Quote: Saddened! "Blindly supporting the referees out of some moral crusade isn't any better than me complaining though is it? '"
Great straw man. Your attempt to convert reasoned analysis and unbiased observation into "blind" support or worse a "moral crusade" ffs is risible.
Quote: Saddened! " You conveniently forget all the points I make then drag it down to personal insults all the time. '"
I am discussing refereeing standards and associated points. If you make a stupid or unreasonable point and I point it out (e.g. as above) then while it may be blunt, it is an attack on your point not a personal attack. As you bloody well know.
Quote: Saddened! "Can you not understand Cunningham's frustrations?'"
Yes, Saints are not the Saints of old, their tactics have reduced to a much less entertaining and less complex version, and the realisation seems to be dawning that this is his doing. He has achieved a transformation in playing standards and in particular style that neither he nor Saints fans wanted. So yes, I can see that. The trouble is, he is trying to deflect blame by scrabbling around for scapegoats. He may have had a couple of fair points too, which could reasonably be discussed, but they are buried in his ranting.
Quote: Saddened! " It's been more than two full games since a side was ruled to be offside against Saints and in that time Saints have been ruled offside about 15 times. '"
Unless you can produce video evidence showing that those decisions were plainly wrong, then that would be a surprising statistic, but what would it say about refereeing? Presumably the two games were refereed by two different sets of officials. Unless you are saying that both sets deliberately resolved to cheat Saints by declining to give any offside, whereas giving the opponents a string of offsides which were not? Is that what you are claiming? A multi-official conspiracy never to award offside penalties to Saints? And why, pray, are they doing this to Saints?
Occam might suggest that the opponents just maybe were well-disciplined on those occasions and never gave the ref cause to blow, but I expect you would totally discount that.
Quote: Saddened! " Another point you conveniently forget is that Sharp agrees with Cunningham (Thus making your claims that referees are nigh on perfect look slightly silly), but claims to not be able to do anything about it.'"
You deliberately twist what i said by using the phrase "nigh on perfect". The FACT is they DO get almost all decisions right, as has been explained in another response, but that is not of course to claim they are "nigh on perfect" in the sense you set up is another straw man. And for just one thing, getting decisions technically right is just one facet of officiating a game. As I need to point it out in response (although again you bloody well know it) other skills such as man management, communication etc. are just as key to being a top ref. Darren Lockyer was one of the greatest halfbacks I have ever seen and few if any have played the game better. He was utterly outstanding. Was he "nigh on perfect"? Er, no. Please try to stick to the text and put the straw away back in your barn.
I do not for even a second believe that Sharpe agrees with Cunningham. Which, before you trundle out the straw again, does NOT mean I think Sharpe beliefs his officials are nigh-on perfect! What rot. Whatever Sharpe may have said in private informal conversations with Cunningham should have stayed private and it is crass of Cunningham to flounder about trying to make trouble for Sharpe and cause a rift between him and the officials. I hope he gets a substantial fine for his stupid remarks. And of course you admit you don't even believe Sharpe meant that, whatever he said, so why you made a point that you don't even believe is one for you to answer.