You make some fair points but lets get a few things straight we are told they are full time pros ,we are told they have improved yet the evidence with many shows otherwise.
As fans we put our money where our mouths are by turning up to games week in week out and aren't PAID to be refs.
RL is pretty straight forward in the main i mean did ANYONE other Childs think Smiths pass was forward?
These kind of calls aren't 50/50 mistakes they are blatantly wrong ,also why should Wakey suffer because Alibert can't count to 6?
Now i've no doubts whatsoever they get alot right and have a tough job and there are things they'll get wrong just like we do ,the players etc etc but some are just ridiculous and NOT GOOD ENOUGH for SL.
Things like grapple tackles ,the inconsistency in obstruction calls are pretty blatant and like the Smith ptb why wasn't any others called up?
I think if JC went on next week and those inconsistencies have been addressed it wouldn't be as much of an issue but we know full well under Cummings it won't improve.
I agree the personal abuse is very uncalled for especially at lower levels but at SL level at least it's not unreasonable to expect the blatantly obvious to be called the correct way and just because they have a difficult job they are paid to do that and just because its tough doesn't/shouldnt make them exempt of any critical comments or questioning of their performance.

So what you're say here is if you can't do the job yourself you have no right to criticise those that do?

Do you apply the same ethics to all aspects of your life or are you just being hypocritical on this occasion to make yourself sound superior?

If a surgeon where to botch an operation on you would you simply say "well I couldn't have done better myself so I've live with only the one arm" or would you be straight on the internet Googling "malpractice compensation"?



Now this is a very arrogant statement, here you are suggesting that 'people' know little or nothing about how a game of Rugby League should be refereed despite watching the sport week in, week out, year after year.

Really??

That's the paradox of being a referee, the fans want you to use your initiative and referee the game in front of you, but still be consistent across the board.

I don't see how the two are mutually compatible.

Lynch gave himself up and 99% of the time would of been penalised, i would of done and had a wry smile when it went against leeds, hull seemed to get given more than leeds, but if one team constantly moans about decisions ala maguire and webb then refs hammer them more to show you cant beat the ref.
I`ve never admitted i`m wrong during a game but have done afterwards.

It probably just seemed that way because Sky kept banging on about the decisions that went Hulls way, whilst barely mentioning those that went Leeds' way.

Fully agree. Cost Hull probably 2 or 3 tries with his constant whistle blowing. Game would have been over by half time with a decent ref

With the first point you are barking up the wrong tree with me. If a surgeon makes a mistake and a person dies, even if that person is my niece, no, I do not believe in compensation claims for that. That surgeon saves lives, it does not make them perfect, and it would be folly and unfair to expect it.

On the arrogance point, I would agree, it is slightly so, but it's based on a belief in an ignorance of your common or garden fan . But when I went on my first refereeing course it opened my eyes to a whole new game for me, and I don't think you appreciate that until you've done it.

OK- Bad analogy with the surgeon comment, it was chosen at random. It wasn't meant to cause offence and I apologise if it has.

It's hard to be objective when you've watched a game live because you come away focusing on all the perceived poor decisions that may have cost you. To have two poor decisions in close succession (the alleged forward pass and Lee Smith penalised when he was shoved over) is hard to take because they were real momentum changers and effectively took the game away from us. I still think Childs is subconsciously affected by a large baying crowd hence some of his poor decision making, having said that credit to the Hull fans for making it difficult for him. Childs is one of the less mentally tough referees and I think the game starts running him at times, in a cauldron Ganson is still the best for me. When I've watched the game back there's no doubt I'll notice bad decision making on our behalf and a below par performance and will no doubt give Hull the credit they deserve, but on the way back down the M62 i just couldn't get Childs sickly face out of my mind. I've disliked him ever since the most arrogant display of refereeing at Wakefield a couple of years back and only his intervention at Warrington in the playoffs has made me think of him as anything less than an arrogant prat.

And I apologise for bringing personal tragedy into it. That was uncalled for too.

Refereeing of the game is never an easy subject, I played and won yesterday, and we won well, we play very flat and come in on the angle at pace. The opposition went nuts at the ref because in their opinion all our tries came from forward passes. We play without touch judges so what do you? Some of the younger referees we get can be a little intimidated at times, but as a player you can't stick up for them, and you can visibly see their confidence being knocked.
Did you know that after a particularly vicious amateur game Childs quit the game for years, it took some coaxing to get him back. If the next Kirkpatrick leaves the game at 16 disillusioned with it all because of dire treatment, can we then complain ten years later that we have no quality referees?

I just don't see how its possible to stick a 16 or 17 year old onto a pitch to referee even his/her own age group let alone open age without expecting that person to suffer personal abuse and have his ability questioned time and again.

We like to think that our sport is above all of the referee abuse that is commonplace in football but the truth is, away from the pro-leagues, its just as bad and you need to have a certain confidence and character to carry it off, none of which you'll have at that young age unless you are a remarkable person.

I think you've quoted the wrong man!

Really?! Well that's utterly boring of them! Surely us discussing the game and using those images will make it more likely people will add to their viewing figures? Short sighted buggers. BBC didn't complain about the screen grabs I put on the VT last year!

Perhaps it's that remarkability and resilience gained refereeing those games as a youth that makes pro referees appear aloof and or arrogant. Perhaps surviving years of having their judgments questioned gives them cast iron confidence in their decision making that takes them away from being reasoned with.

4 decisions stand out which child should be held account for.

Leeds first try, forward pass not give. Leeds benefit.

Smith forward pass. Marginal at best, but you cannot argue with child's positioning. Benefit to Hull.

Smith being penalised for moving off the mark / not playing the ball. Very harsh decision. Benefit to Hull.

Manu being penalised for lashing out after Ablett had gouged Manus eye. Leeds benefit. On a connected note, I hope McDermott instills a bit of discipline to Ablett, not the first time he has used someone's face as a bowling ball.

Overall the dodgy decisions evened themselves out

Video ref not allowing tickles second effort. I couldn't see a reason for it being disallowed, and should have been BOD.