I imagine (being the relative youngster I am) that had England won that match I'd of barely heard who maradona was ... So yes, only bad refereeing decisions are remembered when we lose! Equally would the hand of god of been remembered if it had been ruled out? Probably not.

I imagine both coaches were busy with their half time talk and probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) of been interested, the referees, and the referee management team are there to do a job. Ganson has proven time and again he's not bluntly biased towards saints (as I said, it usually goes too far the other way) so why should it matter? Should Jon Wilkin not play for saints against hkr because he's a hkr fan? These are professionals and are doing a job, it's a total none issue that is dragged out against saints whenever a team feels they should of beat us but don't (with 8 players injured you should of by the way)

Do you honestly think agar would of said a word about it if Wakefield had won? No. Because it's not that big an issue. Would he of still made the comments if Bentham had gone in instead of ganson? Probably. Is it therefore a bit of a none issue? ...

But it looks bad, and that's the point. Perhaps Bentham wouldn't have felt so strongly so as to go in, because his team wasn't losing.

Agar clearly thought it was unusual, and hence his comments, and so we can probably accept that it wasn't usual. If it wasn't usual, why did Ganson do it? What was so upsetting about Roby's performance that merited a dressing down in the first half? That "you're letting them" etc.

It is an issue because Roby sought to address his boss's concerns.

Yes, Agar was in a team talk, but if the matters are so pressing that Ganson has to stomp to the ref's dressing room to give him a dressing down, then I'm sure Agar would have given up a couple of minutes. Surely it benefits everyone to know that the ref is concerned about this or concerned about that. By keeping it quiet, Ganson or Roby gave Wakey no chance to adjust, and laid themselves open to bias. Was Ganson's intention to ensure that the game was played properly? If so, tell Agar, and then the paying public can get what they paid for. If Ganson's intention was just to ensure that Wakey were penalised more, then he got his wish.

But he gave saints no time to adjust either. It's not like he told Roby to watch out for this that and the other, told saints, look lads keep an eye for this, and then said nothing to Wakefield. For every scenario you make up, I can make up an equally ridiculous one.

Obviously ganson felt mistakes were made in the first half, I imagine, if Wakefield had gone on and won, it's would of been the saints fans on here complaining about incidents that Roby failed to redress after half time. Equally, it's not gansons job to talk to the press about any performance related issue. There are ways for fans/ media to question specific decisions - but if you were called in and had a performance review, I doubt you'd want that passed around the office.

It looks bad because you want it to look bad. I do note however you haven't actually questioned any of the penalties given away, so I can only assume you actually think they were the correct decision. If it was a stop penalising saints by ganson how come Wakefield got a penalty in the first minute of the second half (which they scored from)? You want it to look bad.

The point here is that we don't have consistancy..yet again. If the referees/touchies cannot uphold the laws of the game correctly from the first whistle to the last in a manner that is consistant throughout then that is ultimately down to Ganson, he needs to ensure that the officials in his charge have the ability to officiate to the std required..
I've seen so few excellent/consistant refereeing displays in last 10 years that I know the whole officiating/rules enforcement/clarity needs an overhaul on an epic scale

I totally agree. The refereeing system needs a total and complete overhaul, from the politics of junior refereeing all the way up. Problem is it takes money - would the sl clubs take a 50k cut to pay for reffing improvement? (A wholly unquantifiable product)

The question is was the game reffed correctly in the first half or the second half. And the answer to that depends on whether your a saints fan or a Wakefield fan. Ganson, in his position with referees felt the need to address issues at half time, and did so. Whether that was right, because he is perceived as a saints fan (why this is still an issue is beyond me, he's overseen us losing grand finals! Surely then would be the time to show any feelings of bias!) shouldn't matter. Whether it was right for a refereeing coach to see mistakes, and want to correct them at half time, is. You would expect a coach to correct a player whose under performing - why is it different for a ref? In a perfect world, a ref would be perfect every game, but is half a game poorly reffed and half well reffed better or worse than 80mins or poor refereeing?

I'm not 100% sure (I'll check with my brother tomorrow as he used to be a ref) but there's nothing in the rules against officials from the rfl entering the refs room (though they aren't allowed in the player changing rooms) and that it does happen (at least at an amateur level) on a semi regular basis.

It's really not.

