Wednesday 21 September 2016 12:45, UK
"Try or no try?" We've all become accustomed to asking ourselves this question when a player goes over the line these days.
So many of the decisions are referred up to the video referee that you're never quite sure if the scoreboard operator needs to add four points onto the team's total or not. But right now I think that it's got to the stage that we need to hit the reboot button and install a new update.
Rugby league was one of the first sports in this country to use a video referee. We now have a third umpire, television match official or whatever you want to call them in several sports. It was exciting and innovative when it first came into use and I loved the initial drama that it created among the supporters in the stadium. People literally held their breath as they waited to see an action replay which gave them another view of what has just happened.
It was a bit like one of those pauses that the presenter does before announcing the winner of a TV talent competition. Two people waiting in hope that the decision goes their way, before the release valve of both joy and disappointment. It was great at first but feels stale in 2016.
Over the last 20 years, as happens with many things, the role, remit and rules of the video referee have changed and we have now evolved into a state where we need to decide what we want next.
Watch the Premier League, Ryder Cup and Super League Grand Final
If you've ever read any of my previous articles you'll know that I am a big supporter of referees. I think that they do a great job and realise that we, all of us who follow rugby league, need to do everything that we can to encourage more people to get involved as officials.
One of those things is to try to make it easier, not harder, by adapting rules that require less interpretation. Let's try to keep it simple, which is what I think makes great sport.
It does seem strange to me that we check certain rules and not others when we review a possible try.
So, what do you want to see from the video referee? Are you happy with how it is at present? Would you be happy to allow the on-field referee to make all the decisions?
It does seem strange to me that we check certain rules and not others when we review a possible try. Some might say that we can only go back to the play-the-ball or we'd be going back to the start of the set of possession that led to the try. Where and how do you draw the line?
The match-winning try by Taulima Tautai for Wigan at Hull was an interesting one to consider. If you watch the Wigan defenders when they rush up to hit Dean Hadley just prior to the try you'll see that several of them appear to be offside - i.e. within 10 metres.
If Wigan had scored directly from Hadley's handling error this would not have been checked. However, if Wigan had kicked the ball to score in the corner, the first thing that would have been reviewed was the onside/offside aspect of the try scorer when the kick took place. Why is one offside less important than another?
I'm aware and happy to accept that nothing and nobody is perfect. Some people imagined that a video referee would be able to provide a definitive answer on tries, obviously this is impossible.
Even with a video referee we had controversy and uncertainly at Wakefield and Warrington last week.
Video technology cannot ensure the right decisions on every try, we've learned that over the last 20 years. There are times when several bodies surround the ball meaning it's impossible to determine if a try has been scored. This is the reason why I like the referee giving his decision before we see one from the video referee. It's more natural as live sport.
American football has used video analysis far longer than we have over here and yet they still have serious problems with their video referees.
Two weeks ago in a college game between Central Michigan and Oklahoma State the officials made a massive error which affected the result in the dying seconds. The two video referees have been suspended for two weeks but human error is part of sport which you need to accept if you want to be involved.
Where do we go from here?
We need to go in one of two possible directions. We can turn left, reduce the decision-making ability of the video referee to just the grounding of the ball or go hard left and remove him/her completely.
If you vote for this then you'll have to accept some mistakes by the match officials even when the replay shows the error seconds after a try has been scored or disallowed.
Alternatively, we turn right and increase the remit so that all incidents in the build-up to a try can be reviewed. This would obviously slow down the game and probably lead to more tries being disallowed, but that might be okay for some people. If you are having a good time with your mates watching a sport that you love, what's the rush!
I'm really interested in your opinions on this. It's almost as if we should have a national referendum to vote on the video referee. Everyone's opinion is valid and it would be fascinating to see how many votes each side received.
For what it's worth I'd turn hard left. I like live sport with a live referee, even if he/she gets it wrong at times.
