Were you at the game or have you come to this conclusion from listening to the radio ?
The heavy penalty count in favour of Saints, starved Wakefield of the ball for 15-20 minutes, which allowed Saints to gain the upper hand.
The "holding down" calls changed in the 2nd half and Lomax deserves some kind of Oscar, after "coming back fro the dead" after he ran into Ali.
Out for the count one minute and like a spring chicken the next, talk about magic sponge

I listened to the radio, and confirmed after speaking to my parents about the game (who were caught up in fighting on the terraces btw, which I'm not happy about) - but even if that had not been the case, it doesn't invalidate my opinion. 3-4 times saints put the ball down in the first half, and Wakefield picked it up and ran down the field. The last occasion Wakefield scored off it.



I never mentioned the penalty count. Though, arguably, don't give the ref a reason to be penalised, then you won't be penalised. Saints were crucified the last time Roby reffed, so it's hardly a question of bias. All refs have been generally poor this season.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. The commentary on the radio did seem like a lot of the Saints penalties in the second half were very generous. There were so many comments like "Oh he's given a penalty, just looked like he dropped it to me but we'll take it" and "I think that one actually had some merit".

Without being at the game though it's impossible to judge the context. Was the referee just unbelievably slack in the first half for example? Was he allowed 10 second play the balls and was told off for doing this?

Wow!
Players bending the rules and even breaking them and getting caught!!!!
SHOCK HORROR!
Team loses because they get penalised and also fail miserably to score more points than the opposition.
And who is to blame for all this?
Not the players,not the coach, not the ignorant of the laws of the game fans oh no.
It's the match officials AGAIN and once again the fans blame them for their teams incompetence .
We'll their is an option if you are unhappy but it's obvious very few if any have the gonads to do so.

Come on, you have to admit that it looks bad. Saints are losing and an acknowledged Saints fan goes into the ref's dressing room and gives him a good old-fashioned dressing down (Agar's words). This Saints fan is the ref's boss. In the second half, Saints get a lot of penalties from calls that Saints-centric radio describes as "generous", and scored tries from the field position gained.

Yes, Wakefield didn't help themselves in attack, but on the whole because they were chasing the game, but it looks bad from any perspective. As Agar said, the second half was reffed differently.

Ganson is, in general, incredibly biased against saints, in a vain effort to not come across as biased to other fans.

Alternately, a professional, whilst doing his job, witnessed errors made, went in at half time, and tried to correct them, no different to a coach at halftime. Afterwards, the game is reffed as it was supposed to from the start, and Wakefield were unable to react to that.

It feels a total non-issue that would never of been brought up if Wakefield had won.

But that is like saying we would never go on about Maradona's Hand of God had England won the game. The reffing had a direct effect on the result. Saints scored tries directly after penalties that even Saints-centric radio seemed to describe as generous.

As I said, what happens on the pitch is visible. Ganson might have acted with complete integrity, but if he hasn't the wit to see how it would be perceived, he shouldn't be in the job. Would he have gone in there to give the ref a dressing down at half-time if Saints had been winning? We don't know, that's the whole point, but Ganson is Roby's boss, and the intervention of a Saints fan had a direct effect on how Roby reffed the second half.

All he had to do was take the coaches in with him, so that everyone knew what was said and how the second half was going to be refereed.

I'm not sure, as an employment question, that bringing in outsiders to witness a performance/disciplinary bollocking, works very well, tribunal-wise.

But in a rugby context, that's like the main witness for the employer being allowed a long word in the tribunal chairman's ear before he rules against the employee.

I imagine (being the relative youngster I am) that had England won that match I'd of barely heard who maradona was ... So yes, only bad refereeing decisions are remembered when we lose! Equally would the hand of god of been remembered if it had been ruled out? Probably not.

