Forty-20 Column: What to do with the video ref?

Video referees are a hot topic again – when were they not?

Like the Easter weekend, Ashes defeats and speedy play-the-balls, the debate comes around like London buses. Or should that be Salford coaches?

And like Super League itself on the verge of being (gulp) 20 years old, they were brought in with two major intentions.

One: to make refereeing errors a thing of the past.

That long time whinge of coaches and fans, ‘All we want is consistency’ (ie consistently in our favour) would be heard no more. The Holy Grail of certainty would be ours.

How could it not be when officials could replay every incident … back, forth, slow, slow, quick, quick, slow … reaching a decision in their own sweet time, out of the heat of battle.

And with it came new clichés. We’ve got the technology – we may as well use it. What matters is the right call.

Two: video refs would enhance the ‘theatre’, as if live sport wasn’t already theatrical, or dramatic, enough.

Well, the reality on both counts has been otherwise.

A growing number of spectators – of which I am one – would contend that over-use of the big screen actually stifles enjoyment.

Ball whizzes through eight pairs of hands … winger dives over in corner … crowd leaps from their seats … the roar of glory or wail of dismay bubbling in their throats … wet blanket descends as a bloke in a shed somewhere tries interminably to find a reason to disallow it.

And can anyone seriously suggest that there are fewer errors now than before? If not, then what, logically, is the point?

I am no Luddite. I realise that in our screen-obsessed modern society, technology in all sports is here to stay.

But let’s at least apply some common sense alterations.

Permit one ‘captain’s call’ per half for a start, minimising that over-use and putting the onus back on refs to make a decision.

Rules are there to service the action, not the other way around.

If we really must have video refs, then at least gerremonside.

TONY HANNAN

The CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for the kids out there) always seemed like pretty decent, thoroughly well-meaning bods with their Aldermaston marches, Greenham Common camps and natty badge.

If their ultra-worthy argument had a flaw, though, it was that they were never going to achieve their ultimate aim.

The same is true of video refs – although there is no intended comparison with their seeming wreaking of havoc to that of weapons of mass destruction – they, too, are not going to be dis-invented.

They were introduced to Rugby League, having been an accepted part of the NFL for years, by piper-paying Sky to add a layer of drama (‘…and the decision is….’) both inside the ground and for the watching hordes.

It is the way of the voracious entertainment beast and is probably viewed in the same way as their commentary team.

To aficionados, the concept and the time it takes tends to grate, but for the casual Friday night down the pub viewer it is less of an intrusion.

As it’s here to stay, we need to make the most of it and acknowledge that, with the limited resources the game has at its disposal, we are not going to get them at every ground with the necessary multiple camera positions and mixing vans, which cost up to £30,000 per time.

Yes, we need to constantly scrutinise their use.

If they are looking for a flawed law then that’s what needs changing not the method of detecting it, and time taken can be an issue in a sport that is built on momentum.

And, yes, it was supposed to cure all inaccuracies but what would we and keyboard warriors have to talk about if it did and – as was seen in the recent Huddersfield v Wigan game when a kick called out on the full wasn’t, the reversed decision proving to be the game-changer – it can be a boon.

So accept it for what it is, the video ref is not going away, and what’s not to like about seeing Ben Thaler slap Steve Ganson’s hand to decide who is in control of it.

PHIL CAPLAN