Let's just address your bigoted nonsense mathematically. There are 2 finals 4 semi finals and 12 games between the big 4. That's 18 games. Of which James Child refereed 2.

If those 6 referees had those games distributed them evenly Child would have had 1 game more.

However 2012 was Tim Roby's first year as an SL ref so he wasn't going to get them. So some referees would have had 3 games and some for. Child still only had 2.

Oh but it gets worse for you because Phil Bentham broken his leg in 2012 and as such wasn't available from may onwards. So there were actually only 4 referees able to referee those games. So those games being distributed evenly would have given Child either 4 or 5. He still only got 2.

These 2 games to you. Out of 18. Largely shared between only 4 refs. Is according to you such a massive over representation We should reasonably conclude that he got them because he was gay.

2012 was Tim Roby's first season as a full time ref. It was James Child's 3rd.

So now six years, constantly voted the worst referred, and many occasions of incompetence. Yet still reffing at the top level and the top games. I wonder why that could be

No, big games didn't used to be "shared" around the referees. When the big 4 played each other, the top ref's were given them, simple......until they started to randomly give the 5th or 6th 'best' Child the big games.

the best ref in rugby union is Nigel Owens, the worse ref in super league is James Childs, they happen to be gay which is not a factor in the assessment

really. So Ian Smith never got any big games? Ian Smith was nowhere near the standard of thaler Bentham Ganson klein or Silverwood. I'm guessing he never ever refereed a game between the big clubs?

So they deliberately hired (or in this case effectively over promoted) a man less capable of doing the job than others because he's gay. But they did it out of what motivation? The reason for positive discrimination is to prove that you are a diverse organisation and to encourage others from those backgrounds to do the same.
It'd be like that Batley player coming out but not actually telling anyone.


So it was a considered thought then? Oh dear.

I don't know why you're commenting on the game it's irrelevant to what I posted or what you posted.
What you don't seem to realise is that people question all the referees except Thaler at the moment. Yet Child is the only one you or anyone has questioned is there due to ulterior motives. Why does Richard Silverwood get big games? He's been consistently poor not to mention a few off-field issues over the years.
What about Bentham? He screwed up the Leeds v Wigan Cup Final not so long ago. What kind of positive discrimination are the RFL using to keep giving him big games?


You are monumentally either misunderstanding or deliberately misconstruing people's responses to Child. I hope it's the former as the latter would mean you are determined to stick to your prejudice.

People say Child isn't a good referee. That doesn't mean he isn't one of the best we have. The 2 aren't mutually exclusive. He IS one of the best we have. We only have 5 or 6 referees. There is only Thaler who is consistently good enough to be considered a top ref but he can't do every game. The RFL have a policy of trying to make sure teams don't get the same ref over and over again so there will always be an element of sharing the games between the refs, and as Smokey's maths shows there are a lot of big games. Leeds will have played 12 or 13 "big games" this year just against Wigan, Saints & Wire. James Child is going to have to ref some of them, especially as one of the refs is very new in Joe Cobb and Robert Hicks is behind Child in the pecking order. So even if you think Child is rubbish, which I do, he's still at least 4th in our refs behind Thaler, Bentham & Silverwood.

This doesn't really play into a positive discrimination situation. Especially as you admitted the RFL didn't make a song and dance about it and that there doesn't appear to be any other case of positive discrimination.

So I'll ask the question again.

Is there any evidence, at all, of positive discrimination in the case of James Child?

That isn't true at all though is it? Which makes the two questions quite irrelevant.

We have 6 appointed fulltime officials, which is wrong to start with. Had we not been in that position, and Child was still reffing then it only makes the situation worse.

We have 9 other regular refs who back up Super League, and three of those consistently put in better performances than Child. Why are they not promoted when they do this consistently?

Of the six we have in Super League full time, Child is continually voted the worst. At Magic Weekend, Hicks and Cobb, were by far and away the best referee performances of the weekend. In view of Roby leaving, Cobb was moved up. Hicks (who I must admit myself have never had time for), since Magic Weekend, has consistently produced very good performances, and in contrast to Child is on a different planet. How many big games does Hicks get again? (and I am not talking finals, I am talking Super League big games)

Is anyone saying the Super League refs are assessed at the end of each year and decided upon who stays based on performance? If not and this doesn't happen, why not? In any job, if you consistently do not meet the expectations of you, then it is dealt with. Why, after six years is Child not dealt with?

Saying he is one of our best six refs is just nonsense, that is easy to argue against. Saying he is one of on six full time officials would be correct, and then we are back to the arguments of this thread, why is he still one of those six fulltime?

In what way in your view was it arguably the biggest league fixture of 2012?

I don't know that it is either, but that doesn't seem to have stopped some people on this thread asserting it to be fact.

Heavy going, this. Anyone fancy a pint ?

Nigel Wood - how the fu(((k he manages to hang onto his job is beyond me.

Elephant in the room...... It's cos he is a real poon hound and ticks the right boxes.