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

Would rather listen to the mumblings of the former head of referees who actually introduced the rule in question than the 'expert' opinions of RLFANS.com users... but that's just me.

The rule, which was posted a few pages back, only refers to held calls not tackle calls. Because a tackle is definite, not a judgement call whereas a held call isn't.


You mean like Cuthbertson & Hansen?


They aren't different at all. The rules of the game, in this context, don't distinguish between what actions a player performs. In terms of the rules it's irrelevant whether Escare had run or passed the ball after being tackled.
You are still confusing rules regarding a held call and those regarding a player who is actually tackled.


Good lord. Kindly quote me the rule that you think applies in this case then.


So it happens that often you can't actually think of any? There have been 3 televised matches this week. Can't you think of any at all during those 3 matches?


Stuart Cummings is wrong. Just like he was during the Hull v Leeds game when he said, when jumping to catch a high ball, any contact in the air is a penalty regardless of whether the player is going for ball. He's not correct in every situation.


How would you know? You can't remember any situations similar to this.


Hang on, I thought you were viewing this from a neutral standpoint? There's a cracking thread for you on the Sin Bin by the way.

Todd Carney just tweeted 3 hours ago[iJust got home from the hospital, Broken Ribs Fingers crossed I won't be out for long.[/i

[i"If any doubt arises as to a tackle, the Referee to resolve doubt should give a verbal instruction to “play on” or shout "held” as the case may be."[/i

A 'held' call is to determine whether or not a tackle is complete. The rule makes no reference to whether a player is grounded or not, or whether it was a 'definite' tackle or not, simply to when a player is in doubt over a tackle. Escare was clearly in doubt over the tackle, unless you think he was deliberately trying to break the rules and cost his team the match.

No, as mentioned, those situations are explicitly legislated for. Maybe it's an inconsistency in the rules that needs to be changed, but that's how things stand right now.

Yes, they do distinguish. There is an explicit rule for players releasing the ball, and an explicit rule for double movements.

[i"A tackled player shall not intentionally part with the ball other than by bringing it into play in the prescribed manner."[/i

[i"When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try."[/i

Do you have any specific examples of the referee having the players reform a scrum, or some such similar mundane occurrence? Can you think of an example of a politician picking up a pen? No, it's not a notable occurrence, it's something that happens all the time and the fact that I can't be bothered to go back and watch all of this weekend's matches to find a specific example doesn't change that. I'll bump this thread the next time it happens in a televised match if that will make you happy.

No, he isn't. But I'd suggest that he probably is right in this case considering it's a pretty clear-cut situation, considering that the rules of the game and historical precedent clearly support his viewpoint and the fact that he is the one who implemented the rule in question.

Yeah, my neutral judgement is that Catalans were screwed by the referee, and that this sadly is not a rare occurrence.

Well he shouldn't have been, it was quite obvious he was tackled.



He looked to be deliberately attempting to milk the rules and waste what little time was left thinking he could run 15m away and then slowly go back and PTB when ordered to replay it by the ref.

Escare messed up, Bentham made a good call.....Escare should consider himself lucky that Salford went for the draw and didn't risk going for the try. For all the talk about Cummings previously being the head of the refs....well he ain't no more and you don't know what discussions have taken place recently by the refs to perhaps tighten up that particular rule/interpretation.

No. A held call isnt to determine whether a tackle is complete in this case. The rules specifically state when a tackle is complete, in this case it's when the ball carrying arm touches the ground. A held call is exactly what it sounds like. A call that the player is "held" ie stood upright and held by tackler(s). The referee does not call "held" at every tackle. Strangely enough he only shouts it when a player is held.
You see, you're using the wrong rule.



All these rules relate to players who are tackled. Like Escare was. Escare, Hansen & Cuthbertson were all tackled. That is indisputable. Why do you think only 2 of the 3 should be penalised when the rules state that a tackled player must regain his feet and play the ball.
Note, not a held player, a tackled player.
The only rule that allows any leeway specifically refers to held players and not hearing the held call.
It doesn't allow any leeway for tackled players. Otherwise Harrison Hansen would've been allowed to just play the ball.


Except you're making the same mistake again. ESCARE WASN'T HELD, HE WAS TACKLED. The fact you can't think of any despite them apparently happening regularly every game shows you're thinking of the wrong thing. They can't be that regular if they didn't happen in any of the last 3 televised games. There was no occurrence, none whatsoever, of a tackled player getting up and running off and then being allowed to play the ball in the last 3 televised games.


The rules of the game don't back you up, they state when someone is tackled he must play the ball. Escare didn't do that. You're reading the wrong rule, it's designed for a different situation. Unless you think Escare either wasn't tackled or was actually held.

