Can we just clarify the penalty count?

You're defending a claim that I never made - are you that paranoid?

Inept officiating cost Les Catalans. The penalty count is irrelevant. Key decisions were still missed by the officials, namely, the Rob Burrow knock on at the scrum and the one where Jamie Peacock not square/offside call when Leeds were really under the wrack!

McGuire should have walked after the precedent set a couple of weeks back by Child and Ganson. Fakir should have walked too.

-------------------------------------------------

Moving away from anything personally aimed at SmokeyTA and more in general of RL supporters, I've never understood this gloating/poking fun attitude that supporters have when rival teams have key decisions go against them and poor officiating costs teams matches. It's a huge problem for our sport. The inconsistency from referees week to week is of major concern. Coaches complain constantly from atrocious decisions made against their sides. Les Catalans in particular have had a torrid run with poor officials - I wonder if that's why Trent Robinson thought "screw it I'm off to Australia"? Perhaps not but perhaps it contributed?

I thought our referees moving to full-time would have seen standards improve but IMHO they're at an all time low and you've got to question why? Surely they should be on the up?

The judiciary process is an even bigger problem - something that everyone - fans/players/coaches - tend to agree on. It must change.

Hock makes one of those challenges once a month, Burrow takes one once a game, one even worse happened later in the same game, strangely the Fakir challenge seems to have been picked up on much much less.

Mcilorums was many times worse, you may think that Mcguire's challenge is worth a ban, but that isnt dependent on Mcilorum's punishment, they are different and independent incidents, just because Mcilorum got sent off for his challenge, that doesnt mean Mcguire needs to be sent off for his, they are judged on their own merits, not as some evening up mechanism.

If Mcguire is banned, it is because his tackle was judged to be worthy of a ban. Mcilorums punishment plays no part.

I would turn your question on you. Ignore Mcilorums challenge and punishment, dont use it as a comparison. Independently, judged in isolation, do you think Mcguire's tackle was THAT bad?

It was an all-round inept performance from Thaler, but for those saying Catalans came off worse I've got to disagree.

McGuire's challenge was lazy & reckless, not deliberately dangerous. It should get 1 match.

Fakir deliberately raises the forearm so he can make contact with the face of a tackler as he goes into the tackle. It's not lazy, it's not careless, it's a deliberate attempt to injure the tackler. It should get 3 matches.

As for the rest of the game, multiple decisions (Burrow's FB/Dureau's play at the ball) went against both sides, and all could have been called back, preventing tries that were subsequently scored.

The one thing I would say re: consistency, is that Leeds got penalised for a number of high shots, where similar tackles by Catalans players were not penalised-particularly on Burrow, but also on Peacock, Jones-Buchanan and Hall. This is what needs ironing out.

i do. i thought mcguire and fakir should have walked.
however those that thought catalans were hard done by should watch it again. thaler was awful for both teams, as was child on the line

Inept officials also cost Leeds, Les Catalans had knock ons missed, i have no doubt Leeds probably had others missed as well. The failure of Thaler to wipe the tackle count was probably the worst decision in the game, it couldnt have been clearer. You did claim, and you claim again that inept officiating cost Les Catalans, judge it as a whole, can you really argue that a team which were given 3 times the penalties of the opposition were disadvantaged to a disproportionate level?

-------------------------------------------------


Coaches look for excuses and to pass the blame. There are only 3 sets of people who can be blamed, and the coach doesnt want it to be them. I dont think any team is picked on, or gets advantages, but i agree the standards arent high enough.

I dont know what the answer is for improving them, but i think the communication could be much better and that comes from Cummings. He should be out there, explaining decisions, explaining interpretation and not afraid to admit a mistake. Mistakes are acceptable, they will happen fans need to accept it, and admitting them would be the first part of it. Right now it seems that interpretations change and inconsistancies are rampant because sometimes mistakes are defended instead of just accepted.

I would have thought it harsh for both, but i wouldnt have complained had he gone.

Surely you're first point, even if it is rather spurious, highlights the point I made in an earlier post about the inconsistent interpretations made by referees from week to week. How can one week a challenge like that be on report and then another it's a sin bin or a red card? Take away the Leeds/Wigan McGuire/McIlorum and looking at it from a wider perspective and it is something that is occurring constantly in our game from week to week.

It was a swinging arm that connected with the head from McGuire. I don't believe that necessarily warranted a red card – this RL not tiddlywinks BUT after the precedent that was set a couple of weeks back by James Child and Steve Ganson then McGuire had to leave the field to remain consistent with a decision made a couple of weeks ago. You can't one week send a man off for a swinging arm to the head and then the next week put a player on report for a similar challenge. It's inconsistent. How on earth must Mike McIlorum feel sat watching that? Answer my question (that you conveniently ignored btw – how come?) and roll reverse the situations. If Kevin Sinfield had made the challenge McIlorum made a couple of weeks ago, was red carded and then received a three game ban, then a couple of weeks later Gareth Hock makes the exact same challenge that Danny McGuire made tonight, stayed on the field – how would you feel? You'd be livid! The Leeds forum would be throwing their toys out the pram like our forum is right now and you'd feel just as aggrieved as the Wigan fans do now.

However RL has adopted this attitude of “it's not my team so whatever” when really we should as supporters of the game be looking at the bigger picture and asking some serious questions about the state of refereeing in our sport and the judiciary process.

Bad calls from the ref for both sides but still very entertaining game, Wigan fans deluded as usual. Hopefully the Warrington and hull do the same tommorow.

stop it wit the straw man argument. Mcguires incident has nothing to do mcalorrums, they are different incidents in different games. Creating fictitious incidents doesn't help you argument, it weakens them.

Because they arent identical. They arent all the same, some are worse than others.
I did try and answer, i didnt ignore it. I wouldnt think, that roles reversed, Mcilorum should have been sent off for making the tackle Mcguire made, regardless of whether Sinfield had been sent off for Mcilorums challenge a couple of weeks earlier. Mcilorums was worse, much worse. I dont think Mcilorum should have been sent off because it was contact with the head, but because it was a particularly bad one. All contact with the head isnt the same, all swinging arms to the head arent the same, we dont need to pretend they are.

Because McIlorum's tackle was in no way a proper attempt to stop a ball carrier, it was a late hit in which he's had to make an effort to get that high up around Laffranchi and for no other reason than to give him a bell ringer. At least McGuire (and Fakir on Burrow) were actually trying to tackle the guy with ball in hand who just so happened to be falling (or very elusive in Burrow's case). Timing a hit correctly on a falling player is vastly different compared to McIlorum who lined up and hit a virtually static and standing up player who hardly moved sharply to catch McIlorum out.