timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... entry.html

timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_le ... entry.html

Its an interesting point for debate, he is certainly correct that it hasn't eliminated human error from the video refs.

But, he undermines his own argument somewhat with the Mathers example. To suggest Mathers was doing anything else other than trying to pick that ball up is plain wrong and never in a million years should that be given as grounding.

He is talking generically about attacking players at the other end but fails to give a specific example for comparison.

Mathers never in a month of Sunday's grounded that ball, or even intended to, he was trying to shuttle it out and fluffed it.

If the video ref wasnt there last night I still think that the Hall try would have been give, the Brent Webb 'no try' could quite possibly have been given and the Warrington 'no try' for Clarke being offside/shielding or whatever they gave.

All sports are using the same moto at the moment, if the technology is there, use it. The problem isnt the video replays, its the fact there is still human judgement involved which is leading to interpretational differences.

Instead of ditching the technology, shouldnt Stuart Cummins be looking at each video referee decision and if one was incorrect slapping some wrists? You make a mess of something at work, you get in trouble, you keep doing it you get disciplinaries etc.....why is it any different for RL referees?

i thought the webb no try and the warrington no try were incorrect decisions

Same here, I thought both of those should have been given.

Me too.

If there was any doubt about what Mathers' was trying to do (which there wasn't) watch how Mathers tries to stop and get back to the ball (if he'd grounded it why would he do that) and watch his reaction afterward.

Good on ya Tosh.Video decisions are killing the game.

clear obstruction on the Wire one

No it's not, because the man receiving the ball is wider than the dummy runner not directly behind him when he receives the ball and so doesn't run round the back of him.
It was a poor read from the defender (Diskin?).

And neither was Lee Smith attempting to tackle or obstruct the Wire man in the air, he was making an attempt for the ball.

2 very poor decisions from the VR in my opinion, not to mention several poor decisions from Ian Smith.
However none of that justifies removing the VR from the game entirely.
It justifies training better referees and having a better referees controller or whatever title Mr Cummings goes by.

What about those men that run up and down the sides of the pitch all the game carrying flags,sureley they could help the man in the middle.

Never in a million years. Clarke ran a line and Diskin fell for it.

The Warrington dissallowed was correct. Clarke was offiside interfering with play. Not obstructing. Therefore still a penalty to defence.