[chuck]

The video ref is used in NRL and rugby. In the rugby - they're all wired up and the ref, who has final control/say of the game signals that he wants a TV check - and then has to tell the TV ref who's watching the screen upstairs what he wants to check.

eg. "Can you confirm that the ball was grounded?" or "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?"

The TV ref will watch it from whatever angles the broadcaster can provide - then answer the question that the referee asked. Control always stays with the match referee, but they take advice from the TV ref. It's only used in contentious scoring situations.

It's not for foul play or other in-play incidents. In those sorts of incidents, players can be cited after the fact - must take place within 48 hours, and there's a hearing.

In the Eduardo case - if the ref thought it was a dive - he could signal and request something like - "Was contact made with the striker?" - and the TV judge would have to make a call.

If the ref has already decided that there was contact, he's fully entitled to not go to the TV referee. Or he could decide to check only with his linesmen.

It works in rugby - most replay decisions take no more than 2 minutes. That's based on anecdotal evidence - not statistics. But it's a very different game from football, so might not work.

What Harlequins did with the "Bloodgate" fiasco - was beyond cheating - that was insane stupidity - and Dean Richards deserves his 3 year suspension. Putting an injured player back onto the field, in an attempt to win the game - then actually cutting the player who'd subbed off, in the dressing room after the game - because the oppositions medic was suspicious. And they admitted to doing it 3 or 4 times. Asshats.