At the time of watching it i could see there was a hand under the ball, its only shown on 1 angle and thats the only angle what shows the ball but it was looked at once and the other angles where repeatedly looked at. You could tell from cloughs face he hadn't scored. I was expecting to hear more about it from the sky goonies but nothing was mentioned. but hey ho it didn't stop some saints fans moaning about a penalty try.

i would agree with you if there wasn't that one angle which clearly showed a hand under the ball. But i guess its swings and round about's hopefully we get a few calls come the back end of the season

I noticed that the telling angle - the one from the side of the sticks, showing various hands under the ball was cut short and never shown again.

add this to the Tomkins/Flower knock on/penalty fiasco and one could think that there may have been a conspiracy to make the second half a bit more of a game (and a tv spectacle)?

irrelevant really given the result, but made my blood boil watching it back on sky

It seems Jon Wells has this analysis tool to zoom in on footage, I am not sure if the video ref has this resource or not but if they don't it may be useful with decisions like this.

As for the benefit of the doubt rule, personally i think it should go to the defending team, if it is not a try 'it's not a try' is it...

Yeah Wells has that 'Super Zoom' feature
Why the video ref can't use that is beyond me

"Why the video ref can't use that is beyond me"

He does'nt need it, he's got Cummins in his ear dictating any outcome.

Why would the Bradford coach be allowed to dictate the outcome of a try in a Wigan/Saints game?

Wasn't given as benefit of the doubt

I love that new rule in the NRL

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.