Any ref that says "speed it up in the ruck Sean, I've let four or five go", or as Thaler said a handful of times on Thursday when players lurched forward off the mark trying to win a penalty, "no,no, you're moving forward," is a cheat, simple as that. See an offence, penalise it. If you don't you are cheating the fairer players who play by the book.

Great, games with 100 penalties awarded throughout......I'd love to watch that.

Refs have to find the right balance between penalising stuff and trying to let the game flow.

You make it sound so very black and white. A ref warns a player about something "clearly then if he's done something wrong it's a penalty and he's cheated by not giving it!".......reffing a game isn't as simplistic as that and if the game was reffed how you're suggesting it should be it'd be an awful spectacle.

first of all, I simply pointed out refs in RL are poor in applying advantage.

secondly would you like a game where every single infringement is penalised? if so it would be a bloody awful game whatever the sport.

thirdly, I referee football. I have reffed league and premiership clubs. in football the laws are a guide. lots start " if in the referee's opinion". I wouldn't know how the RL ones are written but I suspect neither do you.

I would also argue no referee would ignore something as blatant as a forward pass. anyone who thinks they do is deluded.silverwood had a decent game on Friday. the two points I would take issue with is issueing a team warning the not following it up after a few high tackles.
also he could, and should, have waited to see where the ball ended up after Watkins flick. chelsea scored a great first goal today after a great advantage from the referee.

lastly this is a board for debate, if you have to resort to having pops and calling people idiots because you don't agree with them I suggest you grow up and get to bed. it's school tomorrow

Spot on Tad. I also think Silverwood had a decent game but not allowing Leeds advantage was very very poor as it could easily have changed the game (and in my opinion it probably did). He also needed to be a bit more contrite when explaining it to leeds players. Just saying "I'd blown the whistle" with a smile isn't good enough.

The Union refs are much better at that kind of thing in my opinion.

Anyone remember the "zero tolerance" experiment the RFL ran a few years ago? Think it was a game reffed by Karl Kirkpatrick.

Every single offence spotted was penalised. There were something like 20-odd penalties in the first half, and about ten in the second. By all accounts, a frustrating nightmare to watch and play in.

If you want to drive League to being much more like Union, then penalise every tiny infraction of the rules that you see.

I remember a few years back when the season opened with the Magic weekend at Cardiff and Wakey played Cas with James Child as referee and he managed to award around 40 penalties in what wasn't even a dirty game. Think he had a few more games around that time when the penalty count in his games were really high, and most of the time for no apparent reason.

That actually wasn't a bad year, as the experiment worked to a degree. After about 8 rounds, all clubs seriously cleaned up their act for rest of season. Certainly there is a lot more "professional" offences happening in recent years, as refs have shown more leniency.

I always feel that James Child is trying to impress the referees boss with his repertoire of penalties (offside at the kick off,or striking in the scrum etc).Ultimately there's usually too many penalties in his matches which detracts from the spectacle.Not a fan of him at all,his matches seem to be the ones that are in danger of boiling over.

I don't think refs cheat all the time, but they do ignore clear infringements that should be penalised. I'm from the Rudolf Guiliani school of thinking, broken windows theory or "zero tolerance". Human beings by nature take advantage of any weakness, give then an inch, you know the rest. If it takes every offence to be punished in order to restore any semblance of compliance on the field, then so be it. Just how far do you think Dom Manfredi would have moved off the mark before Silverwood pinged him, he was already in the bar at the Bridge Inn at Kirkstall. It's human nature, let them move a yard forward, they'll want two, let them stand two yards offside, they'll want three. The reason why so many pages are spent debating ref issues is down to the RFL and the refs themselves. I watched a DVD of the '72 championship Final the other day, nobody lurching forward at the play the ball, nobody encroaching offside, nobody layed on top of a tackled player whilst turning round looking at the ref waiting for him to shout "moooove ", just players playing the game controlled by a ref without an agenda. The RFL and refs are weak people, we need a Guiliani in control to restore order. Nigel Wood is a man of straw.

From limited experience of his refereeing, he came across as somewhat aloof, arrogant and incapable of working with the players to ensure a better game rather than being a stickler for detail. Not a great communicator in the way that say Ganson could be - when he wanted to.

I've just re-read Kev's 2003 diary and it's interesting because he talks about the officiating of Ganson and Silverwood. Nothing really seems to have changed in 12 years with Silverwood still giving highly questionable decisions against us.

There's always going to be room for interpretation and that adds somewhat to the sporting spectacle. But Kev said in 2003 that he worries that the standard of refereeing could drive fans away from the sport. Whilst I can't imagine people not buying a season ticket because of the officials, I've known of people not to attend certain matches because of who is taking charge.

Whilst mistakes will happen (we wouldn't want robots to officiate) there needs to be accountability for some of the glaringly bad calls. Until we have a strong pool of top refs, it won't happen. Its a real shame.

Although I'm sure you'd see less laying on at the ptb if James Child had armed police to do his bidding, I don't see the RFL adopting this approach any time soon

Then again, it would be a vast improvement on video refereeing.

Are you for real or are you just trolling?

If you penalised every offence you would not have a game - you may have a point if they clamped down then maybe there would be a greater observance of the rules but that is no guarantee. To take your Guillani point, he clamped down on the mafia - did it actually make a difference - no one iota. The mafia was still as prevalent all he way through his time in charge they, were just cleverer and that is what the players will do they all adapt.

One thing that has changed since 1972 is the decrease in out an out thuggery that littered the game in those days. The bias of the likes of Robin Whitfield makes Silverwood look like a saint by comparison. Yes you may have more yes sir no sir in those days but the referees weren't better for being jumped up draconian school teachers. You are comparing part time players and a spped of game that was pedestrian by comparison to todays speed of play.

The idea the any referee cheats is not worthy of comment.

I trust your wife - if you have one - enjoys her days in the dungeon - you seem a very bull-like character