good article on in regards to this

Not sure if letting the ref 'think about it'would work. Not only will there be the influence of other players and TVs to cater for, but also the situation could completely change the more they replay what they saw in their mind.

Ultimately though the referee has to continue officiate the game to the best oof his ability, especially in situations when it is in danger of spiralling out of control.

Even if Ganson didn't see the initial incident, he was looking towards our end (where the screen was) when making his decision. Surely he could have been allowed to have glance at the screen to see the incident in more detail? I think more emphasis should be put on using the Sky screen for incidents other than tries. It seems to me that the technology is obviously there so why not use it to the full extent?

I also agree the video ref could have been used, whether they just have a word in the ear of Ganson or go to the screen.

as a neutral think this tackle or wat ever it was on tompkins was horrendous shud have been sent of the damage he could have caused could have been a travesty for the lad, also noticed that few of the rhinos players then targeted tompkins bad bad advertising for the game, wigan are to the team to beat don't have to beat the players literally..

no tries would be scored if they all went off for ten, therefore he was right

Coaches watch the game in real time and have replays on their laptops.

Why can't the match commissionaire have access when the referee puts an incident on report?

Maybe you don't send the player off for ten minutes (although that would be my choice)
You allow him to stay on until the match commissionaire has reviewed the video and then relay the decision to the match referee. If it's an Ablett type tackle then off he goes.

The problem then would be the referees will begin to defer any big decision to the match commisioner (ala video refs) and then how long until a player scores or sets up a try in the minute between the referall and the decision?

All good ideas in theory, very unlikely to work in reality.

Best option is the introduction of 2 refs, but we need more fulltime refs then.

No unless every game has the tv technology, by that i mean the number of cameras sky has at the games

The issue there then becomes consistency, not the idea itself.

I can't see why, for instance on Friday, when Ganson and the TJs were having their mothers' meeting that the screen can't be used to help them adjudicate. There was one angle in particular where the incident looked horrendous, and I think had Ganson had that view of it he'd have been reaching for the red card rather quickly.

He doesn't need to look though when he's got a video ref who's watching. I can remember quite a few occassions where Ganson has asked the video ref for his opinion about bad challenges which have resulted in red cards but on this occassion he didn't seem to bother. Why not?

I've said though now in hindsight I'm glad it stays on because it kills an excuse for Leeds fans and Eddie Hemmings to use. The whole refereeing continues to be poor though and it never used to bother me but since the referees went professional in 2008 I think standards have dropped rather than increased.

I'd have to agree with you there - since they went full time, the standards aren't acceptable for people who now only have 1 job to concentrate on.

From what we've seen of Ganson in the last few years, I can only think he didn't send him off because he was happy enough that the incident wasn't that severe, but put him on report as an insurance. Of all of our referees, he's usually the one big enough to take the tough calls in the big games. And if that is the case, it's a mistake from him to not walk Ablett.