Well given your stance in this thread at least something good has come out of it.



People just want consistency so everyone knows where they stand. The lack of consistency in interpretation is appalling at the moment and that is down to Cummins rather than the referees.

It wouldn't, but as that wasn't what I was saying it's an irrelevant point.

The VR should look at whatever it specifically is that has concerned the referee about a try. Not go through every single little thing leading up to it in case there was something he missed - which is very clearly what happened in the Catalan v Saints match, and has happened in Wigan matches. For Heaven's sake, at one time these idiots were allowed to go back three or four tackles - and that's what they used to do, until it became too embarrassing even for the RFL and was abolished.

By some folk's logic, we should video ref every moment of every game before deciding who the winner is, or failing that, all the other 'long plays' in case they too affected the outcome.

In any case, as the VR is only used in Sky matches, it can hardly be deemed that important a tool by the referees and their controller.

Nothing will happen until the chairmen & coaches collectively grow a pair & demand Cummings goes or bring in someone who knows what they're doing bangs the refs heads together & puts proper standards in place.
They're all scared of saying anything that could be interpreted as disrespectful or "bringing the game into disrepute", even when it's what everyone else is thinking.
The RFL board & refs make North Korea a progressive democracy in comparison.

I thought you were suggesting that VRs should [inot [/ilook at those transgressions when adjudicating tries. thee on who mentioned them you know..




So are you or are you not suggesting that VRs shouldn't look at the transgressions you listed?


And if it had transpired that Catalans had knocked on, why should they be awarded a try? (A paraphrase of my earlier question, you will notice.)


And that would be a strawman. Just because I don't think the VR should be as limited as you do doesn't mean I think it should be unlimited.




Are you really suggesting that the limited use of the VR is down to the referees and their controller based on their opinion of it's efficacy rather than an inability to fund it?

So your position is basically it's hard job, they'll never be perfect (but they're better than you lot would ever be), and even if they were perfect, you lot (who know nothing by the way) would still be moaning.

Thanks for your contribution.

This thread is about the lack of consistency from the head of referees to the interpretation of rules by officials on the day to the role of the VR who is only used for 2 games in each round. Originally I had high hopes for an improvement in ref standards when they became full-time - it hasn't happened though and for that I blame the man in the charge.

do you think the NRL refs have improved by the fact there are now 2 of them on the pitch

No, I wasn't. I was saying they shouldn't try to find anything they can to disallow. Which is what seems to happen on far too many occasions, the dummy runners for example, as on certain occasions that is stretching the notion of obstruction to near-absurdity. What direction was he going in? Let's slow it down even more to see if his body language suggests he had intent ... gimme a break.


They should, but only if those transgressions are specifically asked for by the referee.


They shouldn't. But that doesn't mean you should search high and low on ther off-chance they made any other infringement.


Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think for that matter, as the evidence thus far is that it's used fairly indiscriminately and quite inconsistently.


No, I guess it's down to funding, but however you spin it, it doesn't look good that it's used so extensively and pedantically in Sky matches - as if it's vitally important we 100% guraantee there was nothing the ref didn't see - and yet we can happily do without it for all the rest.

But why shouldn't they try to find anything that might disallow the try? Only tries should be awarded, right? It seems to come back to this notion that "try" should be the default position. As for the obstruction problem, it is one of interpretation, imo, caused by different VRs having their own personal ideas about what counts as obstruction. The solution isn't to instruct VRs not to look for obstruction but to instruct them all to look for the same thing.


And if the on-field referee misses something that the video referee sees? Why should he be compelled to ignore it in favour of awarding 4 points for a non-try?


I'm not convinced anybody "searches high and low for an infringement" as opposed to simply "looks for an infringement".


I wouldn't say it's used indiscriminately. I'd say it's used every time an on-field referee needs it because he can't be sure if a try has been scored. As for consistency, that's a refereeing issue rather than a video refereeing issue.


But you can't say it's down to funding and then say they happily do with out it. The fact that it isn't used across the board isn't some indication that referees or the RFL don't rate it, which that implies. If it's down to funding then they are making do without it [ibecause of funding[/i, not because they think it's poor, and would use it across the board if they could.

I’m sure you’d love to hold question-and-answer sessions ad infinitum, but attempting to pick holes in this argument by focusing purely on whichever last post I happened to make will not change the overall fact that the VR is over-used to the point of self-indulgence, in which respect it is a wider reflection of our current referees (and their controller’s) egoism and pedantry. Enough said.

The VR is asked to look at a particular "infirngement" offside, obstruction, foot in touch etc but sometimes they do go over board the Catalans last minute try against Saints for instance, it could end up with a RU type call to the VR "is there any reason I cannot award a try"

"it could end up with a RU type call to the VR "is there any reason I cannot award a try"

Yes, 5 play the balls earlier on the halfway line there was a bit of obstruction by the player who played the ball. he stepped 6 inches forward to prevent the marker making a tackle....pmsl..... Let's have a system more like in cricket.. the ref gives his decision and the team the decision goes against can refer it to the VR but have to state on what grounds... they can only make 2 wrong referals and that's it....lol

I wouln't let Wellens in charge of Saints referals! Does "flappy arms" ever believe a try is legit?

I'm not sure why you're getting your knickers in a twist mate, this forum doesn't exist for your views alone. I disagree with you. Get over it.

