[i“Well as predicted at HT its 125-0 to leeds. Oh wait, maybe they did actually underestimate and aren't as immense as they think


6-6 at half time.”[/i


I have re-read this several times now but can manage to see the words ‘quality’ or ‘refereeing’.

Please could you point them out form me?

Read the totality of the thread mate, rather than looking for an excuse to come on here and show how clever you are by selective quoting. If we judged all Leeds Fans by the likes of you, rather than the sensible and welcome Southstanders of whom we could list loads, we'd have total chaos on here.

Now, where were we? Oh yes...any chance you could address the issue at hand now?

You want my opinions on the quality of refereeing in the present game?

OK… whatever…

Since referees are now full time ‘professionals’ I believe their standards have not improved in the slightest, in fact if anything they have dropped.

There were several dubious decisions, to say the least, made by young Ben last night and some quite ‘interesting’ interpretations of the knock on rule.

The video refs ruling on Ali’s second try was bizarre, I have watched this 'try' several times and still don’t see a grounding. I’ve even started a thread on SS saying the same thing.

But… there are 26 blokes tare-arsing around an area the size of a Rugby pitch and the ref has to be omnipresent and all seeing. We chastise these rule custodians all too easily and micro analyse the game retrospectively which is a luxury that is not afforded to the referee.

Now compare the amount of mistakes that players from both teams make during a game and compare it to the mistakes that the refs make. You may find the ratio favours the officials quite favourably.

These are my opinions on the quality of refereeing in the modern game, why you want them God only knows but you asked – I answered.

See...you can talk sense if you want to. And as it happens I pretty well agree with what you said. If referees were paid at least what senior players were paid we would be more justified in ranting about their performances. We will not resolve the refereeing problems until we recognise we need to properly train, reward and incentivise the GOOD people to make this their career. Hell, it doesn't last for long, so the same considerations apply as they do to players.

And why did I want your opinions about the refereeing? Because that was what this thread developed into being about - NOT about bitterness or jealousy regarding Leeds, despite what a disappointingly-shît stirring Wilko tried to have people believe on your board.

Now that [iis[/i bilge

Well, giving him the benefit of the doubt lets accept that is what he meant. He was, however, being very disingenuous to the clubs he named, two of which were playoff teams, unlike Bradford.

However, he wasn't talking about the "toughness" of opposition when he tried to clarify his muddled point by saying none of them were "big teams" and then going on to name five teams who he thinks would have made worthy opposition for us, yet three of them, Bulls included, did not make the playoffs last year.

Celtic were tough opposition last night, it was 6 all until the 65th minute, Salford beat us last year and we recorded last second victories against Wakefield and Castleford. I would hope our players and I am sure you would hope yours, aren't so complacent about the abilities of teams like our first four opponents, all of whom remember, and this is pertinent, beat you last year and two of whom made the playoffs.

He is the one poster on this thread that is being petty and bitter and making paranoid accustions that do not bear scrutiny.

I would not assume playing the Bulls is an easy 2 points. It never is. Those kind of crass unfounded and arrogant comments are not something I would make, they are the realm of Ewenfork.

I couldn't really care to be honest.

I rarely, if ever, rail about the failings of our referees. They generally do a pretty decent job but, of course, there is always room for error. Just as there is room for error from players, coaches and, it would seem, massive room for error from spectators who have little understanding of the game and let an obsession with referees detract from their enjoyment of it.

Last season Leeds spent much of the season being caned week after week after week in the penalty count (the facts hardly support any hinted at bias towards us from the officials). So much so that Mclennan actually stated in an interview it was his goal to address this and win a penalty count in the next game. We didn;t.

My ire at the time and, I have to say, the ire from most on Sousthander, a bunch I don't hold in particularly high regard, was directed towards the indiscipline of our players and our coaches inability to address it and not at the referees.

Did you not read my post?


I said not based on last years position, I mean the big clubs who tend to bring bigger crowds.

So you would say that any club outside of those I mentioned (bar Leeds obviously) is bigger than even one I mentioned?

Swing and a miss! I'd say where a team finishes in the league is more of an indicator of their playing ability rather than the number of supporters they can muster. We beat ALL those 'big' teams at home last season but got deservedly walloped by Salford and Harlequins. I'd stop digging if I were you!

I'm sorry, what's your point?

Which one?

The one where you said
Because, and correct me if I am wrong, you don't seem to mention league positions or crowds. You talk about it being an easy start but, as demonstrated, and I repeat because you seem to struggle to understand the point, it [icould[/i be an easier start. We could have gotten to play the teams you listed three of which, yourself included, weren't playoff teams.

Yes you did but not until later. Not until the, frankly, stupidity of your initial point was demonstrated to you did you attempt an obvious back track by claiming you meant the size of the big crowds certain teams bring, Yes, of course, that is obviously what you meant by inferring we had easier games. You meant we had games before lesser crowds. BTW, there were over ten thousand at Celtic on Friday. How many did the Bulls average last year? Don't answer because its' clear crowd size wasn't your point and, if it was, it was even dumber than your original point you now seek to distance yourself from.

When have I been crass, unfounded and arrogant? Maybe possibly the second occasionally, but i've nothing to be arrogant about atm.

Right, I was thinking of letting this one go, but you also don't seem to grasp what I am tring to say.

I do have respect for the teams you have your opening games against, we ere wll beaten by all of them at some point last season. Sorry if I seem arrogant, I'm not trying to, and I'm not trying to have a dig either, what I simply meant was -and I'm sure you could at least try and understand- it's often more intimidating to play against a club with past successes and grand final experience, who tend to bring more fans than against one lacking these, especially early on in the season.

I take your comment about Bradford's attendances on board, but it was still better than Crusaders, Salford, Wakefield and Castleford last season.

You can reply if you want, but i'm not going to bite anymore, it's clear you are just looking for an argument and tbh i can' really be bothered, looking forward to the new season and I may be back arguing with you after we've played you. Good luck for 2010.