I think he did say try for Wigan, no try for Hull (although strictly speaking he didn't need to as they are mutually exclusive; by explicitly stating try for Wigan he is implicitly stating no try for Hull). Thaler then took an age because he had to overturn Hicks. Had the on field decision been try for Hull it would have been much quicker as there definitely wouldn't have been any evidence to overturn it.

as this thread perfectly demonstrates, people are now getting hung up over the try/no try decision from the ref, rather than considering whether it was actually a try or not in the first place. the system needs scrapping and the video ref system reverting to what it was before. also we need to stop using it for other things like knock ons restarts etc. games are finishing too late

It was clearly a try and you see similar ones regularly. Scrap the farce of the onfield decision and let the VR make the decision. Maybe put a limit on how much time he can take though

As tempting as it is to say scrap the on field decision, it did come in for a reason, to stop the video refs being obliged to look at every angle in case they got it wrong.

I think it would work if the refs were also allowed to send it up as unsure. They just can't tell at times, and that's what the technology is there for, don't make them guess.


RE: people saying it was a no try because he'd given Wigan's, surely he just had to rule on both, in case the first wasn't given.

FWIW, I didn't think it should be given, there was no control on it at all, although that only seems to matter these days if it's an Aussie ruling on a last minute possible England winner.

I think the majority of the time he'll be 90%, but just want to clear up for certain an infringement like obstruction, but it's ones like Hull's try, or where a winger borders the touchline where you can't expect them to decide.