18th Century, take it from one who's witnessed it it's 21 century.

I'm still of the opinion that the coaches MUST condone the players actions and the players were the ones being penalised for all the foul play or were they REALLY playing to the rules.

If the players were (highly improbable as most don't seem to have a clue ) then of course the situation re match officials may well be correct but until the coaches, clubs and players get their own houses in order then match officials will act the way they do.

And the queue for taking over as match officials boss or be a match official must be right through Leeds by now.

All the "experts" waiting to show that they could never do it wrong

Quite a few on this thread I see.

I'm struggling to understand why so many don't seem to understand that there are ways to complain about the referee through proper channels, and that the more painful the decision/s, the more Agar needs to man up and take it on the chin. He could have made his point without doing a Violet Elizabeth Bott, and what he did is not in the interests of the game, or the hundreds of amateur officials who already have little enough respect as it is, without SL coaches leading the vanguard of the apoplectic.

Just seems like the rantings of a desperate man.

I cant think of an occasion when he has impressed me and destined to be be a casualty of the 2011 season. I doubt that he will coach at SL level after Hull.

And after receiving countless automated replies to the tune of 'Thanks for your thoughts but keep them to yourself because we cannot be wrong, okay!' it must get a little frustrating.

I'm proud of the respect refs get in RL, but very poor performances must be acknowledged. There was a sense of frustration throughout the game last Friday, mainly down to decisions made by the ref - he was very fortunate the players (with the exception of Long) were more professional then him.

To be fair to Agar, he does have experience at being woefully unqualified for a job so he does know what he is talking about in that sense.

Reading the BBC report, I can't actually see what, in particular, Agar is ranting about.

If James Child is blowing his whistle, it is presumably because a player is doing something that he shouldn't. That's more Agar's fault than it is Child's.

So you know Agar has made "countless complaints" about referees, then? And you know that he's had back "countless automated replies" which have led to Agar tipping over some imaginary frustration edge?

Please publish them. I'm fascinated.

What? You don't actually know of any? Thought so.

Agar has only been in the job 2 minutes, even if these "automated replies" came after every single game, (a) they'd hardly be "countless", unless you're 5, and (b) seemingly none of those would involve this ref., since according to Agar this was the first time he'd been dreading.

Therefore, far from "countless replies", by definition, there can't have been ANY previous reply regarding Child. At all. Not one. So, on the very first occasion Agar's team gets reffed by child, the truth is he chooses not to bother taking even the very first step down the official complaint lines, but loses his rag totally, as his starting point.

He can have had no such frustration, and your point is thus demonstrable bollox.


So are you still condoning Agar's crass rant, or not, then?

The respect bit is the thing that irked me most about Agar being charged. Child's performance was seriously that bad, that Agar leterally had no option but to discuss this in the post match press conference. His comments were purely factual, yet he has been charged for effectively showin no respect!!!!

In the past few months I have managed to gain promotion at work and onto the management structure. I have had to work bloddy hard to gain the respect of staff members who are under my control, as respect is not something that is generally handed out willy nilly. If the RFL,Mr Childs and other officials for that matter want respect, I suggest they start perfroming to at least the expected minimum level of performance and then, maybe, will they start to get they RESPECT that they desire so much.

The respect bit is the thing that irked me most about Agar being charged. Child's performance was seriously that bad, that Agar leterally had no option but to discuss this in the post match press conference. His comments were purely factual, yet he has been charged for effectively showin no respect!!!!

In the past few months I have managed to gain promotion at work and onto the management structure. I have had to work bloddy hard to gain the respect of staff members who are under my control, as respect is not something that is generally handed out willy nilly. If the RFL,Mr Childs and other officials for that matter want respect, I suggest they start perfroming to at least the expected minimum level of performance and then, maybe, will they start to get they RESPECT that they desire so much.

A certain contendar for the funniest post on rlfans 2011 award.

Agar should be given a season long touchline ban- although i can't see him lasting the season

I know coaches can be "selective" but there's a world of difference between a forward pass and inconsistent penalising. Radford got binned early on for a tackle round the neck, yet Ferres did the same in the same half and though Hull got the penalty, no sinbin followed. It's either a sin bin or it isn't, but it can't be both.

He made other mistakes and the mood of the match got worse and worse as players (who should take some responsibility) got more and more niggly with each other as they were allowed, by and large, to get away with it (hence the Aspinwall/Long set-to and Long's stupid challenge - the latter possibly from concussion after a blatant high shot that the ref "missed"icon_wink.gif. If Child had got on top of the game earlier and been less pedantic and more consistent, then this thread and Agar's rant would not have happened

So you are claiming possibly Long ran in with his elbow as a result of being concussed owing to a high shot that the referee missed?


Are you a solicitor?

I suspect he wasn't thinking straight and was seeking a bit of revenge. He was laid out for a good minute after the high shot that "didn't happen", so although I'm not a doctor (or a solicitor or a WUM ) he may not have had all the marbles in a row

You did underline where I said it was a stupid challenge and I'm not trying to defend it. If Child had penalised the high shot chances are Long would have stayed on the field and you wouldn't need to be on your high horse