But there's nothing stopping us from improving their standards.


Let's set the scene for you. July 5th 2003 IIRC, Hull FC are visiting Griffin Park and both teams are chasing a play-off place, with London having Dennis Moran repeating his scintillating try scoring form of the previous year and Chris Thorman showing the form that would see him off to the NRL at the end of the year. 4,000 or so fans rolled up for the game, which was pretty even and can be best described as an arm wrestle, but towards the end, FC equalised and we were locked at 20/20 in the dying minutes. Both teams were tired and Moran spotted a gap, ducked through it and was left one on one with Colin Best, the FC full back. Moran ran towards best then chipped him on the 30 meter line and was going past Best before the FB had had a chance to even turn 180 degrees......so best grabbed Morans shirt and both players went down, the ball ran dead and the game ended in a draw. So, to answer your question...what happened for the rest of the game was 2 teams that were separated by 3 competition points after 28 rounds of the comp played a hard game of RL......but the important bit is that Steve Ganson delivered the result.



The Bloke that wiggy and stevo speak to every time there's a controversial moment in a TV game......is that not Cummins or someone who looks after the refs?


If an infringement or instance of foul play prevents the scoring of a definite try, then a penalty try shall be awarded.......or worded something similar. If you're asking was the Moran instance a penalty try incident, after Best, who was facing the wrong way, I was nearer to Moran than any other FC fan and I was at the back of the Breamar Road stand! It was a cast iron red card for Best for a professional foul and a penalty try....ganson didn't even penalise him whish would have given us 2 points and the win.....he bottled the decision!


By the way....I'm with you and Perry on the bit below!

As I understood it at the time, Ganson's mega-glitch referenced above was quietly acknowledged by the RFL to be down to ref fatigue. This resulted in the RFL subsequently taking steps to improve ref fitness, and so was quite a significant factor in improving refereeing standards.

(Ganson always did look overweight.)

Not even sure what trolling is to be honest so can't comment, just trying to have a discussion and point out the officials only react to what they see and generally they are a lot closer than us! The ex ref on sky now works for sky not the rfl.
Basic error management, it generally takes errors to bring about change looks like this was case with the Ganson incident,
You are right on penalty try, the important thing is in view of ref, try would defiantly have been scored, how many have you seen?
Ref standards have improved and continue to improve

...you had me at Hello!
Ganson cost us the game. The fact is that even with the extra point, we would still have had to travel to Nose Hole and we would still of been beaten, but it doesn't change the fact that NOW AND AGAIN....referees do decide results.
The Leeds game at The Stoop is harder to call, because although we were ahead and seemingly the better side, Leeds did come out all guns blazing 2nd half.....although if they'd come out 1 down, it "might" have been different

I still don't get why people feel the need to discount the officials' role from the game. Of course there are other factors and moments that affect a game, and sometimes might very well decide a game, but the game is about momentum and how it swings, and the officials have plenty of say in this, as much as the players on some occasions, not all occasions. I find it striking that people all over RL will happily point to something a player does well, or something they do badly, and hold this up the a/the game changing moment. But if this moment is off the back of a referee's bad call they don't see this as relevant - oh but what about the other 79 minutes, etc

The point is there are a lot of variables in the game and many are down to what the players do but some, such as the decisions of the officials are simply something that the players cannot legislate for. But just because of that doesn't mean we the fans, the players, the coaching staff and the media shouldn't call them on it. if it was a lousy call and led to a try then that is the narrative - not just that the defence wasn't up to it. Players do need to respond to bad calls, they are obliged to, BUT they cannot always be expected to every time. RL defences are reactive and attack will trump defence so sometimes they may ensure the bad call doesn't cost points but when they don't, let's not ignore a major factor in that score was that it was a bad call. If that call was at a crucial time, or a deciding score then it's a major fact in the result.

In this game the decisions looked decidedly ropey and one sided. Usually players and coaches don't mention the referee after the game, this time they did. There were numerous instances where similar calls went different ways. I'm not suggesting deliberate bias or anything, but we were playing pretty well and the 14:5 penalty count and various other calls (e.g. 40:20), in my opinion, in this case, explains the scoreline far more than any other factor.

micky, we all know that refs will make mistakes. Take the game this week, the ref missed a blatant obstruction on Oscar Thomas, but he also gave dodgy decisions against Leigh. The point being that after the game all the Leigh fans said that we won fair and square even if the ref wasn't very good. The reefing wasn't one sided, just not very good.

In the Bradford game every 50/50 call went against us. Each time the ball came out at the ruck, if we were in possession it was given as a knock on, if they were in possession it was given as a reef. Now if you've watched the game for any length of time you know that they are often a borderline call. How can you explain them all going against us?

You are right that no matter how much you chat to the ref he won't change his call. But Wes Naiqama is not a gobby player, he doesn't chats back to the ref as a rule, so why did he feel the need to talk to the ref so much in the Bradford game? What explains this uncharacteristic behaviour?

Unlike some of the journeyman players we had in the past, this current crop are pretty honest, they'll admit when they haven't played well. So when I chatted to them in the bar after the Bradford game, why did they all complain that the ref had unfairly penalised them? (and remember they are even closer to the action than us or the ref).

It's all very well backing the ref, and I agree that they are vital to the game, and must be allowed to err. But regarding the Bradford game, avery other poster on here apart from you thinks the refereeing was unfair, the players thought the refereeing was unfair, our captain thought the refereeing was unfair. Are they ALL wrong?

The referees are now supposedly professional but the quality is worse than ever, even Wiggy and Stevo comment of the poor decisions which is something they never used to do. They rarely use the rule to march back 10 metres when dissent is shown to the referee. Wigan and Catalans are famous for always mouthing the ref. They should march them back but I feel the refs are too afraid to do that. They are too afraid to use a red or yellow card for high tackles and professional fouls as it is much easier to stick a player on report and that way they get less grief from the offending team. This only benefits the opposition team the following week not the team who may have lost a player through foul play. Come on MIckyb1234 start arguing against this as your sole reason on here it would appear is for you to go fishing with everyone. Refs make bad calls and it spoils games and as for the TJ don't get me started, do they know what a forward pass is.

Why dont you volunteer to be a ref and see what it is like in real life? Plenty of opportunities in the London and the South.

Genuine errors are one thing - failing to be even handed is something else.

www.therfl.co.uk/more/match_offi ... h_official

www.therfl.co.uk/more/match_offi ... h_official

Nice colours at least

Andover boy, you accusing the ref? Or just unwilling to see the fact that Bradford forced us into making errors

Sunday 19 July Hemel anyone fancy it

Actually I was thinking more generally than this specific game. There has been a general feeling over many years that we are ill-served by officials. This was borne out a few years ago by research done by RL World magazine which showed that we were more heavily penalised than anyone else and (perhaps more importantly) received the fewest penalties. The team who was the next worst treated - Catalan Dragons. I don't whether such bias is conscious or not, but it's there alright

I's probably not concious, because there really isn't any "benefit" for the referee in being bias. I'd say it's purely a bit of subconscious bias with other teams knowing how to "play the ref" better. No amount of debate will ever convInce me of anything other than Ganson robbed us v FC......


meanwhile, it certainly sounds like Bradford played to their strengths and our weaknesses in the game under discussion and what's more important is that we've learnt from that and know how to handle it should we meet them again in the middle 8.