Works very well. Innovative and adds to the coverage. Don't know what their budget is and I cannot imagine its that much but Premier Sports put the beeb to shame.

I could have done with an explanation as to how he awarded a try as this one left me well and truly baffled. To me there was no doubt, obvious double movement. I would like to know his reasoning on using the benefit of the doubt as well as the 'try' could be viewed clearly from all camera angles.

I was adamant that it should have been no try. His body may have not completely stopped, however there was no momentum behind his arm to make it propel the ball over the line. That was a deliberate and conscious (double) movement.

But then again there is little consistency between the officials. They cant all ref in the exact same style however playing to one common set of rules would be preferable.

Also when the Hudds player got dragged to touch, I thought that when another player joined the tackle it should be called held? However I may be wrong.

IIRC it requires more than one defender to engage, that's why I was gobsmacked that Gilmour decided to get out of the way and saunter off somewhere else. Mind you, given the rest of Gilmour's play today, I shouldn't have been so surprised

Fair enough. Yeah he was absolutely appaling. I was embarrassed for him when he bottled taking a pass cos big Lee Briers was gunna smash him

At least there werent too many Hudds fans there to witness it in the flesh

Isn't it that you can push but not pull?

Don't they say that you cannot drag the attacker to the touch line? It's one of the worst rules as it brings a lot of doubt and inconsistency.

Why can't they just say that the duty is on the ball carrier to stay in field? Reward good defence and it makes the rule clear for the players, the fans and most importantly the officials.

i think the benefit of the doubt call was actually on the grounding of the ball, as it was unclear on the replays whether he grounded it properly or not - should never have got that far though, the replay clearly shows carvell's arm on the floor and a defender on him - therefore no try

Personally thought they VR got both calls right on the Carvell / Cudjoe try / no try. However, when Brown was dragged into touched, thought Hudds should've got a penalty.

I thought it was no try CArvell, although I think the Cudjoe didn't score a try in a million years but surely if the ball can not be seen it must be benefit of the doubt? I thought you could push players into touch but not drag, I can see the reason behind good defence but if you are the attacker you can put any weight behind you, plus it easier for defenders to drag then push.

When Cudjoe gets up shaking his head and then waits for the VR decision on the 10metre line then anything other than a no try would bring the game in to disrepute. My initial reaction to Carvell was no try, but at full speed I can see how it was given.

The Carvell one was an obvious double movement. If Ryan Hall's was disallowed then Carvell's should too.
The Cudjoe one was the right call, just because you can't see the ball doesn't mean you can just blindly give a try. All the evidence pointed to him NOT grounding the ball.

The pushing into touch was also the right call. You can have 13 defenders pushing one attacker the full length of the pitch without it being called held. If another attacker comes in and lends weight then it should be called held. But none of the Hudds players could be d to help out, so it was the correct call.

Gilmour made a concerted effort to get so far out of the way, he couldn't possibly have offered any assistance. Mebbe his mum's the laundry lady and he was thinking he wouldn't give her his shirt to wash too?

How can it be momentum when he turns from his back to his stomach to score?!

Ian Smith was obviously watching the nature channel and assumed he was an EEL.

Firstly its called "ROLLING" and secondly he was on his front, rolled onto his back and then his arm continued outwards to place the ball down. He was on his back when he scored (IIRC). It was the fact that at no point in the whole chain of events did he stop or change direction of imputuss. Hence the BotD decision.

The act of stretching his arm out from the position of been tucked underneath him is where the double movement occurred. Not the roll.

I thought Huddersfield were on the end of some very dubious decisions yesterday, however, the spilt balls were nothing to do with officialdom.

It was interesting hearing Nathan Brown saying the team decided on the way they played the game, I thought that was his job!

momentum has to stop before you can call a double movement doesnt it? if so a try with BoD was the right call!!

BoTD was a ridiculous decision as there was nothing that the video ref could not see, he can see the ball carrying arm down and the subsequent movement, he has to decide whether that was a double movement or not. He could decide Try or No Try and whatever he chose some would disagree, however there was no act that he could not see, so why BoTD.

From my vantage point behind the sticks I thought clear double movement, but I am biased. What was more interesting was Silverwood's actions. Danny Brough was having a moan, pointing at the screen, watching the screen Silverwood was still talking to DB and appeared to agree with him. He then actually moved out of in goal to a position to award a penalty.

Before the decision came up on the screen his hand went to his earpiece and he appeared to be querying the decision. By the look on his face as he was talking I very much got the impression that he did not agree. Again as pointed out by others this was a different interpretation to Ryan Hall's "no try" the previous day.

Fortunately in the long run it did not matter in this match, but the VR decisions need to be less controversial for the health of the game - remeber the Grand Final offside try a couple of years back? It would be better for the game to have Silverwood or whomsoever make a decision as they see it, right or wrong, than delay the game to still often get it wrong (either the Carvell or Hall decision was wrong as they were different interpretations of very similar actions)

if there were video refs at each game, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.......

I blame Robert Hicks.

Who doesn't?

Here's a thought that I "put out there" a while ago. If there is video at each game, why not leave the decision still in the refs hands. During Warrington v Catalan game the ref seemed to decide to consult with his touchjudges after a high shot after watching it on the screen. The ref can see what the VR sees and knows what it is he isnt sure about. Silverwood was clearly heard to ask the VR to "check the grounding" not "to check for a double movement". Did the VR overstep the request made of him ?

The cost of the screen at every ground and every SL game will be very high. Video refs at every game without the screen will be more viable and cost effective.

That is correct.

The rule is that a player who has forward motion is not tackled at the point where his ball carrying arm hits the ground, but at the point where his motion stops.

The laws are not clear cut on this point, and there are two different sections that address the same area. However, firstly, it was definitely NOT the case that he was stopped short, but reached over the line to ground the ball. His movement, i.e. the roll, was what took him over the line.

Once over the line, he is permitted to ground the ball.



The debate should therefore be whether he was stopped short of the line, or whether his momentum got him over the line.

If he had been stopped a foot before the line, and then twisted and reached over to ground, then a definite penalty, but he didn't.

Watched at normal speed there didn't seem to be any obvious stop in his forward motion, and so the decision seems perfectly reasonable, if you take the time to read the actual Laws.