You don't think her reasons are any more calculating than that then? Agar I can accept was just anger, but with our clubs reputation for spin I can see her realising it was a good opportunity to take some heat off him and buy more time. On her radio interview she seemed pretty composed for someone who was having an 'outburst'.

You seriously think that as soon as the whistle went she thought 'right now is my chance to take some heat off the Rich'.....

More likely she was as furious as the rest of the crowd and combined with the general pressure around the club just got wound up and spoke out.

To be fair, she'd spoken to David Burns off mic, he asked if she was prepared to repeat the comments on air and she did.

Well it's much more believable than your conspiracy theory but it's a pointless argument as we will never know.

Initially I did, but on reflection I just think she was so desperate for us to win she blew up when we didn't. A win on Friday would have bought them a few weeks in the agar in stakes so you can understand her kicking off when we lost narrowly and the ref was dire

Conspiracy theory? Hardly.

Kath's remarks on Friday night were either:

a) a foolish outburst from a woman who, despite what else she might be, is no fool

or

b) a continuation of the spin tactics that have become a hallmark of the current regime

As you say we'll never know.

So a grapple tackle is now a straight yellow card? How come Jones didn’t get sinbinned then? www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2471 I think this inconstancy is the most annoying things about match officials these days.

So a grapple tackle is now a straight yellow card? How come Jones didn’t get sinbinned then? www.therfl.co.uk/disciplinary/item?2471 I think this inconstancy is the most annoying things about match officials these days.

always has been in most sports mate - probably always will be ...

Simply because no two incidents in any dynamic sport are the same, even if refereed by an automaton

of course, and decisions at any given time are based on ones personal instinct at that moment - one mans 'ball steal' is another mans 'knock on' for example

all people are different and will have different interpretations of any incident.

Surely enough factors of an incident can be the same for the incident as a whole to be classified as similar though?

surely if the penalty is awarded for a certain thing, the sin binning is default anyway?

so, all the referee needs to clarify is what the penalty is for

Fair point.

if only it was that simple

remember,we are dealing with human beings here............