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.

Yeah, like the wrongly disallowed Wakefield try for a "forward pass", the unbelievable missing of Amor clobbering a Wakefield player round the head, like missing Wilkin take Riley out, like the penalty against Wakefield when the Saints player clearly dropped the ball trying to play the ball...those kind of calls???

Dont be silly dboy we are all paranoid fools. How dare we question the integrity of this fine upstanding gent. www.complex.com/sports/2012/08/a ... eve-ganson

Dont be silly dboy we are all paranoid fools. How dare we question the integrity of this fine upstanding gent. www.complex.com/sports/2012/08/a ... eve-ganson

Quote: inside man "we are all paranoid fools. '" The first stage is admitting it www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/8490 ... llegation/

Quote: inside man "we are all paranoid fools. '" The first stage is admitting it www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/8490 ... llegation/

No it means you are the asshat I thought you were and not all that bright.

If you want to admit to crimes on here its of no consequence to me, i dont know you and i doubt we mix in the same circles so this poor lad you attacked is unknown to me. If however you want to accuse someone who, whatever your opinion of him, has spent years working for our game of not only attempting to unduly influence the outcome of a game, but then also link to libellous accusations about him that werent proven despite a police investigation i will pull you up on your paranoid asshattery.

Now i dont like Steve Ganson and dont think he should be in the position he is, however im not going to start throwing unproven, unevidenced accusations at him as a person. I wont do this because that would be a bitter and paranoid thing to do.

who said I attacked someone? Thats a libellous statement, I was attacked. Very naughty.

if you were attacked what action could have been taken? I only assumed you attacked someone because otherwise you just told us a very boring and pointless and utterly irrelevant story.

No.

I was not at the game. I listened to it on the radio.

Watching the TV replay last night, the pass well looked like it could have been forward. Its a matter of opinion. What make yours right and Tim Roby's wrong?

Penalties given for interference at the PTB or ripping with two men in the tackle can often be borderline from being a knock on. Its a matter of opinion - Just as many high tackles hit the shoulder first (or only hit the shoulder) or can be caused by a player ducking. Its down to the ref's interpretation.
For every harsh call you got on Sunday, you'll get one in your favour by the end of the season.

The Amor one, okay, poor miss. I haven't seen the Wilkin one.

Selective quoting Smokey style.