I have to agree with all that and modern refs are fitter especially Halibut who is super fit and just watching his pre match warm up is tiring

it's not a case of going back to the Golden Age, whenever that was, if it ever did exist though the Billy Benyon days were a bit special IMO - I think now is a Golden Age as RL is more accessible to more people but the pressures put on refs or, the pressures they put themselves under makes it frustrating to many as reflected in their inconsistent decision making - the refs aren't any better or worse than say, thirty years ago it's just the spotlight is more on the officials than ever - I certainly wouldn't want the job though I do believe the pressure on them is greater than ever and I believe that is reflected in the decline of standards over the past few seasons

more pressure on refs with more exposure = more inconsistent decision making maybe ?

But then, only a line or two later, confusingly,



Don't buy that at all. Why would this tend towards "inconsistency"? And of course the most critical decisions in many games have been taken away from the ref altogether if he chooses to hand them over to the VR.

No you argued that while refs are no worse, standards have declined. You can't reconcile the two.

Fitness is not the issue. Refs only need to be fitter nowadays because the players are, and because the game over the 80 minutes is miles faster than it was. Old time refs were as fit as they needed to be in their era. And Stan Wall was probably as fit then as many officials now.

I think there is more pressure today, that's for sure, but whether they are better or worse is impossible to say. The assumption, implicit in the question, is that they [iwere[/i better in the past, but as we agreed, there wasn't the same scrutiny from TV as there is now - the same TV which causes the extra pressure - and without that same level of scrutiny we're not really in any position to make any meaningful comparison.

One of the problems may be that some of the rules cause problems. Ball stealing is a case in point; the defender has the right to prevent an off-load by trapping the ball but he's not allowed to strip it unless one on one, so defender has hand on ball and it comes free. With the speed of events, often with other players coming between the official and the action, he has to decide how it came out and make a fairly instant decision, often when shown in slo-mo it turns out to be, well,[i probably[/i wrong, even then, with the cameras, from several angles, it still isn't always possible to make the correct decision, as the truth to whether he [ideliberately[/i stripped the ball, rather than tried to prevent a pass, is often only in the players mind. But, with ball on floor, the ref [ihas[/i to make a decision with the only certainty that he'll anger half the fans..

The same applies to deciding if the ball was deliberately played at to determine who gets head and feed - it's a nightmare. The sheer speed at which the game is played today also makes the referees job more difficult and I'm sure mistakes are made but equally these should even out over the season - just as they always did.

My own view is that had the old time refs had been subject to the same scrutiny that the modern ones have to live with, they would have been found to be equally wanting and Sgt Major Clay would have soon been back in the ranks. They though, were respected far more by the players than their counterparts today - their decisions were accepted and they got on with the game without encircling the man to make him change his mind, nor were the decisions dissected the following day by everyone with a keyboard and a Sky subscription! Course, that's just my view and it would be fascinating if we could bring out the film of an old game and, retrospectively give it the video treatment we get now.

yes I can - the refs are making more inconsistent decisions - it doesn't mean they are better or worse, it's just that their working environment has changed - as you said, the game is faster but we demand better decision making

the public (us) demands more from the officials and most of them aren't consistent enough to keep people like me happy - i'm glad you're satisfied with the current crop of refs, i'm not

Stan Wall ? I recall Kel Coslett nearly thumping him once at Post Office Road about 40 odd years ago when some dodgy decisions went against the mighty Saints ! I recall we lost narrowly - boy was he poor that day and a Saints fan to boot ? Is he still about BTW ? he used to be a regular at KR

I wholly disagree that there is any evidence modern refs "are making more inconsistent decisions". From the evidence of my own eyes and recollection I do not believe that there is any more or any less inconsistency now than ever there was. Certainly refs were not booed any less.


But no, we don't. I mean, some may do, but I'd reckon the vast majority just want to watch a flowing game, not over-disrupted by stoppages. (I'd also technically agree that most just want consistency in decision making, but actually that is a blatant and unashamed lie by them, the truth is that they want the ref to give all the calls to their team!)


Yes, I am satisfied with them, seem like a decent bunch, and overall do an outstanding job. For a recent example, the way Ganson handled the pressure cooker Wire/Wigan game. A masterclass.


I remember well hundreds of occasions when refs had to be protected by police and police horses on the trek back up the Odsal hill, so plus ca change. Wasn't Stan one of the Saints run on staff for many years? Might still be. Seem to remember him bringing out the kicking tee for Sean Long every time. Or it could have been his twin!

good to hear you are happy with the reffing standards - nice to see a satisfied customer

I respectfully however, disagree with your opinions except to say that Ganson did handle that game pretty well

best wishes

No, it was definitely Sean Long.

But then I would have said [ifor[/i his twin. Can standards of grammar and comprehension really have plummeted to such depths out in Ilkley, pater?

It's a tribute to your upbringing lad that you've picked me up on this one. Your schooling at Ermysteds might have been expensive but it was worth every penny.

If you paid to get into a selective school I would check your receipt and find the sod who ripped you off.

I didn't pay a penny. Mummy & Daddy did it through a trust fund.

Ah yes, of course, Ilkley tax credits..

My great, great, great, great Grandpapa worked jolly hard for his millions, or those in his mill did. It's only right I can avoid tax on my inheritance. Why should I pay for pinko, lesbian refuges when I don't have a need for them?