It used to be a simple game. One referee, with decisions made on the spot based on what the ref and the linesmen saw. If it looked like a knock on that's how it was ruled, and the game moved on. We had a flow of action. Not now. Ever since there was this unrealistic push to get every decision right by using technology and more on-field officials the game has been on a slippery slope. Now we have 'benefit of the doubt' rullings. That simply means "Hell, I don;t know, even with all this technology." We have incidents decided upon in slow motion, not how the action took place. If my eye didn't see it then it didn't happen. Move on. We have new rules written that complicated easy decisions. For example, who can reliably say that Farah deliberately kicked the ball from Inglis' hands? Was there intent, or simply him trying to make a tackle? All I know is that in real speed it looked an easy decision - Inglis dropped the ball. Knock on! Get on with the game. We have 'tries' scored now when players don;t have control of the ball. The video refs just freeze a frame it to show there was some contact. And on it goes. More rules, more arguments. The cost of video refs, and two refs, must amount to tens of millions each season. Has it stopped the controversy? We all know the answer to that. Surely the NRL could use that money in a better way.