Isn't the relevant point here that he was most likely at the game in question as a st Helens fan rather than in his official capacity? This being the case then he should have given Roby a rollicking after the game. I'm sure from the sounds of it Cas would have liked the refs boss to have had a word with child's at half time but weren't that lucky.

If Ganson was there to keep an eye of Roby and assess his performance fair enough.....if at the end of the game, whichever way the result went he was unhappy then fair enough have a go.....

The big problem I have though is there was no controversy, no complaints from anyone as far as I can see with the way the 1st half was referee'd......the only disagreement I saw anywhere on the field was Tommy Makinson jumping around waving his arms around like a 12 year old grounded for not tidying their bedroom wtionhen Sammut broke through and fed Reece Lyne for our 2nd try.....he thought Sammut obstructed him after passing to Lyne, but having seen the replay there was absolutely nothing in it whatsoever, just a petulant outburst from Makinson because he couldnt prevent the try being scored....

The question you have to ask is what did Ganson see in that first half that apparently no-one else did, that he felt the need to go in and give Roby a dressing down? It seemed a flowing and open end to end game, and if anything, even though we were in front I thought we got the rough end of a few 50/50 calls.....

The penalty given to us in the first set of the 2nd half was about as blatant an offside call as you are ever likely to see.....their number 27 clearly moved off the mark a good 2 or 3 steps before the ball had even been played and was right at the side of the referee....a good 3 or 4 yards offside and making the tackle, it was a clear cut penalty.....

There is no doubt though that the period where the game swung Roby had a huge influence in....in a 10-15 minute spell we hardly touched the ball.....I think Saints scored on 4 consecutive sets all aided by 'soft' penalties......it seemed they scored, we kicked back to them, did 3 or 4 tackles in good field position then a penalty was given for hardly anything....as has been said even Saints local radio seemed to think that....then they scored on the next set and the repeat happened again.....

In just about every set of six you could find something small to give a penalty for, but Roby only brought this into play in a period where the score went from 16-4 to 16-24......all throughout the game Saints were failing to mark square, on numerous occasions in the second half you could have driven a bus through the two marker tacklers, but they were let go....

Never usually one to call refs as it's a thankless task they have.....I'd even go as far as saying that without the news about Ganson I could just have accepted that we didn't get the rub of the green, like we did at home to Catalans where a lot of calls went our way....

Ganson's intervention though and the difference in the way the referee performed 2nd half to 1st there have to be questions asked why he went in their and why he spoke like he did....

This will be the same Ganson who can't spot a huge forward pass at the Magic Weekend so compensates for his balls-up the following year by tracking the "wrong man". How the hell he ever got the job of refs boss I will never understand and no way should he intervene during a match with the obvious cries of "foul play" from the opposition. Its time he, and many of his colleagues, were read the riot act by those allegedly in charge.

Err it really is…

The VT code of denial continues ever thus.

What Ganson did is unheard of - whether he was right regarding the refs performance is a matter of opinion but it's not happened before as far as anyone I've spoken to knows. So why start now, especially with your home town club as the beneficiary - come on it looks terrible by anybodies standard.

As far as I was aware the match official was and always has been the man in charge of the match from start to finish - at which point his performance is then reviewed - you and your fellow apologists please tell us when this changed?

This weekend I assume!

Another week in which the sport is dragged closer to being the team sport equivalent of Wrestling.

How does Richard Agar know Roby was given a ‘dressing down’?

Why do you think?

Because the refs dressing room is right next to the players and the partitions trust me are flimsy and as such a "dressing down" can easily be heard. I grant you the content may be sketchy but I reckon you'd get the gist.

That’s not quite what was said, Agar said
[i"Apparently Steve Ganson has entered the referee's dressing room at half-time and has given him a good old-fashioned dressing down.

"I'm not sure that is in his remit. I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall."[/i

Which would indicate he doesn’t really know what, if anything was said, nor that he has first hand knowledge Ganson even went in to referees changing room.

Seems a bit of Chinese Whispers mixed with a little perception bias to me.

If we accept Ganson has the role he has, then we accept he is doing it entirely impartially and if he did visit the referee at half-time it was entirely within his capacity as match officials coach and technical director.

Whatever Smokey, in you're world of denial I accept this would be totally acceptable.

Twist and shout old boy, you play on semantics all you want, it's your stock in trade.

Please don't bother with a long winded reply, your mind regarding Wakefield is made up long before you hear the issue so no point discussing it is there.

Err it really isn't (this could go on some time)


4.30810546875:5