brilliant. Absolute genius

Personally, I don't think it is acceptable for the head of referees to go into the dressing room at half time and instruct the match officials on how to do his job and/or to tell him to change his officiating style mid match. I could give lots of reasons, some subjective but others I believe are just really obvious from a sport competition POV and also from an employee/line manager reasoning

TBH in 35 years of watching sport from all parts of the globe and being to about 30 or so differing sports live (from ice dance to gridiron and everything inbetween ) I've never seen the head of officiating come and stamp their authority on officials at any point during a match/event.

I don't think the fact Ganson is from/supports 'tellins makes a jot of difference, it's his attitude and lack of control here that I feel is massively at fault. he is deffo of the look at me I'm in charge brigade but as a match referee he swung so wildly from one end of the scale to the other (obscenely leniant/blind to ridiculously OTT in handing out punishments) it doesn't surprise me of his actions or those that are reffing now are outside what his set prameters are (probably different for any given game I reckon)

It is acceptable that the head of referees is involved from the bottom up but on match day he has to let his charges officiate and deal with the fallout afterwards. Yes they should always be pro-active in ensuring what is required BEFORE any set of games but humans make errors, applying the same set of errors (or style of officiating if you like) will effect some teams greater than others depening on what is being left alone or focused on.

To me the whole concept of officiating/judging is interesting, a massively misunderstood psychological based job that if done really well is hugely draining, if you let stuff just go and apply rules ad-hoc(i.e. be inconsistant) it is far less demanding and because in some sports the application of the rules is very subjective at times officials get away with being poor/rubbish.

For me I see that the touchies aren't used enough and/or allowed to make decisions/notify the ref, not by a long chalk, they fail to communicate among themselves and between the players at all, never nind effectively. Rules that can be easily applied are not, which spoil the game and annoy the hell out of your average supporter as well as players, that they aren't is down to the likes of Ganson and the big wigs at Red Hall plus of course officials whom just sit on their laurels.

Personally I'd like to see the rules applied more firmly (At SL at least) until coaches/players start adhering to them and not pushing the rules to breaking point. From that we see massive amounts of leeway given in certain areas (oft over compensated for in others) a very subjective application of such & unintentional unconscious bias week in week out which makes the sport look amatuerish pretty much season on season until it snaps and we go back to square one again.

I could give you a list of rules that I think really need cracking down on but actually pretty much everything needs looking at in one form or another, not to change them specifically but to ensure clarity/definition & to have them applied correctly in a manner that takes into account things we all know can/do effect the players themselves, whatever that is it must be seen to be the consistantly the same every game to every team. At present that is the case and hasn't been for a very long time..

Is Ganson the only ref who supports a team? If not, non-story, move along, nothing to see.

If so, how did they come to be involved in RL refereeing?

My view is that it would be unacceptable to referee a game the second half of a game differently to the first. But unless I've missed something there's no evidence that this happened.

The Ganson/Roby incident aside, I think the RFL really has to start looking at getting it's refereeing and disciplinary system in order. The inconsistencies in the decisions, suspensions and such is very poor, and the lack of transparency is what really aggravates fans.

I recall a few years back that my team Castleford played Wakefield at Millenium Magic, when Mr Child set a record amount of penalties for a game, much to the dissatisfaction of both coaches. He then was in charge of the Good Friday match a few months later and gave what I believe was less there or there abouts a record low amount. I remember thinking at the time, how can a game with the same teams, and the same referee in charge, be officiated so differently? Offences such as laying on and offside, that were given literally once every two or three minutes, had just disappeared? How can that happen?

That illustrated to me how a referee can literally pick and choose how to officiate a game. It appeared almost a defiant two fingers to the people who'd complained about too many penalties, with a new attitude of "fine, I won't give any penalties."

From the sound of it, Wakefield were given a similar treatment according to Agar, but over the course of a half time interval, which, if so, is unfair.

We don't pay money to watch referees. On Sunday at Salford, James Child made almost every scrum re-pack or re-feed the ball, and you can just sense how frustrated both sets of spectators become. It's not necessary, and the lack of awareness and common sense is just astounding.

I genuinely do worry that the referees Tim Roby, Robert Hicks, James Child are three of the worst officials in my time watching the game. Steve Ganson, Bentham, Kirkpatrick, Silverwood, Ian Smith, these guys at least seemed or seem to be in control, in a sense. I guess this generation of referees are younger than the aforementioned, but it's clear to me that fans are more disillusioned with officials than ever before. I mean, it's a rugby fans' perogative to complain about referees, and will be until the end of time, but something needs to change. Whether that is bringing in new referees, bringing in a second referee, I don't know - but I think the RFL needs to act.

