They do vote for Aussies, where is your proof that they do that because they take losing badly and not because they think their guy is the best referee?

Come on, proof?

How do you know which of the two they were thinking when they asked for Sutton? Two different reasons their and unless the Aussies have come out and said we picked Sutton because "we are sore losers" then yours is no more fact than mine.

No I'm asking why it's ok to accuse employers of only picking someone based on their nationality (if it's a nationality we aren't afraid to call cheaters) but it's taboo to accuse employers of picking someone based on sexuality.

What a guy that had been a ref in SL nearly a decade getting a big match (a rarity) is comparable to some guy with miles less experienced than several other options who kept getting them early on in his career.

Yep. Its perfectly ok to argue in favour of referees being neutral and they not being a paid representative of one of the sides ,and it is wrong to, in the admitted absence of any proof, accuse an employer of picking someone based on their sexuality.

It really shouldnt need explaining to you that the neutrality of a referee is integral to their ability to do their job. Their sexuality however is entirely irrelevant.

But why had Ian Smith been kept on as an SL referee despite him regularly criticised by fans and coaches a like and often thought to be the worst of the referees. Because of the RFL's equality agenda and Ian Smith ticking the salt and pepper hair box?

Come on Printer, you're just being daft and attempting to move it away from YOUR allegation.

Firstly, no-one has asked you for facts, we've asked for evidence. In my case there is lots of evidence because my allegation is that Australia picks its own refs. And the evidence is that Australia picks its own refs and conspires with NZ to get its own refs.

My secondary, throw-away comment about the Aussies taking losing badly is pretty bloody obvious just from seeing them when they lose. The 2008 World Cup Final being a good example.
As for my allegation that they pick their own refs to help themselves, well considering there are plenty of examples of Aussie refs reffing GB/England v Australia games in just the way the Aussies want then I'd say there is at least some evidence to back up my view, even if it's not universally agreed.

Though here's the difference:
Firstly, I have provided some evidence from years of watching England/GB v Australia plus the on-file voting records of Australia plus their attitude toward referees who don't ref their way.
You haven't provided any, and admit you haven't. So if you have no evidence what are you basing your view on?

Secondly, my allegation is not personal nor does it affect minorities who have had to struggle tremendously just to get equality. And many still do around the world (see the current story in the U.S. of a religious registrar who won't register gay marriages) and there is still plenty to do here.

My saying the Aussies try and get refs who favour them is not even on the same planet as you saying James Child only gets big games because he's gay.

You also still haven't answered the questions I put earlier.

Is it a sub-conscious favouring of Child or RFL policy?

If they were so happy with him he'd constantly be getting the top matches though. He hasn't reffed a single semi final or final so they clearly DON'T think he's one of the best.

It's obvious throughout the year to see who the RFL think are the best refs by what games they are given. Child was well down that list in 2012/13/14 and yet every so often they'd throw a whopper of a game that belied his ranking. Or do the RFL give Wigan vs Saints to the ref who conducts himself the best back at Red Hall nowadays.



That's because he possibly wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't gay. He might be in the Tim Roby position of never having gotten a matchup between two of the Big 4.

As for you two going on about "but you aren't criticising other refs and their appointments"......again I'll repeat, this thread is about James Child, that's why I'm discussing James Child. If you want to talk about Silverwood or Bentham's appointments then knock yourself and start a thread. The reason people talked about Ash Golding on the "liability Golding" thread is because the thread was about.......Ash Golding......understand???

But people weren't just arguing that refs should be neutral......people were calling Aussies cheats and had determined that the reason was solely to help them win.......it probably was but their's no evidence for that, just people's opinion.

Hang on. WTFF. I thought this entire sodding thread was about James Child getting given big games by the RFL.
Which is it? Does he get lots of big games or not?

You don't think how a referee conducts himself the rest of the week matters? Of course it does. In the same way as how a player conducts themselves in training matters. Maybe, just maybe, that's why they throw him a big game every so often. That would seem to make more sense than whether he's gay or not.


