Knock on? You're having a laugh!. It proved irrelevant, so I wouldn't have mentioned it, but really that was a stinker of a call!

Decapitation, give over, yes Lulia went for a big hit, but Taylor was virtually on the ground, if he was standing up straight i could understand and Lulia would have been in trouble. Nothing more than a warning.

The thing i find infuriating with Chlds is he lets actual intwerfrence and other offences go, but then pings sides for nothing offences. Like when Kearney made a break, i tihnk it was O'Hara ad s second go at the ankle and it was a blatent penalty. He decides that nto a penalty then he gives a nothing one fo "hands on the ball"

Rubbish. Lulia's arm was 5 foot above ground.



I agree, actually, however if it had been the other way round the hypocrites on here would be screaming blue murder a la Chris Bridge.

It was a bad high tackle that should have been punished. Luila actually jumps off the floor to put the tackle in he's that high, probably more careless than malicious though.
Whiteheads was a definite flop, it was that clear even Eddie n Stevo picked up on it lol.
Rovers got away with a bit too though, Greens raised knee and improper ptb,

Mmm, mostly decisions that didn't go your way then, strange that!

He was bad both ways, but was a lot more lenient towards you in some decisions even some of your fans would probably admit that.

Watching the match on Sky in the pub with no sound on I thought Lulia was lucky to stay on the pitch, going by the same rules that saw Mr Raynor sent off for decapitating Tomkins in the no.1 moment on last season's highlight reel

No he wasn't, for the 75% of the game I saw he was very good. An average player might make 20 tackles & 20 drives, with those around PTB handling far more. Look how many mistakes they make. Then multiply their involvement by a hundred. The ref has to judge every single pass made, every PTB, every single tackle, every kick, every position of every player, while keeping up with play & barking instructions to the players. I was captain a few times & one of the fittest players at my level, I could barely talk with exhaustion, never mind keep a running commentary. If we assume the ref made 5 wrong calls in a game that is a percentage of miniscule proportions, compared to most players, yet we have a 5 page thread of posters trying to outdo each other with hyperbole. A friend I introduced to the greatest game is now a season ticket holder, we were out with him last night, he said he is surrounded by fans who whinge about everything from start to finish. I'm afraid it's a cultural thing rather than the ref's fault.

Just for the record though, & next week's assassination of the ref, do you want the ref to let the game flow or penalise every suspicious borderline pass, PTB etc? Me? I'd let every one go.

I'd have like to have been a ref, I think I would have been ok at it. But there's no way I would stand the abuse at amateur games with no fence between you & the crowd, or 10,000 at a pro game. Ocasionally players become the focus of ridicule, the excellent Mike Platt a recent on; some posters say it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you get that much abuse. Again, multiply that by 100 & wonder why we are desperate for referees.

everyone realises the difficulty of the job and most fans will recognise that mistakes are inevitable but I believe the one thing that every RL fan (as well as every fan of whichever sport) wants is a reasonable level of consistency - no more no less

the 'interpretation' of the laws seem to be so diverse among such a small elite band of officials which is ruining the game IMO - the disallowed Millard try against Saints was punished when a much worse challenge by a player going for the ball in the Bulls v HKR game (I can't recall who) was allowed to stand for example

some of Gansons 'interpretations' differed quite markedly from those of Mr Child on friday - the officials led by Mr Cummings have to get their act together and play the rules from the same hymnsheet

Imo there should be a presumption that offences are going to be penalised. If (say) at the moment 75% of PTBs are incorrect or that a player is offside in 1 in four occasions if the players realise that they are not going to be penalised , then before you can chant 'you're not fit to referee' [ievery[/i ptb will be incorrect and we'd have defenders five metres away at the ruck.

Players aren't stupid and if they see that cheating ('cos that's what it is) is a business move, then they will cheat.

Think we need to compare Gansons performance to Childs to see how bad he was.

Accoridng to the letter of the law, Childs probably didn't get many decisions wrong, but you could find an offence in every single tackle and Childs is like a shaken can ready to go off. You don't know when he's going to blow the whistle.

Sean O'loughlin went high on just about every single tackle he did yesterday, but Ganson was sensible in his decisions. Yes he could have blown the pea out of the whistle for every offence,he wouldn't have been wrong in blowing for penalties but he would have frustarted the players and fans and it would have boiled over.

Refereeing is about game management.

How many tackles are there in a game - 500? How many penalties did Childs blow - 20-30? So he blew for only 5% of tackles, I would think it was actually far less than that. But he could have called 500? I didn't see the Wigan game so can't comment. Are you giving credit to Ganson for ignoring O'Loughlin's constant high tackles? I'm sure you would have been equally as magnanimous if it had been against Bradford.

Sadly a huge number haven't got a clue. The majority I work with in Leeds see it all in simple black & white, it is all part of an agenda by the RFL &/or ref against Leeds - unbelievable I know.



Officials are not ruining the game in the slightest, it's like blaming the courts for the state of the country. The officials do not make the rules. I do accept however that Cats probably get the rough end of the stick, I know for a fact that London suffered statistically decision wise in the past, I am sure this is unconscious on the part of the officials. Every person is going to interpret & enforce the rules differently as they are human beings. I find it frustrating when refs obviously have a directive to enforce a certain part of the game & then forget about it a few weeks later, but it hardly ruins the game.

Hardly controversial. I said borderline, which are 50/50 possibly not an offence.



If you are not talking about the player actually touching the ball with his foot then I'm not sure where you get that proportion from or what you mean. Are you saying there are 200-300 offences a game at PTB?
The game is 10 times quicker than in the 70s & 80s, players & refs infinitely fitter, the PTBs are all about speed, the game usually won & lost around it, it's inevitable that's where the controversy s going to be.

exactly my point - the officials are not showing consistency with their interpretation of the rules - there's too much misinterpretation and not a standard line of thought - one mans 'interference' is another mans 'knock on' for example
Refs aren't robots but there has to be a common unity and not the diversity of thought that seems to dominate the game lately