Union hasn't "now" implemented it, they've had it for years.



Not a fan of it myself. It makes the game look amateur. Much rather hear commentary than some numpty asking for a different angles 8 times. Doubt the NRL will go down that route.

I think part of the problem is that those damned sky commentators rabbit on about decisions [u[size=200RELENTLESSLY[/size[/u, so it gives people a complex about officials and mistakes made.



If you watch some sky games you'd be forgiven for thinking it was the biggest misjustice in the history of human kind, such is their propensity to dispute and disagree with every decision made.

It shouldn't be possible for the VR to make a mistake, especially as there are now 2 of them



Nobody is asking for every play to be dissected and agreed by a third party, just for the VR to make the right decision when they are asked to clarify something.

In cases where the VR is not certain, we ought to have a "refs call", although there is of course the "benefit of the doubt" if this is needed.



I think League fan was taking the "p"

But a call is either right or wrong. Hearing the video ref make a wrong decision isn't going to prevent controversy and people whinging about decisions for the next week.



I don't see what understanding there is to be gained? The commentators will explain what the video ref is looking at anyway so that people who don't understand the game have an understanding of the decision making process - or at least that's how it works with the NRL. I've lost count of the amount of times I've heard commentators talk through replays, "They're just looking for an obstruction here Rabbits... just checking the ground, blah blah blah."



I really cannot see what the NRL would gain from it. How is a video ref tediously asking for front on, side on angles, slow it down, rewind a few frames, no that far back, a bit forward please, run it through for 5 minutes, yawn, etc, preferable to the excitement and 'WOW' factor that you get listening to commentators blowing their load in videos such as 'Ben Barba - Try of the Year' or even 'David Nofoaluma Flying Try'



I'm with Ganson's Optician from this one. Even if the NRL or fans were in favour of it, which I doubt very much, I can't see the television networks buying it.



And I'm pretty sure rugby does have it. I remember watching it and hearing the TMO talking through a decision? Thought in rugby they also have a video of the TMO guy who sits there with a shirt and tie on that pops up in the corner of the screen?? Either that or I'm misremembering something else. Think it was on ESPN and has been a feature since around 2012?

I like the NRL stance on the use of VR, with the on field ref making a judgement in real-time, before handing the decision to the VR, with the on-field decision only being reversed if conclusive evidence exists to over rule. This approach has a number of benefits;

- It puts the onus on the on-field ref to be in the right position, and to make a 'real-time' decision. I hate it when a potential obstruction/crossing happens, the ref waves play on, and then a try is scored later in the play - the ref then sends the decision to the VR to check for obstruction/crossing, having previously waved play on. In these instances, if the team hadnt scored, and had instead been tackled, it would have been play on, and they could just as easily score from the next play the ball. The refs should be made to make a decision and stand by it.

- This approach mitigates agaisnt the issue of the VR not being available at all games, as any 50/50 calls will still be decided in real-time by the on field ref based on their gut instinct, as only the decisions that can conclusively be shown to be wrong will be overturned.

- Most importantly for me, it gives a tangible performance measure for all referees. We can measure how many times each ref sends decision to the VR that are subsequently overturned (meaning the ref had made a wrong call). This can be used for feedback/training and also trend spotting - seeing which decisions the refs are getting wrong most often.



As for how the VR is used by sky, I dont think the current format of watching the VR's watching a screen adds anything. I personally would prefer to adopt the method where the viewers are shown the footage that is being reviewed by the VR, with the commentary team passing comment on what's being reviewed, but then once the decision has been announced, the VR gives an explanation on why they made that decision. This keeps the suspense of the decision, as although the commentary team are giving their opinion, we wont know the outcome until its shown on the screen, but then subsequently, you get the full explanation of why the decision was made - hopefully this would also help reduce the number of blatant Ganson-Esq mistakes, as they'd be more inclined to get it right knowing they were about to explain their decision live on air.

Also - they really, really quickly must lose the X-Factoresque pregnant pause before the decision, how excruciating is that?