR being able to judge for offside from a forward pass. Technically the VR should be able adjudicate on that now as it is an offside decision in the same way the VR can adjudicate on offside from kicks or knock ons, although I don't think there are actually that many cases where the receiver is in front of the passer anyway.

I'm sort of tempted by the proposal to only allow the VR to look at the grounding as it does my head when you can see an on-field ref kopping out of making a decision or even worse actually making one by waving play-on and then going back to check. Perfect example was in the Bradford v Leeds game where IIRC the ball was stolen from Peacock by a Bradford player and Bradford passed it out and went in to score. The ref waved play on but then went back to check the incident. If I was Mick Potter I'd have been screaming at my team to get tackled and not score on that play, as of they did and then scored on the next play, the ref wouldn't have been able to check it.
However it would also be silly if the VR could obviously see an infringement that was missed by the on-field ref, and not be able to take it into account.

To be honest I just think we need a second ref to look after the ruck and free up the primary ref to focus on other things, alongside better TJ's.

If they can't use the video referee for forward passes, how can Eddie and Stevo tell us what was and what wasn't forward?

What would happen would be a modified version of American Football. A player eg a winger, stood some distance from a passer, could run from an onside position and catch a long looped pass thrown round arm and be 20m ahead of the passer when they collected the ball

They can't. But like everything else they can't do, that doesn't stop them.

The ball's position, or direction of travel, in relation to the pitch is irrelevant.

The position or direction of travel of the ball in relation to fixed points on the itch is irrelevant

For probably the 20th time on these boards, there are some great videos on YouTube that explain, very clearly, why the position of the ball in relation to the pitch is irrelevant.

There's the old classic: "Rugby Union "Forward Pass" video"
...or an updated version: "Total Rugby - Forward Pass"

It doesn't have to hit the ground to be offside.
If youu catch the ball but drop it forward and I catch it in front of you, I'm off side.

That's effectively what they rules against Cas.

If we can't use video footage to determine a forward pass then how does a referee manage it (occasionally)? I understand they are taught to watch the passer's hands & initial trajectory of the ball. Is it not possible to look at this via video footage?

It's the modern-day equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein Question. As Lord Palmerston said:



I*'ll leave you to work out which one of those is Stevo.

Of course it's possible to judge forward passes,referee's do this all the time?,isn't it better to ask the video ref to have a quick look to make sure?,if he can't decide the decision goes with the attacking side,any way it will come in the end.

That's how I see it. All the talk following Hull KR's dodgy try was of Ganson's position and an unsighted touch judge, so why not use the technology available?

It's still a judgement call, whether on the spot or via VR. And I'd suggest it's far easier to make that call with a few angles than at full speed when your angle and distance from the incident might not be the best.

People seem to have this strange opinion that multiple angles makes the judgement of forward passes more difficult. Completely disagree, used correctly it can make it far easier.

And there's always the option for a 'ref's call' decision if the VR doesn't feel he can call it.

Always amuses me when people say it's impossible to judge forward passes.

At times, it's blatantly obvious the movement of a player's hands when passing is forwards. A video ref should be allowed to rule out tries where there's obvious evidence of a forward pass. If there's any doubt it should simply stand. It's no more ridiculous than awarding tries with 'benefit of the doubt' for getting the ball down when not one single camera angle shows the ball touching the ground

I know this. Im sorry, i probably didnt make my point as clearly as i could have. My point being that if you are tracking both the players AND the ball you can indeed judge a forward pass accurately. im fully aware that they are not judged relative to the point on the pitch at which the ball is passed.

Like I said, if Sky can project computer graphics onto the pitch, live, which appear to remain static as the camera moves, then why can't the position of a player, and the relative motion of the ball be tracked in a similar way?

Exactly, accurate tracking technology is already used by many superleague teams, (showing not only distance covered but trajectory tracing also) all thats missing is another tracking device in the ball.

The Brent Webb is the best Quarter Back in the game.