It was an awful decision(last minute penalty) by Bentham, that was not within the rules of the game, you cannot blame the Catalan fans for believing there is a conspiracy, that decision was nothing short of cheating

Surely not. Catalan were screwed according to this thread!

Thursday 5th March 2015 - Adam Cuthbertson
Saturday 7th March 2015 - Harrison Hansen


No it wasn't. The rule was changed to deal with ambiguous situations such as a player not hearing the held call or their play/pass being simultaneous with the held call. It wasn't changed to deal with a player being tackled (his ball carrying arm hit the ground whilst being held by a defender) but deciding not to play the ball but carry on playing. Escare had a rush of blood, he made a mistake. But it was his mistake to not play the ball after being tackled, no-one else's.
Just because Stuart Cummings says something doesn't make it true.


You're right. There is a limit imposed on their success. While Catalans continue to employ idiots as first team players and coaches then they won't be successful. The Catalans refereeing conspiracy theory has worn very very thin.

Unsure which Hansen incident you're referring to but Cuthbertson passed the ball off the ground, that's totally different to a player getting up and playing on having been unsure whether he was tackled or not. What possible justification did Bentham have for not allowing Escare to go back and play the ball, as he would have done in every single similar instance in the last 3 years? "He must have been doing it on purpose because he was French" does not count BTW.

No, that's complete garbage. The rule was explicitly changed to stop this exact situation from occurring, we've seen it on countless occasions over the last three years yet in this case Bentham decided to ignore that and give a penalty anyway which was contrary to the rules of the game. Even if for some reason you think that Escare was deliberately trying to cheat (which again, there is absolutely no evidence for this), what possible justification is there for Bentham ignoring the precedent set over the past 3 years, especially at such a crucial stage in the game?

Agreed, it is wearing very thin for anyone trying to watch these games with any illusion of neutrality.

Spot on. You can't just get up and run off once you've been tackled - there was nothing ambiguous about it.

Why is Cuthbertson playing in after he's tackled different to Escare playing on after he's tackled? Whether you pass the ball or run is irrelevant. You've played on after you've been tackled.
The Hansen incident is the try disallowed for double movement. Playing on after he was tackled.


The fact that this wasn't a held call and Escare played on after he was tackled gives Bentham all the justification he needs to penalise Escare for playing on after he was tackled.


What on earth are you on about?


No it wasn't. It was changed, and applies to, a very different scenario. It applies to a situation where the ref is giving a held call. You are confusing 2 different rules. The rule that allows players to go back and play the ball does not apply in this case because Escare was definitely, completely, and demonstrably tackled. There was no ambiguity as to whether he was tackled.
If we've seen it on countless occasions in the last 3 years then you'll have plenty of similar examples won't you. Where a player who is 100% tackled (ie ball carrying arm on the ground, momentum completely stopped, tackler still held on, not bounced off) gets up and plays on and is simply allowed to go back and play the ball.

There is no precedent set over the last 3 years, because you're applying the wrong rule to this situation.
A penalty given against a player playing on after being tackled is not "contrary to the rules of the game". If it was then neither Cuthbertson nor Hansen would've been penalised.


Yeah your posts are positively Swiss in their neutrality...

...If we're talking Nazi gold and tax evasion that is.

No, it doesn't just apply to held calls, it applies to situations where a player is unsure whether he was tackled or not. Double movements and passing the ball of the ground are totally different because they are not legislated for in the rules of the game, whereas this is. You can't just make up rules to suit your argument. Escare was looking for guidance from the referee as he ran forward. I can't think of any specific examples because it's a run of the mill situation that happens numerous times in virtually every match and nobody even bats an eyelid because it's not controversial whatsoever. Stuart Cummins confirmed that it was the wrong decision to award a penalty, and AFAIK he is the one who introduced this rule. In every single situation similar to this, the player would be sent back and allowed to play the ball. Every one, yet the one time Bentham decides to break the rules and award a penalty happens to be in the final minute of a Catalans match to deny them a win. Tell me that's a coincidence.

Haha what a joke! I never said anything about cheating frenchman infact i never even read the thread, hence me missing somebody posting the ruling the page before i posted.i simply gave my opinion it could have been my own side and i would still have seen it the way i explained earlier.but you continue to believe it is victimisation if it suits your argument.

All this is doing is highlighting the average fans understanding of the rules extends to the mumblings of the sky team and not much further.

Him is right on the matter. Anyone arguing otherwise are just seeing conspiracies they want to see ... Not unlike a certain Sky commentary team ...

The game wasn't shown in Australia despite being advertised as being shown in replay..(not live).. I seem to have recorded a replay of the titans v Tigers... Although my fox guide is telling me it was the superleague game I had recorded... Round 4 before they started screwing with the coverage... Just watch it get worse and worse now NRL has started