You’re right, I meant Hicks.

Confusing him with Silverwood is worse than anything McManus has thrown his way...

Well this scandal of a chairman writing in a programme has made zero headlines on the bbc.

I don't mind other fans taking issue with it, we'd do the same for the Wigan chairman. But sky saying it undermined referees after their week in week out undermining for 20 years was too much hypocrisy

Quote: nottinghamtiger "You’re right, I meant Hicks.'" I don't know how you can get them mixed up: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-le ... ed-8337530 https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/richard- ... ith-20753/ He never met the RFL standards for officials. The RFL statement seemed to be written by a trainee clerk, looked like a cut and paste job from the rules book and doesn't answer any questions raised.

Quote: nottinghamtiger "You’re right, I meant Hicks.'" I don't know how you can get them mixed up: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-le ... ed-8337530 https://www.seriousaboutrl.com/richard- ... ith-20753/ He never met the RFL standards for officials. The RFL statement seemed to be written by a trainee clerk, looked like a cut and paste job from the rules book and doesn't answer any questions raised.

With Mr Hicks being in the legal profession I would think finance isn't an issue.If it is,I am certain that rugby league followers,at least in Britain,will add to one of those Go Fund Me collections.
Many followers of the sport enjoyed the game and the manner in which it was played and won.
The aftermath has been disgraceful and has taken the lustre from even the thought of enjoying any further games,this season.
With Elstone taking staff from the RFL,and only managing to pinch ideas from Australia,and chase away television coverage from Catalans Dragons,I am surprised by his absence from any meaningful statement.The broadcast companies may also be watching with interest;other than Sky.

Give over.

Sky haven’t once inferred the ref was bent. Your clubs chairman has though. That’s the problem.

That’s because it’s not a response to McManus questions. If he has questions he can put them to the RFL directly. The statement is one regarding the rules in the same way as when a coach makes comments about the ref in the media the RFL doesn't answer them in the media, they investigate if rules have been broken.

It’s really not that difficult to understand unless you’re deliberately trying to.

I actually thought the statement went too far. There was no need for the RFL to “defend” themselves, Warrington, Hicks or themselves. A simple “The RFL are aware of comments made by Eamon McManus and have referred this matter to the RFL Compliance Team” would have sufficed and been more in keeping with the game’s governing body.

Yep. Should have just kept it matter of fact.

Give over it was a clear try.
McManus also says Warrington were deserved winners.
He also says saints have to learn lessons to win finals and we were not at our usual standard. (I. E. Bottled it).

Everyone is spinning this their own way.

Not to mention Saints try was allowed despite obstruction on a Wire defender.
Saints should be rightly annoyed about the early decision. It’s clear to everyone it should have gone to the video ref. They’re right to ask questions about that and they deserve answers. It’s a massive cocky pin a massive game.

However Saints have created this myth amongst themselves that they were harshly done to for the rest of the game. They weren’t. Their biggest issue by far was not the referee but their own inability to play high quality conservative sets consistently through the game to grind Warrington down. They wanted to score straight away and weren’t earning the right to do that.
Ironically they played in a similar manner to that which Leeds did against them the previous week.

Warrington played playoff style rugby. Saints didn’t and suffered for it.

No it wasn't in real time it looked a clear no try, nobody except knowles disagreed with it, if they had not shown in 2-3 minutes later on the big screen and Tv replay, nobody would have batted an eyelid, no clear evidence that he got a controlled downward pressure in the ball. Like I said be brushed it with the side of his hand cannot give that as a try. No way would the video ref over turned the onfield decision, the only debate here is should the ref referred it to the video ref, probably, but the onfield decision would still stand.

Probably 80-90% of people commenting on the subject think it was no try

Forget all the distracting Saints packaging of the Knowles no try incident.

The pertinent point is that Hicks, the match referee , was a whopping 2 yards from the incident, with a direct line of sight and in perfect position.

Therefore with Hicks being the perfect eye-witness, if he was clear in his own mind it was no try, then why would he want to send it upstairs.

Sort of defeats the object.

Now in view of the embarrassing mess St. Helens are digging deeper into, I think it’s about time Morgan Knowles stood up like a man and admitted he didn’t get a lawful try, as Hicks indicated.
Step up Morgan

Whichever way you wish to try and spin this, he calls into question the impartiality of the ref.
The rest of anyone else's flannel/spin doesn't change that and as a Chairman of one of the top SL clubs, he should not beg doing this.

Simple really

The main point regarding impartiality will come from the lack of action from the RFL when one of the big clubs crosses the line.
They need to grow a pair and deal with it and perhaps a little stronger than they dealt with Catalan/Warrington following the recent crowd trouble.