Quote headhunter="headhunter"No, he wasn't, as has been pointed out numerous times when an identical situation has occurred throughout the season on Sky Sports. Even Stuart Cummings has said on numerous occasions that the decision in that match was utterly wrong. Don't show yourself up again by pretending that it was anything close to a legitimate decision.'"
The rule most definitely exists. It's right there on the RFL's website and has been used in other games this season too.
Just because there is an additional ref's interpretation whereby they CAN give a player the benefit of the doubt and not penalise him in this context, doesn't mean they HAVE to.
You may disagree with the referee's decision but it was a decision based upon the rules.
Don't show yourself up by saying daft things like Catalans should have had financial compensation, it just makes you look unreasonably biased and doesn't help your argument.
What blows your argument out of the water though is when you brought Stuart Cummings in as supporting evidence. I've lost count of the amount of times Cummings has got the rules wrong. From "any contact whilst competing in the air for a high ball is a penalty" to "you can knock on even if you're not playing at the ball when making a tackle."
He had little credibility when he left the RFL, he now has even less.
FWIW I thought Catalans were unlucky with a couple of decisions, most notably the Huddersfield try from a forward pass. Which of course brings into the debate the question over the use of touch judges.
But Catalans also benefitted from some decisions, a clear knock-on in the first half and some lenient reffing with regard some late hits on Brough.
In the end if Catalans could hold onto the ball, kick a relatively easy penalty goal and find touch from another penalty then they'd have won.