7 Mar: Catalans Dragons v Salford Red Devils KO 4.30pm (CET) (TV)

[Red John]

Well, someone is going to have to explain to me how a team of mercenary misfits with no team spirit led by an inexperienced failure of a coach and with a stand off who can't play to a structure managed to come up with a performance like that.

 

I didn't see the game last week but you seemed better off without Locke TBH. Evalds is a loss though, very exciting player who looks like he has a great future.

 

Salford have 20 points start with the bookies. Seems a lot to me but given what you say about the squad I can see where they're coming from.

 

A fully fit Kevin Locke would be an asset to any team, but you wonder if we'll ever see him firing on all cylinders. The fact that his immediate replacement - Niall Evalds - is so good means that losing Kevin wouldn't be a complete disaster. However, Kevin has committed himself to the club and is determined to fight for a place in the team. He's apparently been viewed by a different consultant this week, and they're trying a different treatment. Maybe it's paying dividends.

 

Niall's time will come. I think he's probably the best player Salford have produced in a generation. Tying it in with another thread on here, he's yet another half-back who was moved to full-back.

[MrPosh]

So long had Escare been tackled for that I originally thought the penalty was for lying on after the tackle was complete.

Completely correct from Bentham and an entertaining game.

[chuffer]

But Cummings said a new rule is in force to deal with this situation, So who is right Cummings or Bentham.

Yeh I remember them mentioning this at the start of the season, can't remember exactly how its changed though

[Dave T]

held or the tackle number should be shouted at every tackle, that is what refs invariably do. Where players don't hear them and carry on they can make them go back and play the ball

No, the same as any VR decision it is sent up to another referee because the on field referee either isn't sure the play was ever held, or whether it was before or after the grounding of the ball and he is given the option of having it checked by the VR. And as with every other decision when it occurs outside of the VR's remit, he makes the decision.

Turn it around and you see the flaw in your argument. IF you are held when the ball carrying arm hits the flaw and are held by the opposition, and this happens, but the ref DOESNT call held, what do you do? Referee the game yourself and play the ball? Because that's a penalty right there.

to answer your edit, that is where the ref will shout either playon or held. There was no ambigouity here, escare had a brainfart.

This rule was brought in for late offloads happening at the same time as a held call, or a messy tackle. This instance was quite clearly a tackle.

[terrywebbisgod]

Well, someone is going to have to explain to me how a team of mercenary misfits with no team spirit led by an inexperienced failure of a coach and with a stand off who can't play to a structure managed to come up with a performance like that.

 

 

A fully fit Kevin Locke would be an asset to any team, but you wonder if we'll ever see him firing on all cylinders. The fact that his immediate replacement - Niall Evalds - is so good means that losing Kevin wouldn't be a complete disaster. However, Kevin has committed himself to the club and is determined to fight for a place in the team. He's apparently been viewed by a different consultant this week, and they're trying a different treatment. Maybe it's paying dividends.

 

Niall's time will come. I think he's probably the best player Salford have produced in a generation. Tying it in with another thread on here, he's yet another half-back who was moved to full-back.

"A performance like that".Letting an 18 point lead slip and drawing 40 all.Dominant,absolutely dominant.

[Dave T]

Yeh I remember them mentioning this at the start of the season, can't remember exactly how its changed though

the change Cummings referred to was from a few years back Iirc.

[Futtocks]

Well, someone is going to have to explain to me how a team of mercenary misfits with no team spirit led by an inexperienced failure of a coach and with a stand off who can't play to a structure managed to come up with a performance like that.

 

 

A fully fit Kevin Locke would be an asset to any team, but you wonder if we'll ever see him firing on all cylinders. The fact that his immediate replacement - Niall Evalds - is so good means that losing Kevin wouldn't be a complete disaster. However, Kevin has committed himself to the club and is determined to fight for a place in the team. He's apparently been viewed by a different consultant this week, and they're trying a different treatment. Maybe it's paying dividends.

