In light of Paul Clough's non-try on Good Friday can anybody explain how Jon Wells can see the lack of the grounding of the ball in his analysis on Sky BUT the video referee couldn't? - is it down to time, technology or a lack of eye sight!!

It's a trait I'm beginning to notice with Mr Silverwood, that he lets the game flow for x amount of time, and then becomes nit picky on some things that he's ignored all game. Usually against us as well, he was the same in the Leeds game. I definitely agree that the NRL video ref method is the way to go. Robert Hicks would be knackered though

similar to NFL.....video evidence has to be CONCLUSIVE to overturn an on field decision.
Our problem is, refs wont make an on field decision....maybe its time they were forced into making a decision, then have it reviewed? Would also be a good way of keeping track of which refs get it wrong

In RU the ref asks something along the lines "Is there any reason why I cannot award the try?" Seems similar to the Aussie way.

Not really. The RU ref doesn't say whether he thinks it's a try or not he just asks if there is ANYTHING wrong. In other words he has no idea what happened.

The refs in the NRL give their verdict and then ask for something to be checked, EG - I have a try but just double check he grounded it properly or I'm not giving it because he dropped it but just make sure he did.

Actually there are two questions asked by RU refs. If the referee has seen the ball grounded but may be unsure about obstruction or a fumble, he asks "Is there any reason that I cannot award the try" which means the TMO does not have to see the grounding.
The second option is to ask. "Try or no Try." Meaning the TMO will have to verify the grounding. In this case if the ball is possibly grounded at the bottom of a ruck but cannot be seen then the try is not awarded.
Seems to me that this method added to the specific questions asked by RL refs would cover most if not all eventualities.