Tony smith calls for video refs at every game I for one agree some games have been lost because the ref cant see every try you do not even need the big screen they don't in australia what do you think

Certainly desirable, maybe not affordable.

Definitely not affordable.

Why is it not affordable? From that sky angle of the try Smith was unhappy with it looked pretty clear that the ball was still in the field of play when it was touched down by Briscoe however his left hand my have been in touch at the same point. Both the in goal judge and Ganson were very close and had a better view than the touch judge so coupled with that camera angle the correct decision would have probably been a try anyway.



The fact there would be an extra two cameras at games is certainly affordable. They don't need big screens at every game, they don't have them in Aus just red and green lights but with our officials in constant communications with the other officials we don't even need that. Stop the clock and ask for help with the decision.



Two cameras one at each in goal area plus the main camera up high to check for onsides and other infringments is not only affordable but also surprising it hasn't already been done. As in Aus too if no decision can be found on camera then it goes to a 'Refs Call'.

Because the trial carried out at Craven Park for the final derby of the 2008 season showed that it would be expensive, and our sport isn't swimming in cash.



[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_league/super_league/7675916.stm[/url

You would need a minimum two, more likely three cameras at each end. You will also need bodies to operate them. We're not talking Sony Handycams here, although we wouldn't require 1080p HiDef, they would still need to be high quality optics. The operators would also need to be trained cameramen, used to shooting dynamic sports. There would also need to be a recording/viewing suite with, apart from the video ref, at least one more technician. Now multiply that lot by five.



If our game was as rich as the NRL, we could possibly justify the expense but as I suggested on the subject of Tony Smith's comments: "what would he rather spend his money on, Trent Waterhouse or a video ref?"

Well said to the above 2 posters.

I beleive the figure quoted after the 2009 trial was about £50,000/match.



The only way I could see that working was if Sky covered all games similar to their Premier League coverage, but I doubt that there is the demand.

Not sure it would be as much as that. That's £6.5m a season. The report says it would cost a six-figure sum each season. £6.5m is a pretty large seven-figure sum.



The largest six-figure sum would leave us at around £7.5k a game.

I think Smiths right, it should be all or nothing, not just the televised game. I don't know how much it would cost but I'm pretty sure well never see it at every ground.

Maybe we should have signed a sponsorship deal with a company who could have provided the technology rather than the trucks?

but can we not still do this we are not tied in to one deal why not talk to a company to do it and use their name has sponsors they make money with the name splashed every game and on the trucks and we save money win win all round