 

Niall's time will come. I think he's probably the best player Salford have produced in a generation. Tying it in with another thread on here, he's yet another half-back who was moved to full-back.

Well put. Until Locke takes to the field fully fit and match ready we should 1.appreciate Evalds and 2.not write Locke off as an over-rated Antipodean.

[Ullman]

Yes, he signalled that the arm had touched the ground. I also thought I heard the ref to tell Escare to go back and play the ball. Escare argued and I think the ref gave the penalty for back chatting. I might be wrong but I think I'm right.

He signalled at least twice that it was for the ball carrying arm hitting the ground. The final time was when Escare approached him. At no point did he signal that it was for dissent.

[chuffer]

I think a shout of "go back and play your ball", which I've seen on more than one occasion, would have been more appropriate, particularly given the situation in the game....that said, I fully agree that escare was daft to say the least

[Dave T]

One of us needs to make sure we ask the ref on twitter this week to clarify this one then.

[Dave T]

I think a shout of "go back and play your ball", which I've seen on more than one occasion, would have been more appropriate, particularly given the situation in the game....that said, I fully agree that escare was daft to say the least

you normally only see that where a player has taken a step or two and looked at the ref for clarification, for some reason Escare went for it.

[scotchy]

by your logic the only important factor in whether it was held is whether the ref has said the word. He would never need to check with the vr, unless he has instant memory loss. If it goes to the vr and the elbow touches the ground, it will be held, even if the ref hasnt shouted held.

So your original point was not true.

You are being a little facetious.

 

The referee cannot physically say held, and the player cannot physically hear him say held, nor respond to it, not could a microphone pick it up at the instant the referee thinks a player is held.

 

Sometimes the referee will take a second or so to think, that's not a bad thing. Perhaps we are getting a little caught in the participle.

 

The tackle is complete and a player is held when the referee has said he was. Not at the moment he spoke the words, but the time at which the referee has decided that was the case or in the case of a decision refereed to a VR thought it might have been the case.

 

The tackle is complete as soon as the ball carrying arm hits the ground.

no it isn't. There is still momentum to stop, a player still actually needs to be held by the opposition and a referee needs to have made that decision.

 

My issue isn't that Escare was held, he was, my issue is that a player in his position, who has been held but not heard it, cannot do anything at all without risking a penalty. They cannot play the ball, the cannot do nothing, they cannot run, under this ruling, they are completely at the mercy of whether or not the referee thinks they should have known they were held even they didn't hear it which is a ridiculous rule to have.

[Old Frightful]

I think the rule was brought in because more and more players were being tackled but hit the deck at the same time as the tackler fell off them. Lots were being penalised as they got up to carry on so the ref became the arbitrator deciding whether or not the tackle was complete or not.

[Old Frightful]

Oh, and welcome back Steve Reed. 

 

[scotchy]

to answer your edit, that is where the ref will shout either playon or held. There was no ambigouity here, escare had a brainfart.

This rule was brought in for late offloads happening at the same time as a held call, or a messy tackle. This instance was quite clearly a tackle.

But he didn't hear him. So whether the ref clarified or not is irrelevant.

 

It may have been quite clear to you, it clearly wasn't quite clear to Escare and how do we define quite clear?

 

It was an unnecessary controversy that made a huge difference to a match that was easily avoidable and easy to solve.

 

If a player doesn't hear the call, send him back to play the ball: good rule, even sort of rhymes

If a player doesn't hear the call send him back to play the ball unless you think he should have known anyway even though he clearly didn't know because if he did there couldn't be this confusion could there because he would know wouldn't he: Terrible rule, doesn't even sort of rhyme.

[Red John]

"A performance like that".Letting an 18 point lead slip and drawing 40 all.Dominant,absolutely dominant.

 

Where did I say it was dominant? Can you point it out to me?

 

Would you say that getting a point against the team who thrashed the highly rated Warrington last week was the performance of a team of mercenary misfits with no team spirit led by an inexperienced failure of a coach and with a stand off who can't play to a structure?

