We pay our money and reserve the right to vent the week's frustrations at them.

They perform an important role.

Can you point me in the direction we're this is the said rule, as I thought the entrance fee allowed you to the glorious facilities and watch a rugby league game.

This old chestnut again.

We'll do it after we've been head coach after being critical of Lowes and the CEO after Ferres.

I'm sure one or two have been highly unimpressed with what's happened in far off lands so we'll referee after sorting the Middle East too.

I won't say on here what my job is, but if I'm crap at it, I get criticised by a number of people. I don't get criticised often, because I am good at it. But if I make a mistake, I accept that it's my own fault I'm getting that criticism.

But referees should be different? That's up there with the suggestion that players who are crap should be protected if they're relegated against getting a pay cut or losing their contract. Because they're more important than normal people.

I believe that people pay their entrance money to support their club - home or visiting fans. I am not aware anybody pays to support the referee. Might not be fair to the ref but I'm pretty sure this happens at just about every game. So unfortunately criticism of the ref is just as much a part as critisizing the team, the ale and the pies etc

Well I don't think your in the kind of job were 26 people are all trying to cheat you then if you want to go a bit further there are another 8 waiting on the sideline if they don't do a good enough job. Then every week there the coach is trying to find out new ways in how he can teach his players to beat the system if that week he fails he will then tell the press how bad the officials are.

They know what they're getting into when they become a referee. If they're so bloody sensitive that they can't handle it, they've chosen the wrong job.

I couldn't do the job. I don't mind admitting it. I also couldn't do brain surgery or rocket science, albeit for different reasons. So I chose not to go into that particular field.

They did choose it, so they take what comes with the role.

Well then you seem to love to criticise someone about a job that you couldn't do yourself tells me your a complete fool.

There's a certain irony to calling someone a fool and using the wrong "your".

Oh the grammar police are out, there the ones when they are cornered resort to going off the subject .

That would be "they're" too by the way.

And I'm not cornered in the slightest. I've given my opinion, you've given yours. I have nothing more to say on the matter. I don't continue a debate when I've nothing more to say, otherwise I'm just repeating the same point over and over.

People are confusing the issue. AFAIK Mikalauskas hasn't been on here whingeing so whether or not he can "take" the criticisms is a non-point.

At games, most partisan fans encourage the officials to make decisions in their team's favour. That's stating the bleedin obvious too. Nobody would be surprised nor object.

All this is about, is not whether a particular ref had a poor game or games ( he did), but whether, overall, as an actual ref, he is irredeemably incompetent and total rubbish and should be sacked. It's that last bit I object to, for reasons I've set out. His history and background are clear evidence that he has done very well in his early days of officiating. Whether he can make the steps up to Championship and beyond is always the question for any new official - but they must all surely be given full credit for how they've got to that level, which boils down to controlling a whole bunch of competitive games consistently very well, over a long period of time, and earning promotions. Green he is, and whether he will make a SL ref remains open, but that's a different issue. Hyperbolic claims of utter crapness and boo, hiss, get rid, sack him, he's totally incompetent etc. are simply ridiculous and unfair.

I love the weird belief that being in the middle, surrounded by several players running around, causing confusion, and obviously simply blocking one's line of sight, actually affords a better position to make decisions. I guess that is why coaches sit high in the stand and don't view the action at pitch level, and why the video referee, from a camera in the stand, is used so much.

As for not being able to do it myself - I can't build a house but if a builder does a rubbish job I reserve the right to have a view on the matter.

TBF the cameras most used for the contentious VR decisions are those carried on the shoulder by the mobile cameramen.

Some of them are FA, I guess that's fair comment, but they usually only use the shots from ground level where there are fewer players milling about spoiling the view, and crucially they are outside the pitch, which to be fair only improves the argument about often getting a better view from [ioff[/i the paddock.

I get the idea that players have to regard the word of the ref as, 'the word of god', I absolutely do as the game gets quite awful when they don't, - but us speccies certainly don't. Referees are human beings - they make human mistakes and, shock horror, some are better than others. Some [imo] are also badly treated by the authorities and pitched into a level they are not yet equipped to deal with. I think we have every right to point out when this occurs.

I do wonder if the, "you can't do the job yourself", brigade would just accept any shoddy job from a tradesman on the basis that, "well, I couldn't do it better myself"? I assume they must.