P.s. opinion ≠ fact

Performance comes from the top in any industry. A good boss will get the very best out of his/her staff, so don't be surprised that Cummings is first in line for criticism.

Why do referees feel the need to go to the screen for almost every try when the match is televised? It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they are able to competently referee a non-televised game.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... icial.html a rather timely article - wonder if similar statistics are available for RL referees? The RFL publishes statistics on individual players performance on their website, perhaps they should do the same for referees.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... icial.html a rather timely article - wonder if similar statistics are available for RL referees? The RFL publishes statistics on individual players performance on their website, perhaps they should do the same for referees.

I do wonder whether we would say anything remotely similar if this didn't involve the dreaded T word: Technology! If we introduce more on-field officials people tend to see it as welcome help for the referee and often complain if they don't do enough to help him, but sit them in front of some technology which allows them to offer more assistance to the ref than any touch judge could muster and we use it as a stick to beat "incompetent" refs.

No no no! I think there should always be a clear and robust boundary between those officiating the game and those playing it. Allowing players to call the VR would blur this boundary, imo, and would be a move away from the relationship between players and referee that Rugby League has always been able to be proud of; to wit, one of respect and deference.

I don't think that would be the case at all - cricketers have as much if not more respect for umpires as RL players do for the refs. If anything, it's brought more honesty into cricket, as the players have to decide whether to "waste" a referral (most players know whether they've scored or not, so would only use it to overturn a clearly wrong decision).

That may be true from the attacking players perspective when a legitimate try has been denied, but how about the defender's perspective when a non-try has been awarded as a try? Do most defenders know when the player they are attempting to stop scoring has a foot slightly in touch, or that the ball has come away from his fingertips? An attacking player may well be certain he has scored, just as you say, but a defender will be much less certain he has prevented a try as he isn't the one controlling the ball. If the referee awards a try when he shouldn't have, do defenders have a fair chance of invoking their referral or will they be playing a guessing game? Will they risk "wasting a referral" or allow the try to be awarded without challenge, only to realise the morning after that they performed a try-saving tackle?

I also don't like the idea of having 2 referrals. If this system were in place then I'd hardly call it fair sport if a try was awarded from an incorrect call simply because it happened to be the 3rd incorrect call. Imagine if the referee made 5 incorrect calls in a match--two going in your favour but three in favour of your opponents. Hardly seems fair that your team would have to allow that decision to stand simply because the referee had already made two prior mistakes.

I've not read the rest of this thread but I am seriously considering it now. I didn't know they were on £35k a year at the minute I'm on half that and I don't make as many mistakes as what they do at work.

I would like consistency from each INDIVIDUAL referee, what I mean by that is take two recent incidents the Wigan V Leeds and Stains v Dragons. The dummy runners trys imo there was very minimal differences but one VR allowed it (Ganson) and one didin't (Smith). As long as they make the same decision for similar incidents then I don't have a problem with.

I think everyone (including Cunmims) wants robots as refs. Everyone singing off the same song sheet sort of thing. This isn't going to happen as an incident will look different from which angle you see it. Watch MOTD and some controversial incidents during a match and they take the refs position to help him. I know I did it when I played one of my favourits was a tackle that was border line on me I used to turn my head towards the ref so it looked high 9/10 I got a penalty for a high shot.

I would like a ref to ref his natural game. Ganson a good example here mouth off your punished from penalty perspective. As a smart coach will allow for the ref and take him into his plans for a match, for example if a ref allows you to lie on in the tackle or not, will a ref take you bak the full ten and pull up for offiside. A coach can take this into his match game plan.

I would also like to refs just like the NRL. Not that it is following the Aussies but because I believe that the Aussies because of this are a lot better at the dark arts of the game then we are.

As for the VR the sport neeeds to make a choice enforce it at every match or not at all. There is an element for cost but sponsorship springs to mind. But before we scrap it I would like the ref to say "I don't/think it is a try, because of x, y or z" then we will have a better indication whether they would have got it right. Not to inflate someones ego or think that they are rubbish but to see if we need a VR it is the only way we will know whether they would have got the decision right or wrong.

It's the inconsistency that annoys me the most. Blatant forward passes missed one minute and then a marginally forward one given (rightly of course).

With regards the VR, it's the same thing. Josh's try v Leeds is chalked off and yet Tommy Makinson's is given for Saints. Both tries yet somehow one was chalked off?? (by the same VR I think as well) Add to that the ridiculous benefit of the doubt rule and it just becomes a shambles. If you can't tell it's a try from the 6 million angles and super slow mo that Sky rave on about, then it shouldn't be a try.

Thats bang on for me too. As long as people know that when a team gets a try disallowed/allowed for something the same will happen for every similar incident in other matches then there would be no uproar.

Another thing that does my head is when they go to the video ref for a decision and even after looking at the video the video ref gets it wrong! Makes the whole process utterly useless.

Totally agree. It really shouldn't be that hard to establish stringent criteria that an obstruction, for example, must meet. Referees should then apply the criteria objectively without letting their own feelings about what [ithey[/i think obstruction is get in the way.


I do disagree with that. A system doesn't have to be perfect to have any value, it just has to be an improvement on what we had before. The VR gets many decisions correct where a referee feels unable to do so, which is an obvious improvement in my opinion.