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

If you are talking about the current trend for defenders reaching round the PTB to grab the arm of the attacker then it is a very fine line between hitting the arm & ball, how can every decision be the same? Or if you mean interfering in the tackle, trying to dislodge the ball, it's a skill that has always been there, it's increasingly difficult as a defender preventing the offload when stealing is not allowed. Unless you can read the mind of the defender it is completely impossible to know if there is intent or not. Every incident is individual, it is equally impossible to achieve consistency without psychic powers.

not every incident is 'indivdual' - far from it

take the case of football and the 'tackle from behind' - the dirctive from the FA was clear not long ago - any tackle from from behind will be penalised, end of - very rarely do you see such a tackle (even when the ball is won) go unpunished
or, any interference with the GK when going for the high ball will be punished with a free kick - how many times do you see the goalie not being protected like that nowadays ? answer = never, no contact is allowed
these are rules that era easily defined and easy to administer - there's no ambiguity

RL is the same - very few of the rules are ambigous, they are just misread by the officials who even have TJs plus the VR occasionally to get the call correct FFS !

I’m not sure what we are arguing – stripping the ball in the tackle was outlawed years ago. Are you suggesting every time the ball comes out in the tackle it must be a penalty to the attacking team?

Actually they do - it's called interpretations. I'm not talking about 'judgement calls' but how the rules are implemented. As an example, the law about using a shepherd (AFAIK) hasn't actually been changed but the way it is used changes season by season (if an interpretation ever [ilasts[/i a full season), it seems the refs , en bloc, have meetings pre season and decide to change things just to confuse everyone else - and often enough, change them back again, mid season, just to confuse us more.

And why are attacking players allowed to run in front of their ball carrier into the defensive line?

No they don’t. Just like the police decide whether a law is being broken or likely to be broken the officials interpret the laws of the game. Saying officials make the rules is completely wrong, they would have to invent a new offence for that to be the case.
The RFL obviously change the emphasis of the rules on an ongoing basis, as does the referee’s controller, usually in reaction to a perceived issue or because a pair of clueless numpties on Sky bang on repeatedly about something. I have no doubt whatsoever that the controller goes through the changes in emphasis, & any new rules, with all the clubs throughout the season. Similarly I am sure the referees brief the players before games on specific issues.

They aren't. HTH.