The game where Childs said I've got a try and Silverwood wasn't able to prove conclusively that it wasn't.

The fault was with Childs' infield call - had he said 'no try' check VR then it wouldn't have been awarded since the VR couldn't tell if it was grounded or not.

I strongly suggest you go to your local opticians then.

Wow, you clearly have no understanding of the VR criteria.

The footage at the time showed that the ball had not touched the ground at any point. Everyone could see it and Jonathan Davies was clearly amazed at the decision. That clearly meets the criteria for the VR to make a conclusive decision that it wasn't a try.

So VR Silverwood thought "Oh I can clearly see throughout the whole movement that it wasn't grounded, but I'd better not upset James as he thought it was..."

Are you Dr K and suggesting its an RFL conspiracy against Salford ?

No, Silverwood is just incompetent. Clearly.

How much more conclusive do you need when no shot shows the ball anywhere near the ground at any point?

This case has nothing to do with the VR criteria of referring a try and the subsequent VR decision.
That comes in to play when the video ISN'T conclusive. In this case it was. The video clearly shows the ball above the ground and not touching it at any point.

The problem wasn't with Child either. I think it's perfectly reasonable to send that up as a try. The problem in this case was with the Video Ref himself not looking closely enough at the video. A lazy decision and one that should not ever happen from a Video Ref.

This.

You think its "perfectly reasonable" for Childs to award a try when he didn't actually see the ball being grounded, yet unreasonable that Silverwood declined to make a call on the video that didn't conclusively show it either way ?

Its only the video that Sivlerwood didn't see at the time (zoomed in from behind) that shows that the ball clearly wasn't grounded.

You must have been watching a different TV broadcast than the rest of the forum then as it was clear from the 2 angles that the ball wasn't within about 4 inches of the ground at any point when Solomona had the ball and then lost it

So why did Silverwood decide, that with all his years of refereeing experience, that he was unable to make what you suggest is such an obvious call ?

I suggest you're being influenced by what occurred subsequently, not basing it on the evidence at the time.

Its Childs that shouldn't have awarded a try based on something he didn't actually see.

But hey, as they say, its all today's chip wrappings

Under the laws of the game, it had to be sent up as a try...not seeing the grounding is not a reason not to award a try.

However, how a bloke with the considerable visual tools at his disposal can make such an obvious error is beyond me.

Clearly not grounded.

Just watched it again - and the original footage that Silverwood saw not the subsequent angle.

My thoughts at the time still stand - only Richard Silverwood (and, it seems, shinymcshine) could possibly believe there was any element of doubt whatsoever about it. The ball clearly doesn't get grounded. I would fully expect him to be dropped next week based on past precedent.

Probably in the same way Ganson gave Chris Green a try for Hull at Magic Weekend a couple of years ago, blatant human error. Everyone who ever saw that would have said it was a no try (the Green incident).