It's annoying also when they (Officials) missed a conversion that went over the sticks! End of the day they all even themselves out over the season!

The officials not seeing a kick go over the bar is inexcusable and I've seen it too often over the years.

I'm curious as to why they stand near each other, look at each other then decide to wave their flag or not.

Why can't each one stand beside their own post. Then look up at the post and clearly judge if the ball crossed inside their post. Then at least one flag will always go up because it will be to the correct side of the post (i.e. to the right of the left post). If both flags go up then it is a conversion.

Standing way back from the post and judging the angle seems more prone to error IMHO.

I appreciate some may disagree with me but I've often wondered if my suggestion is a better method.

He didn't have a player all over his back, he obviously didn't hear the "held" call from the ref and played on. Why would he risk a penalty and potentially cost his team the game otherwise?

In exactly the same circumstances where a player doesn't hear the "held" call the referee is now instructed to send the player back to play the ball. In this instance Bentham ignored the new directive of 2 years ago and issued a penalty, which is wrong!

The official panicked in the heat of the game and cost Catalan a point

But he didnt know he was tackled.... OK!

Actually the correct way for linesman to position for a conversion is to take your post and line up your angle with the kicker, this can mean that sometimes they are stood close together due to the angle the kick is taken from, you then follow the kick to make sure it flies inside (or directly over) your post and not the other one, you raise your flag or not according to what you see, it's irrelevent what the other linesman flag is doing, however even with all that the ref can over rule what the linesman indicate either way

Of course escare must have known he was tackled. anyone think escare did it on purpose hoping he would get sent back to waste abit of time? If so it deserves to be a penalty.

Well for a start that picture shows that the pkayer is on his legs not his back!



Many players hit the ground at speed with a player on top of them and then the defender loses contact before momentum has stopped allowing the ball carrier to continue.

The fact that you don't know, understand or recognise this tells me you don't know what you're talking about and probably never played the game.

Bentham got it wrong!

True that does often happen.......but it didn't happen on this occasion though.

No it didn't,
But it explains why Escare thought he was OK to continue and why being sent back to play the ball was the correct decision and not Benthams now defunct made up penalty ruling from 3 years ago.

I thought the "take it back" ruling applies only where the player is held up and passes as the ref shouts "held" simultanously. If the ball-playing arm hits the floor and a man is on him, there is no need to shout held. The player should know he is tackled.

As for the touch judges, my understanding was that they rule independently, and if there is a difference of opinion, the ref will side the touch judge underneath the closest post to where the ball sails over.

As for Salford, you can't help but wonder about the Hock effect in the dressing room. They've been a scoring machine since he left.

I may be wrong, but the ref making a player go back and play it only applies to stand-up tackles? ie tackles that have been complete but the player is not grounded. After all, if a player is tackled and grounded there's little point in continuing the play. It would be a penalty, as in the case of Escare.

A four page thread on another SL team, it feels like the close season.