Same goes for the disciplinary. Ben Flower and Mickey Pea both committed cannonball tackles against Castleford in the last two weeks - one resulted in a penalty and a sin binning with no ban, one wasn't sin binned with a 2 match ban? Likewise, Justin Carney got two three match bans for lifting/spear tackles against Saints and London last year, and committed a similar offence in the game on Sunday, but this season, doesn't get charged (even though it looked to me as though if following last years precedence, he should well be).

I'd like to think the RFL will start to see how these decisions can anger/put off supporters, and I don't think an #asktheref Twitter publicity machine where a referee tells you that night is day and black is white to justify the decisions is any help. We have a fantastic game as a spectacle, and the officials are really beginning to spoil it.

There didn't seem to be a massive difference. Saints obviously got more penalties in the 2nd half, but we also stopped dropping the ball and making stupid mistakes. That got us on the front foot, and resulted in Wakey understandably trying to slow the game down, which resulted in the majority of the penalties.

according to agars interview, that is exactly what he said happened.

Were you at the game?

After Wakefield scored straight after half time to make it 16-4, a pattern emerged of Saints getting to the 4th or 5th tackle then Wakefield were penalised rather dubiously. The first 4 penalties resulted in 4 scores to put saints ahead. This all happened in a period of 14 minutes. Wakefield weren't going to come back from this despite it only being half way into the second half. Over the whole game Wakefield had to defend 10 more sets than Saints.

It doesn't matter who Ganson supports, why was he in the ref's dressing room at half time and was he there officially or unofficially?

it must be true then.

So, to sum up this whole thread :

Wakefield played best in the first half, and Saints played best in the second half, ultimately winning the game.

In the opinion of some disappointed Wakefield fans, the only cause of this was that the referee, having had a blameless performance while Wakefield were winning, suddenly became rubbish when Saints were winning.

This was because a different referee, who is biased to Saints, told him to cheat.

And the on-pitch referee, who is not biased to Saints, or maybe is (sorry, getting confused) decided to cheat as a result.

It most certainly was not because of any of the following more unlikely explanations :

- Saints played better in the second half than the first
- Wakefield played worse in the second half than the first
- Wakefield gave away more penalties than Saints by committing more infringements
- Saints gave away fewer penalties than Wakefield by committing fewer infringements
- Saints have a better quality set of players than Wakefield.

It's true, looking at that list, that those are such far-fetched explanations that the only reason I can think of to explain the bizarre result at Wakefield this weekend, is that two referees decided to cheat because one of them likes Saints.

I can't believe there are still fools out there who think that games are decided on irrelevant issues such as player quality, form, on-field discipline, fitness etc. What silliness.

Where shall we string up Ganson and Roby, by the way ? I like a good lynching..

Ganson would have been better off not going to the refs room at half time, and if he felt he needed to it might have paid him to at least notify both teams coaches prior to it.

Ganson was a maverick as a referee and made things up as the game progressed. Now they've further inflated his ego by giving him his present job and by jove he's enjoying himself. Whatever Roby was or wasn't doing Ganson should not have been anywhere near him during the match. If Roby has cocked up during the match he should have been reprimanded later as Ganson's actions have only served to conjure up conspiracy theories.

I was there.

I saw a pattern emerge of a stronger team that stopped making mistakes and started to dominate the game. The general trend in most games is that the penalty count swings in favor of the dominant team. It is quite simple really, stop giving away penalties and the penalty count wont go against you.


Anyway, Roby is a Wiganer so I can say with certainty that he is definitely biased against Saints.

I have to say now the dust has settled, that the most likley reason for the 15 minutes of penalties and possession for Sts, is that Sts speeded up the game.

I didn't feel like the ref managed the game very well at all and there were plenty of incidents you could compare to say there was unbalanced treatment but when it comes down to it, Wakefield needed to get off the tackle without giving any penalties away.

I'd like to have seen better reffing of the Wilkin incident which would have changed the game, and Amor incident which probably wouldn't have changed the game...............but I'd also have liked Riley to pass to an open man for a walk in try and Sammut to get the ball away when he tried with another near open line.


BUT, when the someone goes to see the ref at half time and appears to be upset with something it causes doubt and allows people to worry about conspiracies. Better not to do that and I hope Ganson is reprimanded.

Saints are my team, so perhaps my bias is causing this thread to rile me a little.
So, away from the contenders and the result I will make the following comment

If the head of the refs' department is on site and he sees one of his team not performing (in his opinion, of course), then why shouldn't he take the first opportunity to express his opinion?

Wakefield still got the first penalty and try of the second half, so there can't have been much of a conspiracy.

Ganson's reffed plenty of Saints games without being biased towards us. He was also the guy who sent Morley of after 5 seconds of a test match.

As for the penalties being dubious, I know it feels rough at the time, but someone once wisely said to me that as long as there's any argument for that decision, then its a matter of opinion and you have to accept it. Its only calls that are gobsmackingly wrong (take the Hull Fc/Hull KR video call by Ganson last year) that you can get upset about them.