No chance...he's a big nancy boy. Alcoholic Brears would have killed the big ponce. Talentless nancy boy!'"

It never ceases to amaze me how the ire is directed at the referee. Of course Child is poor, he always is.

However, what irritates me the most is the the Leeds players allowed Briers to play the rest of the game unscathed. Summed up how weak we were and how dominant they were. Look at how they fired in to Ablett. We should have been snotting Briers at every opportunity, legal or otherwise, but we just didn't have any fire in our bellies today.

That, not how predictably crap Child was, is what winds me up.

Thought Child did well today. A lot of refs would have waved the red card because they like to think the game is all about them and want to determine games themselves.

Child knows its the players on the pitch that the fans come to see so he kept it 13 vs 13 and the fact that Briers turned on a masterclass vindicated his decision to leave him on the field.

Oh, so a ref is vindicated in a decision to leave a player on the field because he is more likely to entertain the crowd if he stays on and he is a class player (which Briers clearly is)? Christ, lets hope Kirke doesn't start punching people in the back of the head when he gets tackled, as he will spend even less time on the pitch than he does now!

PS. I can't figure out if you are posting this crap because you are trying the more subtle 'I am a bit simple' troll tactic or whether you are just indeed a bit simple?

There is no logic in any of that bollox.

You are right, Child's lack of action did open up the opportunity for someone to have an effectively free-shot at him & it wasn't taken. We did lack the fire we showed against Wigan last week. I think had Briers gone, we would have still lost, albeit not by such a big margin.

I find it hard to believe we'd have beaten you without our star half-back, especially if we were reduced to 12 men for most of the match.

Regarding today's game, I just couldn't believe how little pressure we (Warrington) were under today. We all know Leeds can score from anywhere with their attacking weapons, but it felt like Leeds spent very little time near our line and it felt like Sinfield had little opportunity to put us under pressure with his kicking. I can't recall a single bomb that caused us real trouble today, which is surprising as I usually expect Sinfield to ask every question of our backs with his kicking game. Also, I generally expect Leeds to get a lot of repeat sets but it all felt very slack from them. I imagine they'll bounce back (some will argue this is the defeat they need to wake them up); however, I don't think waltzing to the GF will be as easy this year as it's been for previous seasons.

Rather obviously unlikely to be true as before today Leeds had won 8 from 16 with Child officiating and now after today it's 2 from 4 in those Leeds V Warrington games he's 'controlled' - and that includes this season's Headingley win.
__________

G1 has for me hit the nail on the head. Ablett's first 'hit-up' after the faux melee set the tone of what was to follow. 'Blinker' knocked on even before Warrington could get a decent shot in - and Leeds barely tried in the following set.

Just as the Leeds pack had dominated Wigan's in last week's meaningless game Warrington had done likewise to Leeds in this week's meaningless game.

Leeds would have been 10-6 up 12 vs 13. No 40/20's one try definitely not scored & the other 2 he set up probably bot scored.

Players should decide games, not officials.

I'm just glad Bailey never played or Briers could have been on the end of some punishment from TMFMISL as you have all called him on here.

On many other forums this comment would have resulted in a ban.

Here we just prefer to point at laugh at you.

It's alright posters saying Child wasn't the reason we lost because Warrington played much better, and they did, but it was Child's many incorrect decisions and the questionable integrity of Bentham, that gave Warrington the platform to gain that momentum to be so much on top.

exactly. Leeds still didnt play well enough to win, but we would have had enough to win. Warrington would have been a man short in defense and lacking their key man in attack. Leeds would also have smelt blood.

The ironic thing is that usually the arguments about the display system are that any bands don't affect the team offended against. However if he does get a ban and we get through we will get to face Warrington without one of their main threats

I will never understand why fans of other teams come onto threads like this to say 'Sometimes decisions go against you, deal with it' when we know for a fact there would be a thread exactly the same as this on their board had one of their players been punched in the back of the head after retreating from a tackle.

Secondly, no one, or at least no one with intelligence, is saying 'Eurgh the referees are bent grrr! They all hate Leeds!!' What is being said is that it's ridiculous and inconsistent that an offence such as Briers' was not even a Yellow Card - when it's been a Sending Off offence most of the season. Again, something your fans would agree with had it been the other way around (And some even agree with, now - players included).

Thirdly, you cannot say Briers was a great player for Wire today, and then say Child's ruling had no bearing on the game. It's one or the other. Of course it changed the course of the game! Would it have changed the end outcome? Who knows. Leeds were not at their best today whereas Wire had a lot of great players on the field. Burrow looked to be our strongest attacker early on, which Warrington realised and shut down pretty quickly. I don't think we deserved to win based on how we played especially in the second half. We can only play what's in front of us and we didn't play their 13 men as well as they played ours.