That's an interesting one - maybe the mishandling of that situation has spooked the officials; if the best ref in the comp can be demoted for trying to save Mr Alibert from himself, I guess that would have an unsettling effect on the others.

I also noted that Silverwood's narrative from the second he got the referral, sounded like he was attempting to justify agreeing with the on-field call, rather than arriving at the correct decision. Maybe they've all been given the hard word about showing a united front in the face of increasing criticism by coaches and players?

Good point, hadn't thought of it in that way.

That's not correct. Silverwood saw two angles - one in front, and one from behind. The one from behind the play he saw was obscured slightly by a Salford player (Lui I think). The longer shot that clearly, unequivocally shows the ball not hitting the ground only seemed to emerge about 20mins later - it wasn't shown to Silverwood in the decision making.

Not to defend Silverwood. He knows there is a camera there (there always is), he should have asked for that angle before making his decision.

The camera shot he saw from behind, despite a players foot in the way, clearly showed the ball still above the floor. He was just determined from the start that his view would be obscured.

These 2 screenshots are the lowest the ball the ever gets to the ground in the shot from behind that Silverwood saw. The ball is clearly visible and clearly above the ground.

The on-field referee decided it was a try.
To over-rule this, the video ref had to be certain that, at no point, did the ball touch the ground.
As there were points when his view of the ball was blocked, the video ref could not be certain that, at those moments, the ball was not put onto the ground.
Of course, this would assume Solomona has wizardry in his fingertips and sorcery in his blood. But the video ref can't categorically disprove this either, so the try stands.

That's pretty much what I said halfway down pg 6 , but there are plenty of "differing" opinions .....

In the immediate review after the 'Try' was 'scored', Silverwood did not have the super zoom. He watched the incident on two different angles, twice. The one from the opposite end of the ground (where the super zoom later came from I think) CLEARLY shows the ball never hitting the floor (or even getting within inches). This is without the need for the super-zoom. We all have our own opinions on Jiffy but he was spot on when he stated it was never a try - one thing is for sure, he has half decent vision.

Milner then gets awarded an on-field 'Try' from Childs, which Silverwood correctly deems to be "clearly short" and so over-rules him.

Why he could not have stated on the first instance that the ball is 'Clearly in the air, no try', well only he can tell you that. I assume/ hope he will be available for comment at a Championship 1 ground this weekend...

Yes, but you were serious.

Spot on, as i said previously, without a VR, child would have probably given the try based on his view ( or those of his touch/in-goal judges) at the time.
Subsequent replays would show that he got it wrong, but yet, i imagine, or would hope that most fans (even though one set would feel aggrieved) would accept that he had a second or 2 to make a decision based on what he sees at the time.
Silverwood, didn't, he had numerous camera angles, slow motion replays and more importantly, time to make the correct decision, he failed, not Child.

Good point in fact his incompetence was from the off when a try was sent up in the first half when he said "yes it's gone backwards off " Dobson or S'au ". At that early stage I received a text message which said you can see how this game's going in reference to the fact he was going to give the try no matter what.

Ok Marwan, your right, the whole of the RL world is clearly against Salford.

Child is not exactly the best ref in the comp (although he is marginally better than Cobb) and bad decisions happen in every game.
Sometimes they are at critical moments and other's don't have a major effect.

Most of us can get over the poor calls but, the VR should be right 99.9% of the time yet, they seem to make the wrong call quite often which probably means we should get rid altogether.

Richard, you're flogging a horse so dead, even the maggots have left the scene.

No debate on precedence etc is required. Just the possession of at least one normally functioning eye, and being actually bothered to fcking LOOK for whether the ball was actually grounded. Which everyone but you very clearly saw it never was. Stop trying to pretend there was some doubt in this.

What very clearly occurred is the VR forgot to check whether the ball ever was grounded, and in so doing, joined the top-5 all time list of criminal VR cockups.

Why the need for the Marwan comment ? I know all about Salford's short comings as I've followed them longer than I care to remember, and personally couldn't give two hoots who's against us.

However the comment on "Dobson or Sa'u " was in fact in reference to the clown in the video box "Silverwood" not child. I knew at the time it was a try for Cas but the point being the man at the screen couldn't care less who he saw touching it as he said and I quote it was either "Dobson or Sa'u" and was giving the try even if it bounced off your head.

Nobody is against you - which was probably the point of the Marwan comment.

At that early stage I received a text message which said you can see how this game's going in reference to the fact he was going to give the try no matter what.

This is the reason for the Marwan comment

I care about dreadful officialdom like we saw on saturday that was the reference, not people on a messageboard assuming we think all other fans hate us or not.

For the record I thought Cas were fantastic and I wish they could bottle some of their team ethics and send them to us.

Well done Castleford Tigers in a thoroughly deserved victory and good luck.

Indeed Cas played very well given their injury situation and were denied what should've been a try in the first half when Child wrongly called them back for a knock on. However, whilst I'm sure Cas fans would be annoyed at that decision, I think most would understand how difficult it is to make those decisions in real time with often obstructed sight. The VR decision didn't have those restrictions and should have reached an easy verdict.

Was that the milner length of the field 'knock on' ?

i watched the game on delay as i was at stalybridge and had heard about the contentious VR decisions and was looking out for these.

Immediately on the milner one, i called a knock on, it hit milner's hand, and then we have the replays that show it did hit milner's hand but he was in the process of tackling. Now this brings me to another bug bear of mine, THAT ruling, where its not a knock on if they haven't played at it/if its in the process of completing the tackle.

I don't think i've ever seen this given in favour of the attacking side, its a totally bull pointless rule, "oh he was playing at the ball as his arm was outstretched" thats the standard sky commentary when the ball hits a tacklers arm, when they are just coming to wrap someone up around the body.

Its a stupid rule that only works one way, the wrong way.

Personally i think there's too many ways to make decisions on loose balls/strips/offloads after held, it needs tidying up.

Yep agree with all that. Like you I thought it was a knock on in real time, which is why I don't blame Child or the touch judge for calling it as such. But the rule is daft. It's not a knock on either way in my opinion. The tackle knocked the ball out and so it should be play on.
They only changed the rule to make it easier to adjudicate on, if you remember back a few years there were a few incidents re this situation (of course the controversy was needlessly heightened and exacerbated by the Sky team) and shortly after they changed the rule to the current one. In the same way as they did with obstruction.

Under the previous VR rules do you reckons Silverwood would have awarded a "benefit of doubt " try , noting that the decision went with the attacking side ?

Who cares, Cas would have beat us anyway. We move on, hope we go for mcshane in the off season and good luck against the pies

You're right

The mods should close all match related threads as soon as the score is in as no amount of debate will change the result

Just as my first and only comment and this has been a great thread to read as it seems most if not everyone is in agreement that Silverwood made a balls up of the highest order,did anyone else notice that after Solomona rolled over and lost control of the ball (it rolled up the outside of his forearm before flying away) that Silverwood actually said something along the lines of "he's still got control, I am happy with that"

Is it me or was the ball clearly lost at that stage and he was talking absolute bull crap?

And Cas were brilliant and battered us off the pitch. Well done and with McShane looking a natural as a seven as well.

To be honest, I at least think that the current system is better than this more spurious "benefit of the doubt" element that we had previously. I know people find plenty of examples where the process is flawed, but this incident really shouldn't have been one of them. The ball did not hit the ground and it was there for all to see.

You can't write-off a process as flawed if the biggest flaw is the people following it .