This ^^

Only the captain should be allowed to talk to/question the referee and then it should be done with respect.
Officials should have the power and the backing to tell players once to go away, and if they do it again then get them in the bin. I'm sure it would soon stop.

I think the refs we do have make some poor decisions, but until we make it a better place for referees then we are not going to attract more to the game, so we're stuck with the ones we have.

Back in the day Fred Lindop had total respect from the players and if there was any back chat they would be walking back 10 yards.

Even though it shouldn't make the slightest difference, dressing the officials in pink, yellow, green and pale blue make them look like part of a circus act, rather than officials in charge of a game of rugby.

Mind you, as with football, there is certainly more and more "crowding" of the ref in the last couple of seasons and it's time that they used the 10 metres and that they could only be questioned by the respective captains.

A clampdown for a couple of weeks would see an instant change to attitudes.

In-depth discussion aside - that was simply the wrong call and cost Les Cats the game; it's not acceptable when P&R has returned, for a ref to make a basic error like that. I don't like to see players remonstrating with the official, but can you blame them when he's so obviously got it wrong? No help from the TLO or the VR either - pathetic.

I'm amazed how many RL fans have got this decision wrong. Escare knew he was tackled, both his elbows were on the floor and Tommy Lee was lay on him, but he still decided to stupidly get up and make a run for it. It was absolutely the correct decision to penalise him. If had hadn't have heard the call or thought he was tackled fair enough, but that obviously wasn't the case in this instance.

Infact, if it wasn't for stupid decisions Salford would have won the game 42-40 as Josh Griffins legit conversion should have been given, yet it wasn't!

How do you know that?

Because he had both his elbows on the ground and he must have been able to feel a 14 stone plus player crawling all over his back.

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.

May as well turn it into a predictions thread now.

Salford by 12

At last someone gets it right in all three paragraphs.

If anyone cares to watch it again try turning your volume up and you will hear Bentham call ONE and MOVE (as stated no need to call held) and the fact he shouts move means that a player had at least a hand on Escare and that's enough to constitute a completed tackle.

Difficult one.At normal speed the tackling player doesn't move off the tackle instantly and similarly Escaré doesn't react instantly to call believing he can still progress.

I'm sorry but it seems like the majority agree with myself and Phil Bentham, which would in fact suggest you're wrong.



BINGO!

I have thought about this too. Coincidental that we've looked a much better team without Gaz Hock? Possibly, but in both games we've played since (Hull FC and Catalan) both were very close and needed plenty of spirit to get us through which we managed. I don't think we would have won them with Hock in the team.

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.

You'll get 7 matches for that.