Well, that is how the numerical system works.



Yawn.



Where have I mentioned about a coach "slagging off" a referee? I'm talking about constructive criticism, gathering specific points and providing them in a respectful, professional manner. Not for instance bargining into a referee's room, pointing fingers and shouting "YOU F*****G SCREWED US OVER REF!"



So basically no matter how poor someone does their job, they are above constructive criticism? Why should that be allowed? So if a referee makes a poor decision, does that mean that his immediate boss is unable to give him constructive criticism regarding his performance? Or is it just the players and coaches that are not allowed to question him. I've not suggested anything otherwise, as you put it. I think the way you have seen my post, is that I think the coaches can come out and say absolutely anything about a referee. Maybe if I would have added the words "constructive criticism" in there, it may have been thought about differently. But, I stick by what I have said, regardless if other people seem to have read it differently.



Already explained it as above. I just don't get why people seem to think that if you give criticism of a referees performance, this automatically means that you don't respect them. I respect the hell out of my boss, but if she does something wrong, and it affects something that I do, I have to say something, albeit "con-struct-iv-ely". (see, I've added it there)



Again, where have I mentioned about referees being publicly slagged off? Again, I think you have interpreted my words incorrectly. I'm a qualified referee myself. Yes, I wouldn't enjoy someone coming over effing and blinding in my face, saying I was biased, saying that I'm a "f*****g cheat", but if someone came over and gave me feedback constructively on my performance (whether it was average or bad), then that is something that is not a problem to me.



Riiiight.



I disagree. But even though I disagree with you, I'm not going to question your integrity and say that you know nothing about Rugby League. It's all about having decorum, Roy. You'd be well trying it sometime.



But that's what I have been saying. Constructive criticism. Not shouting and swearing and making a fool of yourself.



And as I said to Ritchie, the journalist thing was part of a hypothetical situation and if the name was changed and the situation was changed, then there shouldn't be an issue. But like I said earlier, if a coach gives constructive criticism regardless or not if it's behind closed doors at Red Hall, or on a radio station, there will still be sanctions against him.

Actually, that is about as bad an example as you can give. There are plenty of people, slef included, who are very happy with that decision, as I am convinced that it was a try,, and moreover, have explaiend why, and interestingly enough, nobody has challenged the reasoning. Which i didn't think anyone who thought about it could fairly do.

The only issue with that try is if the ball hit the corner flag first, but to put it neutrally, there is no evidence at all that it did, so it would be wrong to disallow on some hunch.

Anyway, given that there is (at least) a large body of opinion, backed up by the laws of physics, that strongly suggest it was a valid try, it would be ludicrous to ask how you can respect a VR who amkes that decision. It was a decision he was entitled to make, and I personally am sure it was right. Even if somehow the decision was wrong, it certainly isn't a "respect" issue whatsoever.



This. The only people it suits are the loudmouthed bigots who dominate radio phone-ins. Anyone who can't see why a sport needs to give respect to its officials is a very stupid person indeed. Mercifully we have not only TGG, but also perhaps the game in the world which shows the most respect for officials, which given the intense nature of the sport is astonishing. Long may it continue, and a plague on the houses of the misfits who want officials regularly castigated in public by biased people, who are invariably wrong anyway.

Because he's questioning the decisions of the referee? So if he was to visit Red Hall, speak to a RFL official on the quiet and discuss how a referee's decision cost his team the game, he wouldn't face sanctions, but if the coach was to do it in an interview on Sky Sports, he would?

I would have assumed that just questioning the decision of a referee would mean a possible fine, or in football, a touchline ban.



Integrity would only be questioned if someone really believed that there was a conspiracy against them and that the referee was part of that. Hull KR fans maybe? I think I've seen both linked in together, hence why when I stated integrity in the past if I did (can't recall), didn't necessarily mean that someone thought the ref was biased, just that his decision making was being brought into question. Guess that could fall in either integrity or ability.



Well, of course. That would be a given.

So this whole thread has been about an incorrect assumption you made?



It's an important differentiation, which was why I made the point.



So why would anyone think it's OK for a coach to publicly challenge the integrity of a referee?

Where have you got this idea that there are sanctions for complaining about a referee through the right channels?

That's the key thing here - the channels such issues are raised through.

Although most of the Younger ref's these days seem to be touchjudges-cum-ref's, when did this start ? i know they are also qualified ref's but we never used to have this - you can have a guy running the line in for example a bottom of the league clash who the next day is a ref or video ref for a top 6 game or something, just doesn't seem right to me.

It was a variation of an assumption.

And anyway, I wasn't aware I started the thread....



I'm pleased for you.



Where have I said it's okay for a coach to come out and publicly complain that a referee is biased against their team or has a conspiracy against them? I've said the coaches should be allowed to question the decisions made by a referee using constructive criticism, but I've never said it's okay for them to accuse the referee of being biased and having a conspiracy against their team.

I didn't say you had started the thread.


Happy to help, at least we have achieved some education for you on this thread if nothing else.



Do you realise other posters are posting on this thread and have suggested referees should be criticised publicly? You yourself stated "What I'm saying is that there shouldn't BE restrictions" by the way.

I don't see the problem with that. It makes sense for the younger officials to get involved to a different extent in the bigger games, rather than just being thrown in as the main referee at some point in their career. I cant remember Steve Ganson's development, but I presume at some point he went from being a lower league ref to doing a full time Super League game, without any middle ground to bring him upto speed with the top level.

It should also give them a broader vision of the game and a proper understanding of the different roles.

Totally true. By going to full time referees you are limiting the pool to a group of people who are willing to accept about £30k and work in Leeds regularly. Thus ruling out anyone who has a fruitful career in another industry, doesn't want to commute to Leeds, doesn't want to retire from their career at 40 etc....

It makes me wonder what type of people these guys are that they are willing to do it, is it because they cant get anything better / earn more elsewhere; and if so, why are we limiting ourselves to such candidates.

Assuming that the refs can hit the required fitness and competence standards, it shouldn't matter that they are an investment banker or a milkman in the week.

It was implied.



Heh heh, another one that can't debate without throwing insults around. Shame that, I was enjoying having decent debate with someone who I thought seemed to be an okay poster, well, until I seen some of your postings on other topics. You like starting a lot of conflict, don't you......

Then you misunderstood.

Nah, I really didn't.



Nope, I thought it was mildly amusing which surprised me as I didn't think you had any humour in you. Good on ya pal!



Well, at least we agree on something. As I'm sure hundreds of others do on here too. Though I wouldn't say "a bit".



Hypothetical scenario. I could have chosen something else, but some budgies respond to speech so I thought I would include it. Do you have pets? If you do, do you speak to them? I can imagine a lot of people do.



One of your internet forum "pet peeves" I guess. I can imagine you have a lot of them.....



It was my pleasure.

Awarding a try that was clearly not a try. Therefore not doing his job correctly. If I didn't do my job correctly I would be punished.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the refs do their job for the love of the game?

[size(or it might be because they are a bunch of jumped-up, power -mad little Hitlers)[/size