You havent provided any evidence of historical precedence. Provide some. That's your way of proving you're right. Provide the evidence to back up your claim. Or you can just state, again, that it's there but you just can't remember when, where, involving which teams or which players.


So there's a definite campaign by the RFL against one club? Is that your neutral judgement?

Whether you think it was 'obvious' or not is completely irrelevant to the rules.

What evidence have you got for this? And even if this was the case, why did Bentham suddenly decide to go against the established rules and break all convention to award a penalty rather than sending him back? Why did he suddenly decide not to give Escare the same benefit of the doubt that he would have given countless other players on countless other occasions over the past 3 years? Seriously, the only explanation I can come up with is because he's French.

No he didn't, he quite clearly made a call that was against the established precedent and contrary to the rules of the game. Yes, Escare messed up, but that's exactly what the rule was brought in for three years ago, to avoid unnecessarily punishing players in this situation. It's not as though Escare was blatantly taking the or wasting time. For that brief moment, Bentham was playing to outdated rules. He might as well have given Salford unlimited tackles on their final set.

Well if that's the case then I expect to see it penalised a whole lot more in future matches. And let's be honest, this isn't what happened. He f*cked up, pure and simple.

Quote the rule that says a 'held' player is different from a 'tackled' player. Oh, you can't, because there isn't one and you're talking complete and utter rubbish.

I have quite clearly quoted the rules regarding double moments and players passing the ball off the ground. Direct quotes from the rulebook that explicitly state that those situations are different from the one involving Escare. If you are unable to comprehend a pretty clear-cut set of rules even when explicitly presented to you, or if you want to conveniently ignore those rules and pretend that they don't exist or are not applicable for some reason then that isn't my problem.

You're making yourself look stupid by asking me to trawl through the previous three matches to find a specific example of something that has been a regular occurrence for the last 3 seasons. Tell me a specific example off the top of your head of a second ball bouncing back onto the field after being kicked out for a penalty. You can't, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Anyone who regularly watches matches would be able to tell you that it's a regular occurrence and that isn't even debatable. If you've never seen a player get up and carry on running only to be sent back by a referee to play the ball then you really need to pay more attention.

I came to that conclusion after the play-off match vs St Helens last year when 7 decisions incorrectly went against Catalans in the first 20 minutes, to the extent where even the Sky commentary team were accusing the ref of bias.

You can't have a rule where a player gets the benefit of the doubt when he's clearly wrong just because he claims he didn't know he was wrong. Where do you draw the line? "I know you didn't mean to knock on, so just call that tackle 3." "Oh you didn't think that was double movement, I better award the try then." What's that? You didn't realise you had just punched someone in the face? Ok then play your ball."

Those are of course extreme and silly examples, but carrying on after you are held is an infringement just like those things and you can't have it your way just because you don't agree with the ref.

The rule is there in the interest of fairness for marginal calls. For example when a player just has hold of your ankle or if you offload as the ref is shouting held. You can't just get up and keep running after such an obviously completed tackle.

No, you award it based on the rules of the game Whether you think it's 'obvious' or not is irrelevant. I don't think it was particularly obvious and it certainly wasn't something out of the ordinary or a blatant act of taking that would warrant a penalty or anything more than him being told to go back and play the ball. If he was told to go back and didn't do so then yeah, award a penalty, but that isn't what happened. You can't just suddenly decide not to give a player the benefit of the doubt after all these years based on some spurious logic, especially in such a crucial situation.

And again, what evidence to you have to suggest that Escare had in that split second made a conscious decision to get up and run forwards in an attempt to somehow 'trick' the referee into falsely allowing him an advantage, thus taking a grand total of one or two seconds off the clock? If he was so desperate to delay the clock, why wouldn't he just get up and play the ball slowly like every other player in history? Or, perhaps, he wasn't just a cheating Frenchman and legitimately was unsure if he was tackled or not, and so played on according to the rules of the game, not considering that Bentham might take the opportunity to take matters into his own hands by applying an archaic rule that was changed three years ago in order to prevent this exact situation from occurring.

There appears to be a lot of arguments about this penalty because it happened in the last minute and affected the result. All penalties no matter when they are given affect the result. Salford were hammered for penalties in the second half, some were deserved a couple appeared to be "Professional" incidents.
I know that 2 wrongs don't make a right but if the decision was incorrect then it balances out the conversion that appeared to go over and wasn't given!

Split second? He was held for about half an hour.


No doubt arose there whatsoever, it's a clear as day completed tackle. He's tried to be cute and got caught out. Dry your eyes.