So you're repeating the allegation? Whilst admitting you've no evidence at all to back it up? Tim Roby was behind Child in the pecking order wasn't he?


The issue is linked. In the same way as whilst discussing Golding on the Golding thread people also discussed other players. Stop being daft, you've really dug yourself deep into this one haven't you. You'd have been much better off just admitting it was a bit of a daft comment 20 odd pages back but you couldn't admit it.

So why do other refs who perform just as poorly as Child also get big games? Y'know, the ones who aren't gay.

people would have argued the same had the team been Kiwi as well as the ref.

Only idiots thought the australians wanted to cheat, many were comfortable that they wanted the game refereed to interpretations which suited them

But there is evidence for the Aussies wanting refs that help them, again you are confusing evidence with fact. There was the way the game was refereed and the last minute try disallowed. That is at least some evidence even if it's not fact.


Finally we're getting somewhere.

Even an opinion has to be based on something.
For instance there were differing opinions on Ian Kirke in his last couple of years at Leeds. Some thought he was useless, some thought he still had value as a safe hands break for Peacock. Regardless of anyone's viewpoint both opinions had evidence to put forth for their view because people had seen him play and formed their opinion based on that evidence. The same goes for those who might think the Aussies pick their own refs to help them, or indeed those who take the opposing view.

With James Child you admit you know of no evidence for this yet claim it to be your opinion. This is why people are saying it is a prejudiced or preconceived view.

Because that is the very definition of a preconceived viewpreconceived adj
(Of an idea or opinion) formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness[/i

I'm not at all, I wanted to talk about James Child and OTHER people started to bring other refs into it because they couldn't answer the ones I asked about James Child.



Apart from the 57 times people have screamed "Proof", let me guess use response. A fact isn't proof.



It wasn't a throw away comment though was it, not until I pointed out the double standards of you not being able to prove it. I actually you being one of the most vocal after that four nations game accusing Aussies of cheating so they wouldn't lose. If that's not your theory as to why they did then what is your theory....don't sit there and pretend you now don't have one.



So you can have a view that's not universally agreed or fact, but I can't.

I have provided evidence with the games he got and ones other refs didn't. That you don't like or accept it doesn't make it evidence.

Some people will argue that Hall's no try was the correct decision, does that make you evidence void?

Printer - are you determined to consistently claim black is white?

You've previously admitted you provided no evidence and had none to back up your view.
Now you claim you do.

You claimed James Child got lots of big games, then claimed that he only got thrown 1 or 2. Now it's back to he gets lots of them again.

You claimed it was a sub-conscious act on behalf of the RFL. Now you don't know.


What you aren't getting is that the evidence that you now say is evidence but what wasn't before, that James Child gets big games, isn't evidence of him being favoured because he's gay.

If everyone agreed with you he got more big games than other refs of the same standing then THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF HIM BEING FAVOURED BECAUSE HE IS GAY.
It's only evidence that the RFL favour him over other refs of the same standard. Not the reason WHY he is favoured. As I said before there are many more plausible reasons as to why he is favoured more than other refs of the same standing.

So please, please, stop digging yourself further and further down this ridiculous hole. You used to post sensible stuff but this is just utter batsh|ttery.

Have you caught the Smokey disease of mis-reading or twisting what I write just to be able to have a counter argument???

The sub-conscious, I never said it WAS, then WASN't, I've said it COULD be.

When I said I didn't have evidence. That was I didn't have evidence that they do give him games because of his sexuality (much as you don't have any evidence that Asussies pick refs solely to help them win). The evidence I did have is was that they've booked Child in a very inconsistent way to other referees and on that evidence I've formed an OPINION. The exact same as your evidence of Hall's no try leading you to your OPINION of Aussie refs.

Right from the very start I've always said it is my OPINION, I've never said anyone has to agree with it and I've never claimed it to be fact. I've shown why I come to my opinion with details of his IMO strange and inconsistent booking.

Again one last time for everybody so it can hopefully sink in. My view on Child is my OPINION, not FACT.....just like 'Him's' claim on Aussie refs is opinion not fact, based on evidence that some others would disagree with.