Super League Forensic Department

In the 59th minute of Catalans v Wakefield, I let out an audible groan as the video referee was called upon to adjudicate on something or other for the sixth time in the previous 10 game minutes.

Those 10 'game' minutes actually lasted 18 minutes in the more usual sense of the word. The match itself was thoroughly entertaining but by this point of the second half, it felt as though the match was becoming secondary to micro-analysis of it.

Scorned by this, I watched Hull FC v Wigan on Sunday afternoon. Here, I saw an Abbas Miski try awarded following 3 minutes and 49 seconds of video referee deliberations. By the end of this almost four minutes (it felt closer to 10), I had stopped caring whether it was a try or not.

In football, Tottenham manager Ange Postecoglou is an outspoken critic of video technology in his sport and started playing rock, paper, scissors with his assistant manager as his own form of protest against it. Perhaps I should have started a game of noughts and crosses whilst Abbas Miski's try was being ruled upon.

And if the experience is frustrating as a television-watching fan, it is worse in the stadium. Quite often, you can't see the screen to the level of detail required to know what is actually happening. So you just sit and wait. The tension replaced by tedium.

In 2019, Super League introduced a "shot clock" in response to concerns that the 80 minute match was taking too long. It worked with average match time falling from 95 minutes and 59 seconds to 90 minutes and 47 seconds.

All of those gains in reducing how long a match takes have now been lost. And not lost to anything productive. Lost to sitting around watching Super League's Forensic Department at work.

This weekend, Hull FC v Wigan started at 3:01PM and finished at 5:01PM. Leeds v Hull KR started at 8:01PM and finished at 10:02PM. Warrington v St Helens started at 8:01PM and finished at what is now a relatively early 9:56PM. Catalans v Wakefield started at 5:30PM finished at 7:35PM.

It seems hard to square that we took steps to speed up the game such as the introduction of a shot clock and just a few years later took steps to actively slow down the game such as introducing a captain's challenge.

Who I do not blame for this situation are referees. There is no practical advantage to a referee awarding a try without recourse to the video referee. They aren't going to be praised for it even if they are right. But if they are wrong, they will be dragged over hot coals by the social media lynch mob.

And the same is true of video referees. There is no practical advantage to rushing. Make a quick decision and you won't be praised even if you are right. Rush and get it wrong and out come the pitchforks.

Some have suggested that you put time limits on video refereeing decisions. Why not go one step further and play the countdown clock over the PA? Or have an ejector seat and if a video referee doesn't make a decision in time, the seat activates?

Of course, I jest. But imagine the consequences of, effectively, putting a shot clock on video referees. The time limit is reached and then a previously unseen angle is shown that reveals the decision to be wrong. There would be uproar.

It also contradicts the entire purpose of a video referee which is to make a judgement in an environment outside of the stadium, through careful and reasoned analysis of video footage. By its nature, it is not a process which can be timed.

I had hoped that the introduction of the captain's challenge this year would lead to referees making a judgement call and effectively saying to players "if you think I'm wrong, challenge me". With hindsight, that was a naive hope. Again, for the reason that there is no advantage to a referee taking this approach.

I would have no objection to removing the video referee save for allowing the captain to challenge one decision per game. It would probably lead to more refereeing errors. But I think the spectacle would improve too.

A balance must be struck. I think it is unwise to seek unattainable refereeing perfection and sacrifice the entertainment of our sport to further that aim. My view is that we have gone too far towards the former at the expense of the latter.

Ultimately, the cause of the increasingly forensic nature of Super League is the fact that a vocal section of stakeholders in the game cannot accept that a referee will not get everything right. 

That is the root cause captain's challenges. That is the root cause of never-ending analysis of potential tries. That is the root cause of foul play being reviewed. Unfortunately, the wider product is suffering as a consequence. And we have no-one to blame but ourselves.