So what your saying is that games can be decided on who passionately players appeal?

Why should players from certain teams be able to influence the ref when other cant (as i said when was the last time you saw a salford or quins player change the refs mind) take your wigan glasses off for a moment and you can see it stinks.

Refs should make the calls not the players otherwise we will become as bad as football, for a me if a player is trying to influence an official he should get a warning, if he tries to do it again in the same game it should be a penalty, that would stop all the back chat and whining.

Ganson ruined what could have been a good game with his extremely one sided reffing, or if you want you can believe its all because everyone has it in for poor old wigan.

As neutral as referees try to be, of course they can be influenced. If a player is appealing for obstruction or offside, or a knock-on - whatever - and the referee thinks perhaps he's missed something, he's perfectly entitled to reassess his decision and consult his colleagues where possible. It happens all the time, with every team, despite what you think.

For the last time - the correct decision was reached, what's the problem? Or would you prefer the try had stood incorrectly?

And also for the last time, we don't know Richards changed Ganson's mind. He may have introduced an element of (correct) doubt, but Ganson may also have gone to the VR without Richards saying a word, as probably happens for most up & under tries - "check for offside please".


I've not once said that. Freudian slip?

You're the one suddenly bringing the "because it's Wigan" line. Says more about your skewed views than anything else.

Even if the ref thinks he might make the wrong call? Ok.

Oh, and it wasn't Ganson or Richards' call. It was Bentham.

If has made a call he wouldnt be thinking he was wrong would he?

It wasnt benthams call to refer to the vr.

Ganson made his call - he referred it to the VR. Correctly.

He had a doubt over the try and thought better of his initial reaction of awarding it straight away. For all you know, his thought process at that moment was, "that's a try...actually I'd better check offside". Just because you seem to think Pat Richards changed his mind, doesn't actually make it true.

I assume every time players appeal and a try is sent to the VR and then disallowed, you blame the referee for being influenced? And don't pretend players from every team don't appeal to referees, they do.

The end result was the correct one. I ask you again - would you prefer the try had stood - incorrectly, against the laws of the game?

I would prefer that referees make the calls not the players a wrong call made in the spirit of the game is better than a right one that brings the game into disrepute.

I'll ask you a question, do you think that the ref should make his own calls or let the players tell him what to decide?

The ref should make his own calls.

But that doesn't mean he shouldn't use common sense.

A scenario: a player barges over with 4 defenders around him. The referee thinks it has been grounded and is about to award a try, but several defenders suddenly start calling for a knock-on. Common sense says there may have been a knock-on the referee hasn't seen and so he goes to the VR, who spots a knock-on and disallows the try. Correct decision reached.

Or a bomb goes up. Some attackers are onside, some are offside. Several attackers run forward. The full-back misses the catch. The ball falls to an onside attacker, who grounds the ball. The referee is about to award the try, but then there are several vehement calls for offside. The referee realises he may have missed an offside attacker and goes to the VR. Even if he doesn't listen to the appeals, he realises there were a lot of attackers running forward and he can't confidently call them all onside. Correct decision reached.

The players aren't making the decisions, but good common sense from the referee means he can ensure the correct decision is reached. It happens all the time. Referees very often ignore appeals if they are confident but the video ref is a tool to be used if the referee has any doubts over his decision.

I'm sure you'd prefer an incorrect try against Cas in "the spirit of the game", rather than the referee thinking there might be something in a player's appeal he hasn't seen and going to the VR. No, really.

Was the try yesterday correctly ruled out? Yes. So Ganson made the right call. He had a doubt over the try and went to the VR. Whether or not he listened to a player appeal is irrelevant.

Your assertion that referees should never listen to players is just plain wrong. If a player appeals and the referee thinks there may indeed be an infringement he has missed he should refer it to the VR. That's just plain common sense. Or in the two scenarios I gave would you rather incorrect tries were given? In "the spirit of the game" of course.

I find it hard to take you seriously when you say you'd rather see tries incorrectly awarded than referred to the VR based on an appeal.

What about when they go to the VR who then gets it spectacularly wrong?

Because players influencing the ref is effectively cheating in my eyes and i dont like cheating in the game. I can cope with refs making mistakes, they are only human but unlike you i dont think that the players should have any say in calls that affect the outcome of games, especially since the refs only listen to certain players from certain clubs. The referees authority should be absolute when he lets the players makes calls for him he is no longer capable of reffing the game. If we go down this route we will be as bad as football soon, as i said earlier any player trying to influence or backchat to the ref should get one warning then its a penalty, if they continue 10 in the bin.

But that's where you're going wrong. It's not cheating, it's common sense. If the referee sees or hears something that introduces an element of doubt about what has just happened, he should certainly double-check and make sure the decision is the right one.

Of course the ref's authority is absolute - that's not changed - but that doesn't mean he should make snap decisions even if he's not sure, just to maintain an air of authority. That's plain stupid.

Your assertion that referees only listen to "certain players from certain clubs" is not only a completely unfounded fantasy, it just makes you sound very bitter.

On the scale of the amount of whinging to the referee that goes on throughout a season, to complain about Richards would seem pretty biased and truly only showing that you are disappointed that Catalans didn't win.

Wellens (he's just one prolific example) does it every game for practically every decision, yet there is not a page and half of you whinging about it every week.

What the player says to him shouldnt bring any doubt into his mind, otherwise every player would ask for the video ref every time and get it.

refs make snaps calls every game all the time, its what they are paid to do, they are not paid to make a call then change there mind at a players request.

As i have said when was the last time a ref changed his mind after a plea from a quins or wakey player?