So referees can carry on making terrible decisions and get away with it? I just hope a referees decision doesn't send a team down next year.

Your answers can't upset me, because they weren't answers. I asked what was to be gained by a club coach taking his referee complaints to the press. Your answer about "putting it in the open" didn't imply any gain at all. Whilst I'm sure you have an opinion, you're struggling to articulate it, hence my questioning.

What do you mean by "getting away with it" ? What do you want to happen to them?

James Child will just come out next week and referee/video referee another game. Surely he has to be stood down as punishment?

Punishment for what?

Just like a coach selects his best team, the league select their best refs. Now, if a player makes repeated errors he might find himself not playing, but only if the coach has a player he thinks is better to put in instead.

This is the problem, like it or not these refs that get selected are the best of the bunch. We can't simply go dropping refs because we've got nobody to replace them with.

Not strictly true. The problem, however, was the bizarre decision to move to full-time pro refs. As soon as you do that, not only do you cost the RFL a LOT of money which it doesn't have, but you also automatically limit your pool of referees for top games. It's almost impossible from that point on to award a SL game to someone from outside the cartel of full-time refs.

As it happens, I don't think the full-time referees are bad at all. But then as someone who has played, watched and reffed the game for 30 years now, I'm a little more balanced and understanding than some other fans who only see the decisions they disagree with affecting their own team. However, I think it's a big mistake to limit your top pool to such small numbers. Refs don't need to be full-time. It's quite possible to get part-time refs who are just as capable as the full-time guys, and that way, you'd have a much bigger pool to choose from to deal with fluctuations in form/fitness.

I disagree.



Who said anything about "before a game"? I've been talking in regards to decisions made by a referee, and the impact it has had "after" the game. I've never mentioned anything about before a match.



And who has said anything about starting the game without respect from the referee? I think you've gotten lost somewhere along the line.



Ah, the old "I don't agree with what you say so that must mean you know sod all about RL" comment.

You seemed to be quite a reasonable poster, it's strange how wrong you can be sometimes.

It was an example used in a hypothetical situation.

No need to get your boxers in a twist over it. But if you are really that unhappy with what I've put, then by all means exchange Chris Irvine for Jon Sharp or Steve Ganson or Peter Brooke or Ralph Rimmer or Nigel Wood or whoever else you want.

And anyway, if said coach in the example provided is able to talk to the RFL, the head of referees and the referee himself, does this mean that he is able to vent his frustrations to any of them without fear of repercussions? Or is it if he just vents his frustrations to a journalist either in print or on live television? I don't think so. Regardless of who he speaks to, either behind closed doors or out in the open, if he questions the integrity of the referee, I am sure the coach in the example would be punished accordingly.

Well if we change Chris Irvine for Jon Sharp, Steve Ganson or any other RFL official, we don't have an issue and no one has an underpants problem, because that is allowed and encouraged. So that being the case, just what are your knickers twisted around?

Whether he's at risk of repercussions for venting his frustrations, then I'd expect the standard real life rules around how mature adults converse will apply. i.e if said coach just rants at and insults a ref or official, than he'd get the same response to that as he would ranting and insulting most people. If he were to have a grown up conversation, then he'd get a different response.

You know, "after" game 1 is also "before" game 2 ? Right ?

Unless you've developed a mindwipe device which, if used, removes all memories of coaches' criticism of referees more than 24 hours after the event.



Seriously, if you think that having a coach slagging off a referee publicly for his players and club fans to read/see/hear isn't going to reduce the respect those same players have for that referee, then you're deranged. If you turn someone into an officially-sanctioned target for public criticism and opprobrium, then of course they will be afforded less respect in the future. It would be simply mad to suggest otherwise.




To be honest, if you genuinely think that allowing coaches, or players, or any club officials, to heedlessly criticise referees publicly, is a good idea, then I'm sorry but I'll stand by that statement. Nobody who has been on a pitch, whether as referee or player, thinks the game is made better by having a ref have to deal with the game after being publicly slagged off by anyone connected to one of the clubs in question.

I am a reasonable poster. It's this suggestion which is unreasonable. That's why Richie is quite rightly pushing someone else on it. Criticism is fine, as long as it's constructive. Even at an amateur level there are ways for criticism to be made of referees' performances. But it is not done publicly, ever. Because to do so would be to poison the atmosphere between all members of a club and the referee, and to make the safe control of future games almost impossible.

If Brown, for example, has a beef with a ref - and I speak as a Saints fan here - then he has channels for airing those issues. Spouting off to a journalist is completely unacceptable. It always has been and always should be. I for one do not ever want to see in rugby league a situation in which players feel able to do what they do in football and try to physically intimidate the referee on the pitch. Yet that is indisputably where such a concept of public criticism would lead.

But regardless of whether said coach rants and raves, or puts his point across constructively, he would still face sanctions because he is apparently questioning the integrity of a referee. Obviously by the way he acts, he would be spoken to in a different manner, but ultimately the outcome is the same.

What makes you think he'd face sanctions for this?

We're kind of talking about two different things by the way. Integrity, and ability....or both. I can't think why the integrity of an official would be questioned. Ability, yes.

By the way, if any RFL official publicly questioned the integrity of a coach, I'd expect repercussions for that too.