BUT is he actually allowed to go to the VR to ask for clarification ??

Didnt he do that at cardiff in 2007 to award leeds that last minute penalty (obviously not for a high tackle) and he was incorrect for doing so ??

I though you could only use th VR for Tries and also checking how to restart the game ??

I don't think anyone is suggesting that. It's a genuine question. Have you ever seen a tackle in general play that has been referred to the video ref? Would this one have been had it not been in the process of scoring a try? So if the VR is now used (rightly maybe?) to judge the severity of a tackle, will it be used so in every game from now on?

The problem is this is the first time the VR has been asked about the severity of a high tackle - that we are aware of. To avoid accusations of bias, every ref who has access to the VR should now ask for slow-mo replay to establish the amount and severity of head contact in a high shot. If this is done then Bradford were just unlucky to be the first to fall foul of the new operational rules of the VR. If not then Silverwood has gone beyond his operational mandate just to screw us again

And he gets another chance to screw us over again on the field this sunday

I think that is a very fair point apart from the last sentence which just lowers it to the level of other paranoia. I would be amazed if that is the first time a VR has ever been asked to comment on the content of a possible illegal tackle, I never thought about it at the time but it is a very fair question which needs answering. As Debaser says, maybe it was only because it was a try scoring opportunity. If that is the case I think that would be daft.

It does also highlight the more general problem of having games refereed differently depending on whether the cameras are there or not. I heard somewhere a few weeks back (think Justin Morgan commented on it) that Catalan always have a video ref. Sooner we move to that for everyone the sooner we can get better consistancy.

cardiff was a bit different. ganson wasnt going to give the penalty until the video ref (klein) told him he should. ganson never asked for an opinion from the video ref so he shouldnt have got involved. This time ganson asked for an opinion. Whether thats allowed or not no one seems to know as the actual rules regarding the Video refs are ambigous/made up as they go along.

You reckon?

Compare and contrast vidref decisions when we play Leeds with those in any other game on TV?

Consistency? You're having a laugh!!

I still believe they can only use the VR for tryscoring and restarting a game - never seen it being used for anything else to be honest !!!

Well it won't get rid of that side of the inconsistancy but where I was coming from was more that not having the video ref available in all games means that they are refereed differently. How often do you see tries given/not given in games with no VR that should have gone upstairs? What happens when it gets to the VR, well yeh thats a different matter!

Indeed! Common sense and objectivity seemingly goes out of the window!

I think personally they should scrap the video ref altogether, this then would make the referee and the touch judges do there job, and also in growing some cahones to make a decision !!!

Surely that then would be more consistent ??

I honestly can not ever recall a referee asking a VR to rule on a tackle. Maybe others can?

You need to learn how to spell tehicles...

I was gonna say a big massive set of hairy ********* but thought i wouldnt bother

Is the missing word "Cummings"??

Close but in that case i would of used only four stars

The other difference of course is that this was a BBC game and the audio feed from the ref's microphones is available to the general public which is the only reason we know he asked Silverwood for an opinion.

Perhaps Sky should also start doing this - would allow for greater transparency in the decision-making process.

And Tigertot - I agree that sentence futher up was a bit paranoid. Logically it made sense at the time for 2 senior referees to use the technology available. It did come across that they were sort of making it up as they went along though. The VR should have clearly defined areas of responsibilty - and that is Cummings job to design that and filter it down to his team. If Ganson wasn't sure then it would have been on report and we might be in the next round with Wigan fans complaining more than they are at present!

Does Raynor have the opportunity to challenge his disciplinary process if part of it already has not followed properly designated procedures? That could be a further consequence of this.

And of course I would have instead said "Klein"...

Im almost positive in years gone by the sky games you used to be able to hear what the refs were saying ??

The irony of Raynor & videos has only just struck me. Perhaps it's Phil Clarke's rugby gods extracting revenge.

It's a good point about the using of the VR for high tackles. Naturally i feel it was right to do so and Bulls fans probably won't. But it still begs the question can the ref do it.....

I dont think bulls fans are saying he wasnt right to do so, its latter of your comment which is on the minds as appose to is he able to it, as this has not been seen before from what anybody can recall ??

Can't recall it happening myself either.

If it is able to be referred upstairs, it needs to be consistent, no one knows if ganson actually seen the tackle and what he would of done if there was no VR available.....

It needs to be made so each game has a VR or no game has a VR to cut out the inconsistencies