www.catalansdragons.com/en/artic ... statement/ Just because your the mighty Catalan Dragons, doesn't mean every decision has to go your way. How many times is this now?

www.catalansdragons.com/en/artic ... statement/ Just because your the mighty Catalan Dragons, doesn't mean every decision has to go your way. How many times is this now?

The ending of the Salford game was unforgivable to be fair, the RFL should've publicly apologized and maybe even offered Catalan financial compensation. Had things gone a different way that blatant act of cheating could've easily cost the Dragons a top 8 place and maybe even SL status.

Not sure what he's talking about in regards to the other two though, those losses are more down to poor play from his own team and in particular the awful Scott Dureau, who has virtually gifted Huddersfield the league points on both occasions.

After the farcical officiating at Newcastle, you would have thought they might have got someone better for the next match with Hudds to make the outcome credible.

Would love to dismiss the conspiracy theories about us, but its getting harder.

Both of Huddersfield's trys today shouldn't have counted - the first one came off the back of a couple of wrong calls that got Hudds back to back sets then there were 2 forward passes and an obstruction when the ball went out to the wing. The 2nd try had the most obvious forward pass you'll ever see.

But if Catalan could hold on to the ball or Dureau didn't have a mare, it would have been a different result.

Since lots of clubs are complaining, a compulsory charge of say 30k is to be taken from each clubs tv money for next year, which will go to taking on 12 20 year olds coming out of the academy system who haven't got continued deals, paying them, and training them to become elite officials.

I can't see why the rfl shouldn't.

Don't care what decisions go against you.

The minute a person within the game questions the honesty of a match official, they should be looking at an immediate ban and heavy fine.

Why? The official literally cheated in the Salford match, he applied a rule that doesn't exist any more, he might as well have started allowing unlimited tackles or awarding three points for a try. I also believe that the final play-off match last season against St Helens was a deliberate sabotage by the referee, there's no way such a number of calls in a big game would go against one team. The first half of the cup tie vs Hull KR a few weeks ago was also debatable in terms of the integrity of the official.

Today's game wasn't though, it was terrible officiating and one of the worst forward passes I've ever seen for a try (probably the worst TBH) but that doesn't change the fact that Catalan could and probably would've won the game regardless if it wasn't for absolutely terrible play from Dureau. It also doesn't change the fact that the four league points lost in these matches could've been made up with away wins at Salford and Widnes in the last two weeks.

Having said that, the pass today was fully 5 and a half meters forward and you can't blame them at all for being annoyed at that.

No the ref was correct on that occasion. It's some fans who don't understand the rule, not that it doesn't exist.

No, he wasn't, as has been pointed out numerous times when an identical situation has occurred throughout the season on Sky Sports. Even Stuart Cummings has said on numerous occasions that the decision in that match was utterly wrong. Don't show yourself up again by pretending that it was anything close to a legitimate decision.

First if he said this:

"scandalous and dishonest decisions"

It goes well beyond criticising competence. He is saying the referee is bent. Unless he have evidence this is appalling.

Second I suspect that Calatans have had many more questionable decisions go their way when playing at home. On this Guasch has been silent.

The rule most definitely exists. It's right there on the RFL's website and has been used in other games this season too.
Just because there is an additional ref's interpretation whereby they CAN give a player the benefit of the doubt and not penalise him in this context, doesn't mean they HAVE to.

You may disagree with the referee's decision but it was a decision based upon the rules.

Don't show yourself up by saying daft things like Catalans should have had financial compensation, it just makes you look unreasonably biased and doesn't help your argument.

What blows your argument out of the water though is when you brought Stuart Cummings in as supporting evidence. I've lost count of the amount of times Cummings has got the rules wrong. From "any contact whilst competing in the air for a high ball is a penalty" to "you can knock on even if you're not playing at the ball when making a tackle."

He had little credibility when he left the RFL, he now has even less.


FWIW I thought Catalans were unlucky with a couple of decisions, most notably the Huddersfield try from a forward pass. Which of course brings into the debate the question over the use of touch judges.

But Catalans also benefitted from some decisions, a clear knock-on in the first half and some lenient reffing with regard some late hits on Brough.

In the end if Catalans could hold onto the ball, kick a relatively easy penalty goal and find touch from another penalty then they'd have won.

This thread is tough on the kid in the middle. Yes he is trained up enough to know the right and wrong but unfortunately if you're a player and you see a younger bloke in the middle of the field then regardless of his "superior" role you'll take him on and chance your arm and challenge him to overpower you?

The forward pass IMO is on the touchie's head and he should be the one making the call rather than the ref.

We all make mistakes luckily Mr Cobbs wont make much of an impact on the season.

Yeah, the referees boss who literally made the rule in question has no credibility. Good one. The fact is that the referee in that case went against all logic and precedent at a crucial time in the game to deny Catalan a win. The archaic interpretation has not been applied one single time before or since, the rules were explicitly changed for use in that exact situation. It's even worse than the Magic Weekend tries involving Tansey and Green because it's not even an error or oversight, it's literally an incorrect interpretation of the rules based on the accepted standard practice. The referee could conceivably give a penalty at almost every play-the-ball for not making contact with the foot. He doesn't, and if he inexplicably decided to do so in the last second of a match to award the team without the ball a kickable penalty to allow them to level the scores then I'm sure there would be questions raised about his integrity.

At absolute best, the fact that the referee in the Salford match chose to interpret and apply the rules in that way at that specific time having not done so on any other occasion suggests he had an ulterior motive and was deliberately trying to cost one team the match. In reality I think he probably just had a brain explosion and forgot the rules, but that doesn't make it any more right.

Yes the ex-referee's boss who is at least partly responsible for the awful refereeing systen we have throughout the game currently, often blindly defends referees, and has got the rules wrong on numerous occasions on Sky has little credibility. Apparently only you and Sky Sports seems to think he has. Everyone else thinks he's a joke.

So the rule does exist then? It's just one you don't want applied.
It's not archaic as the new interpretation was only recently introduced, and it's not an interpretation, it's a rule.

The rule is clear. You are tackled if your ball carrying arm touches the ground whilst held by a tackler. After being tackled you must play the ball. If you don't you should be penalised.

The fact that an interpretation of that rule was introduced whereby players won't be penalised if they are deemed to not have known they were tackled does not invalidate that rule itself. That rule is still "live".

So the decision comes down to whether the ref thinks the player knew he was tackled and was trying to waste time or get further up-field illegally, or that he genuinely didn't know he was tackled. In that situation I find the referee's actions reasonable, even if I'd disagreed with them.

The referee didn't go against all logic and certainly didn't go against precedent, many players have been penalised for that before then.

If, in the last minute of a game, a player makes a blatantly poor/no attempt at playing the ball correctly then the ref is well within his rights to penalise him even if he'd let other, less obvious ones go. That's like saying because a ref doesn't penalise a team for being half a yard offside he can't penalise them for being 5 yards offside. And questions about the referee's integrity brings problems for Catalans. Because it's different referee's they have problems with.

So which is it? Is it the integrity of a referee? Or is it a problem with all referees?

The rule has been applied since, I've seen it penalised both on TV and at live games.

I think it's far more likely that Morgan Escare had a brain explosion and forgot the rules and got up and ran on instead of playing the ball than the referee forgetting the rules or, as you said initially, wanted Catalans to lose.