After watching the game again on tv and after reading Bilko's match report. It still made me think that there is another rule that certainly needs clearing up. For Silverwood to go to the screen to check whether Carmont was tackled would have been completley unfair if it was chalked off.
Silverwood clearly shouted 'play on' when Carmont was 'almost' tackled. So if Carmont was tackled, he would be in a lose lose situation. If he got up and played the ball, he'd be done for volutary tackle, if the video ref deemed him to have been tackled then there would be another penalty there.
Thankfully he wasn't tackled so nothing really came of it in the end.

Yeah I was arguing that if it was an error, if was a refereeing error (I say refereeing error only by a technicality because in a split instant like that he really can only guess at the right call) and we shouldn't be using the video ref to sort that out. How could the player be at fault in reacting to a play on call by errr playing on?

If the video ref deems a tackle the video ref would have penalised Carmont. Thats garbage. If they decided to just put a play the ball down where he was "tackled" then that would make more sense but then where do you stop? Do you review every tackle in every set? No that would be stupid! They should just keep the video ref simple - is it a try, is it not a try. Everything else between the two sticks, except perhaps offside at a kick, should be a refs call!

If the ref cant even judge when a player is tackled then we may as well just get rid of them

What got me is Silverwood saw what happened and made the call but then doubted his decision for some reason? Maybe he was hoping he got it wrong

It reminded me of the old days when the refs could go back for a couple of tackles to see if anything had gone on.

It was totally ridiculous, and I don't understand how anyone in the RL judiciary could ever have considered that was appropriate use of the video facility.

If the ref says 'play on', it should be play on regardless of what happens in the next tackle.

The refereee has already made the decision and that's all there is to it. Video refs should be told they can not assist in that situation.

It'll be interesting to see if Cummings is as quick to condemn the error this time. Somehow I doubt it...

If an attacking side has the ball the ref will wave play on in situations like that even if he thinks their could be a problem with the try, the Carmont incident was difficult to see in slowed down replays never mind in real time.

Its the safest option for the ref with difficult, close decisions, if Carmont had been tackled then he simply awards a penalty to Warrington. Common sense to me, i have no problem with it and they got the right decision in the end.

Ive seen therm do similar where the ref thinks he has spotted a slight fumble at the play of the ball which was almost impossible to spot, they have played on and gone to the video screen and dissallowed the try after.

Bit of a daft one, like you say he makes the call and all the players can do is react to that. Coley is no slouch is he?!

Went mad when they went to the screen. If it had been turned down it would have been a penalty to wire which would have been a disgrace as it would have been silverwoods error not Carmonts.

That sort of incident should be chalked off the list of things you can look at like forward passes.

Rubbish, you would have been fuming if we had scored a try in a similar situation then later you had gone home and watched the recording only to find that the try should never have been awarded.

Its called common sense, use the technology if its there. It was a close call, their is no way the ref could have called that in real time.

If the ref waves play on. What is George meant to do? Stop and say sorry ref I was tackled I'll play it? No, because that would be a penalty. He plays on and later finds that that is a penalty because the ref cocked up?

IF he was tackled then it should have been a ptb but we all know it would have been a penalty which would have been harsh to say the least.

How can it be a penalty to Warrington against Carmont for doing as the ref tells him? Had he played the ball assuming he was tackled it would be a penalty against him. Had the video ref deemed he had been tackled it should have been a play the ball to Wigan back where the tackle was made, otherwise it's a bit of a farce.

Something similiar happened in 2005 (IIRC) but in reverse.

Solomonas near our line and Wakefield attacking, He's held by 3 Wigan players and Kirkpatrick shouts HELD, Wigan let go and Solomona drops over line and "Scores"!

Kirkpatrick goes to the video ref who can't hear Kirkpatrick shout Held so awards the try.

Basically if a ref gives a "Play on" call like that then there should be no way that a Penalty should be awarded, maybe it should just go back to the Play the Ball?

The ref did call it. That's the end of the matter.

How quick was Coley when he went through the gap! He went from his normal ambling to near supersonic in fifteen meters.

Said same! If the video had showed it was a tackle it was hardly Carmonts fault for doing what the ref told him to do!!

Very impressive! I reckon on yesterdays showing he'd give Joel Monaghan a run for his money

I have to question the integrity of the story of Coley's knee 'op' after seeing that sprint yesterday

Im sure in SOO someone was tackled but didnt know so they carried on going but the ref just told him to get back and play it instead of giving the penalty. Better rule?

Exactly!! Which mean't he had no right to ask the Video ref to judge it again..although i thought Silverwood had another great game in the middle..clearly the best ref in the sport on both sides of the world by a mile.

Did his knee op break the spirit of knee ops....clearly getting Steve Austin treatment from the Wigan medics..

Thats the rule, if the ref couldn't be certain that Carmont was tackled he will shout play on. He's trying to give an advantage to the attacking side just incase what he thought he saw in a split second wasn't correct, like i said you would have been furious if you had got home and saw that Carmont wasn't tackled with a lot of space to his right and Silverwood told him to play the ball.

Its the way it is, if you have a problem then contact the RFL. I don't see how you can have a problem as he gave you the advantage and benefit of the doubt to try and score a try, remember he has a split second to make a call. Its better he plays the advantage then if Carmont was tackled on the video replay then its a pen to the defence, i'm sure Wigan would take those odds every time which is a possible pen to the opposition in their own 20 with no danger against an advantage with a strong possibilty of a 6 pointer.

The problem I have is the letter of the law would have meant it would be a penalty to Wire if turned down which would have been a farce considering it's the refs error. If the try got turned down the game should have just gone back to Carmont playing the ball but it wouldn't have and that's the issue.

I'm not sure you can see where we're all coming from. Like I originally said, if Carmont was tackled but got the nod to play on, he is in a lose lose situation. Take himback to the play the ball would be the best decision but wouldn't happen.

If you actually listen to the ref, you can hear from his ear piece, the video ref says "but you said play on", but he asked to look anyway.
A bloody shambles if you ask me!

once refs made a play on decision he shouldnt be allowed to ask video ref if he was correct.

take cricket......ump gives LBW......he cant ask if he was right, but player might if review systems there.

BUT......if hes in doubt about a run out, he goes for the screen, similar to video ref in our spor, to check if a try is a try??
neither should be allowed to challenge their own decisions.