He didn't tonight with the Sinfield "knock on" which hit his chest.

The man is a tool, penalty count of 9 or 10 to 2 at one bit then levelled up by giving leeds four on the bounce missing a number of glaring decisions including forward passes, high tackles (Burrow), knock ons need I say more, I know I said tool but plank fits aswell.

I think it's fairly clear Child has a problem with Leeds and, just as important, Leeds have a problem with Child. What either party do about that I'm not sure but it's out there. The loathing the Leeds players have for him is unfortunately not well disguised.

You could go for an ankle tap and it would still be a high tackle on Burrow

He doesn't agree with the refs on the blatant calls they get wrong. That would make him look extremely foolish.

But he does side with the man in the middle on every single 50/50.

I don't like having him on the commentary team, there's already enough people up on that gantry. Sky just seem obsessed with the refs. Far too much time in the broadcast of a game is now spent discussing them and their decisions.

Meh. I wish RL fans would stop talking about referees to be honest.

Pretty hard for fans not to talk about them, when they are such a focal part of the sky broadcast would you not say?

Seriously, what other sports tv coverage has a member of the commentary team to analyse EVERY decision like that? It's becoming extremely tedious already IMO.

Lets get it clear we would not have won tonight if we had a better ref, Hull were the better side and injuries did not help, but we would have won last week with a fair run of the ball with the ref. It seems that at present every 50/50 decision is going against Leeds at present. It is clear Childs does not like Leeds, we had a similar issue with Silverwood a few years ago. I understand the players frustration but its pointless arguing with him as there is going to be only one winner. It is up to the club to take the matter up with the RFL.

Secondly Cummins on the TV is a joke, off course he will always back the ref, can he go the same way as the margin metre

Leeds lose shock result...leeds blame ref shocker.

Don't worry it was obviously Hull's grand final.

Golden boy in crying like a bitch to the ref.

Hull got all the 50/50 calls.

Good job we threw away 4 tries and missed conversions, but hey, don't let facts get in the way.

Don't cry to long over the result.

Who has blamed the ref for that defeat than?
The skipper is allowed to talk to the ref on at least 2 occasions the Ref called the Skipper out to him HTH.
It can't have been your GF because you won.
Finally no-ones crying it's 2 points nothing else and nothing more.

A poor ref.....totally ignored Leeds being stood off side for 80 mins.

I'm not surprised that refs dislike leeds given the way your players behave towards them. I'd like the RFL to implement the rules in the way union have with the guy who has been given a lengthy ban for verbally abusing a ref

From a neutral point of view I have to say that the referee was a little quicker to blow for any Leeds transgressions than he was for Hull. I also thought that Hull got the Lion's Share of any 50/50 calls.

However, this had no effect at all on the result, Hull battered Leeds in all but scoreline, they should have been out of sight by 30 mins.

Hull were quicker, sharper, tougher and just plain better than Leeds for most of the 80 mins.

One question for any/everyone, what is the point of Ref Cam?!?! It does nothing to enhance the game and just appears to be one more intrusion into the game that we don't need.

Pugwash.

I'm pretty sure you would get a ban for verbally abusing the ref (as Hock recently got) so clearly our players are just talking to him as is allowed but don't let facts get in the way of your fun troll attempt eh!

I'm not trolling. Your players, maguire and sinfield being the main culprits, regularly over step the line with refs. As I said, I'm sure the refs dislike it and if it affects their decision making then it's the players who are to blame. wigan are the same and warrington to a lesser extent