[Red Willow]

Really pleased with the effort and a new side to Salford not giving up when going behind, heads didn't drop.

 

I was surprised that Cummings said being tackled in the air only counts when the ball doesn't bounce. I thought tackling a player in the air was dangerous regardless.

 

Getting anything from a game in France in great for Salford.

 

Is it the Sheens factor

[Ullman]

You are being a little facetious.

 

The referee cannot physically say held, and the player cannot physically hear him say held, nor respond to it, not could a microphone pick it up at the instant the referee thinks a player is held.

 

Sometimes the referee will take a second or so to think, that's not a bad thing. Perhaps we are getting a little caught in the participle.

 

The tackle is complete and a player is held when the referee has said he was. Not at the moment he spoke the words, but the time at which the referee has decided that was the case or in the case of a decision refereed to a VR thought it might have been the case.

 

no it isn't. There is still momentum to stop, a player still actually needs to be held by the opposition and a referee needs to have made that decision.

 

My issue isn't that Escare was held, he was, my issue is that a player in his position, who has been held but not heard it, cannot do anything at all without risking a penalty. They cannot play the ball, the cannot do nothing, they cannot run, under this ruling, they are completely at the mercy of whether or not the referee thinks they should have known they were held even they didn't hear it which is a ridiculous rule to have.

The laws of the game state that the referee only has to call held if there is doubt as to whether the tackle is complete. For instance when a player is upright.

 

In the case of the ball carrying arm hitting the ground there is no doubt. The tackle is complete.

[terrywebbisgod]

Where did I say it was dominant? Can you point it out to me?

 

Would you say that getting a point against the team who thrashed the highly rated Warrington last week was the performance of a team of mercenary misfits with no team spirit led by an inexperienced failure of a coach and with a stand off who can't play to a structure?

Given they were hammering said team,they've been rather fortunate to get a draw.You stated a "performance like that",implying they were indeed the dominant team.Well done on managing said draw after such early dominance.

[chuffer]

The laws of the game state that the referee only has to call held if there is doubt as to whether the tackle is complete. For instance when a player is upright.

In the case of the ball carrying arm hitting the ground there is no doubt. The tackle is complete.

Completely agree, just think the penalty is harsh

Caveat: Unless the ref felt that, by his actions the process of going back to play the ball would eat the clock down and thus its a penalty for time-wasting

[scotchy]

The laws of the game state that the referee only has to call held if there is doubt as to whether the tackle is complete. For instance when a player is upright.

 

In the case of the ball carrying arm hitting the ground there is no doubt. The tackle is complete.

There is doubt, he doesn't know if it is an opposition player behind him, if it isn't, then he isn't held, he doesn't know whether the referee believes his momentum has stopped, if it hasn't he isn't held.

 

There are a huge number of times a player can have his ball carrying arm hit the ground and not be adjudged held, it happens all the time, players can sometime slide metres without being held despite their ball carrying arm hitting the ground and a player being in contact with them

[Ullman]

Completely agree, just think the penalty is harsh

Caveat: Unless the ref felt that, by his actions the process of going back to play the ball would eat the clock down and thus its a penalty for time-wasting

Oh I agree it was harsh but Bentham was within his rights to give it.

[Ullman]

There is doubt, he doesn't know if it is an opposition player behind him, if it isn't, then he isn't held, he doesn't know whether the referee believes his momentum has stopped, if it hasn't he isn't held.

 

There are a huge number of times a player can have his ball carrying arm hit the ground and not be adjudged held, it happens all the time, players can sometime slide metres without being held despite their ball carrying arm hitting the ground and a player being in contact with them

I think you're really stretching things now.

[Ullman]

Anyway I don't know what you lot are all griping about. I backed Salford at +18 in play. Bet365 have just told me the bet is void. Bloody useless TV company.

 

As for Bet365, what a set of ######.

[RLDave]

Why are players not being penalised when they start to move before a conversion is taken?

Another rule the refs can't be bothered with, like play the balls.