I agree in the main and to be fair the referees have a much more difficult job than the Video refs who I would expect to get it right 99.99% of the time but sadly that is not the case.

adctually i though alibert did a god job as VR.....he caught pretyy much everything that was asked of him..

he checked,checked again the triple checked everything that was asked of him...

alibert was'nt the issue in this game, ian smith and his touchie missing forward passes was the major issue.

What we need is a refs/refereeing board, to keep some of the more hysterical types in one place

Not really. The refs were crap then, too!

so the consensus is that webb was offside and that the decision was correct to the letter of the law, i look forward to the rest of the season being refereed to the letter of the law with every offside and every slow play of the ball penalised

Three cheers for Mr Thierry Alibert. What an absolute pleasure it was to see a video referee doing his job fear free. Imho 'our' referees worry too much about getting a decision wrong and, say what you like, I believe their decisions ARE influenced by what town they hail from and who they live near. As far as Alibert was concerned the Bulls V Rhinos game could have been Martians V Aliens, he had no agenda whatsoever and as such his decision making was both quick and absolutely spot on every time he was called upon.

It might change over time, but right now Aliberts impartiality makes him THE man for the video referees job.

Oh, and if anyone knows 'Stevo' can you tell him Specsavers have a special BOGOF deal all Easter.

if the refs were perfect then who the hell will we have to blame when our teams lose, no one and were's the fun in that

Indeed it wasn't. I'm surprised how little of the rules many seem to know. If it needs to be defined, a "pass" is defined in the rules as a "throw of the ball". That's it, end of. Nobody but an imbecile could define what happened here as a "throw of the ball".

Check out how briefly a player has to have control of the ball to ground it in a try for it to be allowed in hundreds of VR descisions . If a fingertip applies downward pressure it is a try.. therefore a flick-on is a pass of the ball .how can one be deemed as being in control of the ball and not he other ? so..if it the ball goes forwards after the flick it is a forward pass if another attacking player receives it . if it touches the grass it is a knock-on . if the player that last touched it gathers it before it hits the grass it is play on .
at the end of the day as they say.. the match result will stand and there's no point bleating about it .
all rules are open to individual's interpretations .
some you win , some you lose.. well done the bulls . beat us fair and square .

well.. so you should.. you had 14 men against 12 at one point

It wasn't a touchdown, so those rules don't apply.

It could be regarded as a "flick", as you say, but then the ref has to make the usual decision as to whether it was forwards or backwards. To do this, as is said in commentary time and time again, the ref looks primarily at the direction the hands move to determine whether it is forward or backward. In this instance, the flick was a very clear Larry Grayson stylee flap forward, and the ball very clearly went forwards. Correct decision.

On the Webb offside (again correct decision given, and well spotted by the ref), I have a vague recollection of a Wellens try being disallowed for the same thing, but this wasn't on the telly, I just remember hearing about it on here.

All this fuss over whether it was a pass or knock on only arises because of the rule that forward passes cannot be refered to the VR. But was Alibert any better able to decide whether the ball went forward because he first ruled it to be a knock on than if he had deemed it to be a pass? Why was he capable of ruling that this "knock on" went forward when he is deemed to be incapable of determining whether Leeds' try came from a forward pass?

It has already been mentioned that refs rule on forward passes, largely on the basis of direction of the passers hands. Why cant VR's make rulings on the same basis, with the existing caveat of benefit of the doubt in favour of the attacking team?

surely your avatar should read wanted dead [iand[/i alive