Quote ="Grimmy"I'd reduce its use to a coaches' challenge system. Coaches can have 2 challenges each, which can only be used at stoppages. Let them keep challenging if they are shown to be correct. This would also hopefully reduce the amount of criticism they throw at refs, as the simple retort would be "Well why didn't you challenge it at the time?". Of course there is the chance that they could keep challenging correctly, thus undermining the on field ref, but that would probably deserve scrutiny, if it happened. I'd also extend use of video ref to include serious foul play (i.e red card offences only). We don't want players staying on the pitch, then getting long bans afterwards. Other than that, leave it with the on-field team. Having a better atmosphere/product is more important than the odd difficult call the match officials may get wrong IMO, and we would do better to focus more on the action, and less on the ">refs.'" There is some merit in your ideas, I particularly like the coaches challenge thing; it seems to work in tennis.

Quote ="Grimmy"I'd reduce its use to a coaches' challenge system. Coaches can have 2 challenges each, which can only be used at stoppages. Let them keep challenging if they are shown to be correct. This would also hopefully reduce the amount of criticism they throw at refs, as the simple retort would be "Well why didn't you challenge it at the time?". Of course there is the chance that they could keep challenging correctly, thus undermining the on field ref, but that would probably deserve scrutiny, if it happened. I'd also extend use of video ref to include serious foul play (i.e red card offences only). We don't want players staying on the pitch, then getting long bans afterwards. Other than that, leave it with the on-field team. Having a better atmosphere/product is more important than the odd difficult call the match officials may get wrong IMO, and we would do better to focus more on the action, and less on the ">refs.'" There is some merit in your ideas, I particularly like the coaches challenge thing; it seems to work in tennis.

Going slightly off on a tangent here, but does anyone else think that there should either be a VR at all games or none at all?

All games. In SL that is.

Quote ="Cokey"All games. In SL that ">is.'" I’m not too fussed, but I just believe that it should be all SL games or no SL games. Not a VR at televised games only

Quote ="Cokey"All games. In SL that ">is.'" I’m not too fussed, but I just believe that it should be all SL games or no SL games. Not a VR at televised games only

Shouldn't go to NO VR at all. It'll only take a few occasions especially in a big game possibly the GF where a try is allowed when it shouldn't be and people would be crying foul that the sport took a backward step in getting rid of technology when nearly every other sport has embraced it now.



Would get rid of the on field decision or tweak it where if the footage is inconclusive then the VR can send it back down to the on field ref who can then signal and decide what he originally thought. The VR shouldn't haven't one armed tied behind his back like he does now.

Quote ="Grimmy"I'm perhaps in the minority then, in that I think the video ref can make tries anti-climatic, and negatively impact the atmosphere at games. I'd reduce its use to a coaches' challenge system. Coaches can have 2 challenges each, which can only be used at stoppages. Let them keep challenging if they are shown to be correct. This would also hopefully reduce the amount of criticism they throw at refs, as the simple retort would be "Well why didn't you challenge it at the time?". Of course there is the chance that they could keep challenging correctly, thus undermining the on field ref, but that would probably deserve scrutiny, if it happened. I'd also extend use of video ref to include serious foul play (i.e red card offences only). We don't want players staying on the pitch, then getting long bans afterwards. Other than that, leave it with the on-field team. Having a better atmosphere/product is more important than the odd difficult call the match officials may get wrong IMO, and we would do better to focus more on the action, and less on the ">refs.'" My problem with the current system is that it's used too often. Does someone who watches all the sky games have a feel for what proportion of referee's decisions are overturned? I would go with a captain's challenge (say 2 per game, lose one if you're wrong), but only when the referee is uncertain, as now. So, if he awards the try directly, there is no challenge. If he goes to the screen with try/no try, it's effectively offering the choice to the captain. If he chooses not to challenge, it doesn't go to the screen and the referee's decision stands. An example of this at the Wakefield - Salford game. Miller's try went to the screen as no try and it wasn't given. You saw miller shake his head when asked by the team, so he knew he hadn't scored. The no try wouldn't have been challenged and we would have saved a few wasted minutes.

Quote ="Grimmy"I'm perhaps in the minority then, in that I think the video ref can make tries anti-climatic, and negatively impact the atmosphere at games. I'd reduce its use to a coaches' challenge system. Coaches can have 2 challenges each, which can only be used at stoppages. Let them keep challenging if they are shown to be correct. This would also hopefully reduce the amount of criticism they throw at refs, as the simple retort would be "Well why didn't you challenge it at the time?". Of course there is the chance that they could keep challenging correctly, thus undermining the on field ref, but that would probably deserve scrutiny, if it happened. I'd also extend use of video ref to include serious foul play (i.e red card offences only). We don't want players staying on the pitch, then getting long bans afterwards. Other than that, leave it with the on-field team. Having a better atmosphere/product is more important than the odd difficult call the match officials may get wrong IMO, and we would do better to focus more on the action, and less on the ">refs.'" My problem with the current system is that it's used too often. Does someone who watches all the sky games have a feel for what proportion of referee's decisions are overturned? I would go with a captain's challenge (say 2 per game, lose one if you're wrong), but only when the referee is uncertain, as now. So, if he awards the try directly, there is no challenge. If he goes to the screen with try/no try, it's effectively offering the choice to the captain. If he chooses not to challenge, it doesn't go to the screen and the referee's decision stands. An example of this at the Wakefield - Salford game. Miller's try went to the screen as no try and it wasn't given. You saw miller shake his head when asked by the team, so he knew he hadn't scored. The no try wouldn't have been challenged and we would have saved a few wasted minutes.