I imagine both coaches were busy with their half time talk and probably wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) of been interested, the referees, and the referee management team are there to do a job. Ganson has proven time and again he's not bluntly biased towards saints (as I said, it usually goes too far the other way) so why should it matter? Should Jon Wilkin not play for saints against hkr because he's a hkr fan? These are professionals and are doing a job, it's a total none issue that is dragged out against saints whenever a team feels they should of beat us but don't (with 8 players injured you should of by the way)

Do you honestly think agar would of said a word about it if Wakefield had won? No. Because it's not that big an issue. Would he of still made the comments if Bentham had gone in instead of ganson? Probably. Is it therefore a bit of a none issue? ...

But it looks bad, and that's the point. Perhaps Bentham wouldn't have felt so strongly so as to go in, because his team wasn't losing.

Agar clearly thought it was unusual, and hence his comments, and so we can probably accept that it wasn't usual. If it wasn't usual, why did Ganson do it? What was so upsetting about Roby's performance that merited a dressing down in the first half? That "you're letting them" etc.

It is an issue because Roby sought to address his boss's concerns.

Yes, Agar was in a team talk, but if the matters are so pressing that Ganson has to stomp to the ref's dressing room to give him a dressing down, then I'm sure Agar would have given up a couple of minutes. Surely it benefits everyone to know that the ref is concerned about this or concerned about that. By keeping it quiet, Ganson or Roby gave Wakey no chance to adjust, and laid themselves open to bias. Was Ganson's intention to ensure that the game was played properly? If so, tell Agar, and then the paying public can get what they paid for. If Ganson's intention was just to ensure that Wakey were penalised more, then he got his wish.

But he gave saints no time to adjust either. It's not like he told Roby to watch out for this that and the other, told saints, look lads keep an eye for this, and then said nothing to Wakefield. For every scenario you make up, I can make up an equally ridiculous one.

Obviously ganson felt mistakes were made in the first half, I imagine, if Wakefield had gone on and won, it's would of been the saints fans on here complaining about incidents that Roby failed to redress after half time. Equally, it's not gansons job to talk to the press about any performance related issue. There are ways for fans/ media to question specific decisions - but if you were called in and had a performance review, I doubt you'd want that passed around the office.

It looks bad because you want it to look bad. I do note however you haven't actually questioned any of the penalties given away, so I can only assume you actually think they were the correct decision. If it was a stop penalising saints by ganson how come Wakefield got a penalty in the first minute of the second half (which they scored from)? You want it to look bad.

The point here is that we don't have consistancy..yet again. If the referees/touchies cannot uphold the laws of the game correctly from the first whistle to the last in a manner that is consistant throughout then that is ultimately down to Ganson, he needs to ensure that the officials in his charge have the ability to officiate to the std required..
I've seen so few excellent/consistant refereeing displays in last 10 years that I know the whole officiating/rules enforcement/clarity needs an overhaul on an epic scale

I totally agree. The refereeing system needs a total and complete overhaul, from the politics of junior refereeing all the way up. Problem is it takes money - would the sl clubs take a 50k cut to pay for reffing improvement? (A wholly unquantifiable product)

The question is was the game reffed correctly in the first half or the second half. And the answer to that depends on whether your a saints fan or a Wakefield fan. Ganson, in his position with referees felt the need to address issues at half time, and did so. Whether that was right, because he is perceived as a saints fan (why this is still an issue is beyond me, he's overseen us losing grand finals! Surely then would be the time to show any feelings of bias!) shouldn't matter. Whether it was right for a refereeing coach to see mistakes, and want to correct them at half time, is. You would expect a coach to correct a player whose under performing - why is it different for a ref? In a perfect world, a ref would be perfect every game, but is half a game poorly reffed and half well reffed better or worse than 80mins or poor refereeing?

I'm not 100% sure (I'll check with my brother tomorrow as he used to be a ref) but there's nothing in the rules against officials from the rfl entering the refs room (though they aren't allowed in the player changing rooms) and that it does happen (at least at an amateur level) on a semi regular basis.

It's really not.