[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.

Great call from Bentham. A tackled player can't just 'play on' like that.

Shame the commentators (including an ex head of refs LOL) are creating controversy out of nothing.

Losing a point because the referee decided to change the rule book in the 79th minute of a match is hardly 'controversy out of nothing'.

He didn't change a rule, Escare tried manipulating a rule, that's why it was a clear penalty.

Sat in a bar in Lloret De Mar p1ss1ng my sides reading some of the comments on here about how Catalans have been shafted. I'm assuming the majority of you have never been to a game in Perpignan? Let me enlighten you....

For 80 minutes every single incident was replayed at least half a dozen times on the big screen to whip the crowd into a frenzy... when there was nothing in the challenges. We all know refs cave in most of the time and it will happen a lot over there.

Ian Henderson spent all game in Bentham's ear pressuring him into giving them pens for nothing....

If you hadn't noticed, Salford lost out on the penalty count...

Hansen had a perfectly legitimate try disallowed...

Fraysinnous is deluded in his rants. If anyone should feel aggrieved it should be Salford. Any away fan at Catalans will come away feeling they've had the rough end of the stick this year. Everything is geared up to give Catalans a massive unfair advantage in their home games. Oh and as for that muppet "Wigg'n" calling Walne dirty..... I think the phrase includes pots & kettles!

Btw, Catalans have the best merchandise in SL... treat yourself while you're at the game.

Buenas tardes!

'One eyed home crowd' shocker. Salford fans at the Willows were the absolute worst for it.



Irrelevant, unless you don't think Bentham is a strong enough person to ignore pressure from players.



Then Salford should control themselves and stop throwing swinging arms and trying to slow the play the ball to a snails pace.



No he didn't



That knee to the head was disgraceful. Surely the most red devil tinted spectacles can't make you think that was okay.



Agree... the boutique is marvelous.

Pointless going on about this isn't it?

It was a draw. Should Salford have won it? Yes. If they'd have sorted their defense out and not let Catalans back into the game. Was there contentious issues during the game? Yes. There will be in every game.

Pointless having dick-swinging contests about tiny points within a match. It wont change anything or anyone elses opinion.

Shall we move on?

as a complete neutral, escare was tackled, he got up and ran for some unknown reason, now he stopped very briefly looking at the ref, then set off again. Had he stopped at that point, took a step or two back and played the ball he 'may' have got away with it, but he didn't, he took the mick and chanced it, and it bit him in the .

Personally, i think escare, who was a bright spark when he made first team, i think he's took on a lot of brent webb's bad points from his time at teh dragons. In terms of niggling and trying to provoke responses from the opposition, its a bit of a shame.

Could do....

but those who root for Catalans don't think it was a penalty....which is understandable given that they root for them.

And also Wakey fans don't think it was a penalty.....which is understandable too given that there's no such thing as a Wakey fan who knows what they're talking about regarding RL.

I'm about the most impartial fan you can get when it comes to my own team so sorry chief but you're spouting cr*p!

Re:Henderson- So it's fine to abuse the ref as long as he is man enough to take it?

Re: swinging arms etc- We're one of the lesser offenders in SL for it.

The knees incident- Sorry, not having it. He was falling down. Hock knew exactly what he was doing when he got his bans... IMO Walne certainly didn't.

The uproar on here is frankly laughable but I'm not surprised. Since Koukash came to Salford we seem to be public enemy number one in a lot of people's eyes and every little incident seems to be magnified 10 fold. Fortunately, there are some sane people who haven't jumped on the bandwagon who can still hold a reasoned debate without letting any bitterness creep in.

Oh and as for Fraysinnous' latest rant I'd hope he's fined for bringing the game into disrepute. He seems to have forgotten the spineless assault 2 seasons ago by one of his players on Theo Fages which brought about a paltry 3 match ban.

Some major double standards me thinks.

I've thought this myself.

He has talent but he's backing it up with some Premiership bad attitude now, which is a shame. Saying that, it's hardly surprising when he's got the likes of Elima, Dureau, and Henderson around him. Players who are constantly top drawer for gobbing-off.

Without meaning to drag this thread on. We bumped into Bentham and the officials in a bar after the game.

He explained to us that a if a player is still in a standing position and moves off the mark after held is called then the player is asked to go back and the play the ball, as its difficult for that player to know when they are actually held if they don’t hear the call.

In Escare’s case he explained that because the players ball carrying arm had hit the floor and there was a player on him, the tackle was indeed complete and the player should have known it was complete and therefore cannot get back up and run away.

If Escare was tackled by Lee in the same way near the try line and decided to reach over and score it quite rightly would have been a penalty for a double movement and he wouldn’t have just been asked to the play the ball again. Escare was held and decided to get up and run, therefore the penalty was correct. Cummings made the wrong call on sky.

So what people are saying on here is that Harrison should have been given the chance to play the ball again after his disallowed try? And so should any player who ever gets penalised for a double movement? H didn't know he was tackled and reached over line so it should have been play the to Salford should it? Give over both decisions were correct. Its amazing how many rugby league fans/pundits actually have no idea about the rules, embarrassing

Well it's kinda nice to think you can approach a ref in a bar after the match and have a conversation like that. Fair play to Bentham. And yes, I fully agree, he was surely dead right in this case.

This.

That.

But not the other.