George Street-Bridge wrote:I would argue it's a moot point that even correct use of technology has improved either version of rugby, and of course there are still errors like at Twickenham a few weeks ago. I don't know what Superleague here does, but every video decision in the Australian NRL puts an ad for a major retailer onto TV screens.
For me the most insidious thing about VAR is it will reduce the incentive for refs at the top level to get everything right, and this will have a knock-on further down the leagues. You need them to be supremely confident, and this will diminish.
I'd rather have someone who is confident to the point of arrogance - as, say, Mark Clattenburg or Howard Webb come across - than a rabbit in the headlights like whoever it was did Spurs v Rochdale.
Again George you fail to look at what I said.
There will always be marginal decisions. Was that pass very slightly forward? Was he marginally off-side? Etc etc. That is why cricket allows the umpires call. In other words if the ball is only going to clip one wicket, the umpires decision stands, either way. What video can alter is the appalling decision. I agree that you shouldn't have every decision reviewed. However if as I suggested you allow one review on appeal I suspect that Maradona's 'Hand of God' goal would not have stood. West Germany would no doubt have seen Hurst's goal disallowed.
Good referees will make decisions and when they get them spectacularly wrong they can be challenged.Good decisive refs will be assisted. Poor indecisive refs will exist anyway. With any technology there will always be teething problems. What VAR can solve is the terrible decision.
Now I hear your point as per if you pass every decision to a video ref you would break the flow of the game. But that is not what I have suggested. As for your point that TV firms would seek to exploit VAR. I am sure they will, but that needs to be resisted. If VAR can improve the game, and I believe it can, then it should be used. My view is one review, I can see an argument for two.
Let the referees make decisions, give teams, limited by number, the chance to protest the demonstrably wrong decisions which effect the outcome of a game.