I am 100% certain that Ganson deliberately attempts to manipulate games through the decisions that he makes. He clearly feels that he should be an active participant rather than a simple facilitator. Whether or not he has a particular bias against one side or another is less clear - we could simply be unfortunate that his bent manipulations more often than not cause us grief - but I am sure that he intentionally intervenes to make things more 'interesting'.

You lot make me laugh!

I would sooner have not been awarded that try but had Michael Dobson on the park for the full 80 minutes.

Did he though?
Again, I don't know the facts here - but someone earlier claimed that the doctor was on the pitch and all that?

You're easily pleased, drop in anytime

the game should have stopped, it's as simple as that.

We lost, we had it in our power to win and we didn't, nut muddynuts saying in the press that it's bigger than a Grand Final win is just hilarious, it wont keep KR afloat next season, it was two points which Ganson gifted a terrible KR side.

I do wish people would stop being so overdramatic.

Referees are encouraged to stop the game immediately if they consider that:

a) the player and/or those attending to him are potentially interfering with play - He/they were not

b) a serious injury has occurred - this usually means a head/neck/back injury and an immobile player - He may not have been immediately ambulant but he was sitting rather than laying prone and unconscious.

The correct decision was to play on

Having been on the end of 'his bent manipulations' I'm 100% certain that your views perhaps could have a conflict of interests on your certainty Ganson deliberately attempts to manipulate games through the decisions that he makes. Mind you, by the same concept, my views on Ganson's decisions can be construed in the same (opposite) way.

By your post, am I right assuming that you genuinely believe that Ganson deliberately went on the Hull vendetta in the last 10 mins or so, just to make the game interesting?
Well if that’s the case, you can have Ganson and we’ll keep Thaler.

I'd like to add to all of this that having been an ex referee from the 1980's allbeit for only a couple of seasons.....when I was requested to act as a 'touch judge' for an important amateur game at the Circle (now The KC) the top "Hull referee" instructed me and the other touchy to 'let things go, because if we kept waving our flags.....it LOOKS POOR and makes me look incompetent'.

Needless to say, over the years and to this day, that SAME DIRECTIVE MUST be still being enforced for TV coverage.

However, as a referee your 'credability and impartialness' CANNOT be brought into question....With Steve Ganson this IS nearly every game.

The GUY is not a cheat.....JUST TOTALLY UP HIS OWN AR2E. He needs SUSPENDING.

That was the very point I thought I'd stated. The receiver of the ball being in front of the passer at the point of taking the ball.

As there so many "what ifs" in your post, how about this one.

What if in that set of six, rovers scored on the opposite wing, would have have been ok to carry on!

Of course Hull were disadvantaged, but players being treated whilst play continues is a part of our game. The only reason for stopping if it directly interferes with play or it's a head injury.

Too much being made of this, it's a non issue.

Wonder if Ganson has got the guts to tell PG he was wrong?

What do you think?

Hes not putting in a complaint hes just asking a simple question and I am sure thats not hard for him to do is it?

He obviously gave that pass the benefit of the doubt, you know like when Jordan Turner was nowhere near grounding the ball at the KC


1-1 I guess that makes it

No Philb, thats 2-1 to you lot based on the fact the Fred Lindop robbed us in 1980.

Even by your usual low standards of intelligence, that comment is dredging the pits of fookwittery