James Child's worst decision was when he decided to become a referee!

Well, you're not a Leeds fan. If you were a Leeds fan Sinfrield would fill you with pride, being the most succesful captain in the game's history in terms of championship trophies hoisted. But you're a Hull fan, so I can understand why you wouldn't understand.

At the end of the game Childs had made quite a few mistakes, but the Leeds players made more so that's why we lost not because of the Referee, a different Ref could of helped the game more as a spectacle (which is frustrating that games aren't reaching their potential because of the guy in the middle) but it wouldn't of changed the result.

All these posts about Childs not costing teams games ad it being the players faults are missing the point.

He gets so much wrong and makes so many inconsistent decisions that he stops games he is refereeing being enjoyable to watch. They becoming very frustrating games for a viewer whether a fan or a neutral.

I know there has been some defence over the job a referee and I totally agree – it is a VERY difficult job but…

James Child is a million miles removed from the standard needed to referee a Super League game.

I know we all complain about Bentham, Ganson and Silverwood but Child is nowhere near their standard.

I know but there was a video ref at the game and a good camera angle of what happened. refs are yuite happy to go to the screen to see if a kick is a 40-20 so in these instances where an allegation has been made then for me the VR should be consulted

James Child is an embyrionic Russell Smith.When he is awarded the really big and important games (for Leeds) we will win nothing.Look at what happened in the Russell Smith era (1 trophy ) as soon as he left for Oz we were winning left right and .Although he was soon found out in australia as a ref; now he has been demoted to a video ref and he cannot even get those decisions correct.Mark my words Child is worse IMO. But I hope I am proved wrong.

With Bentham being injured now, we had better get used to seein Mr Child more often.

This does happen, McDermott said last year that Stuart cummins approached the coaches saying "what do you want the game to look like?" with his response bring "you should be telling us that!"

Rugby League evolved from union to create a fast flowing spectator sport. If we start interrupting the game for every alleged infringement it'll end up like American Football where a 60 minute game takes 3 hours to get through.

The incident will be referred to Red Hall and the muppets there will deal with it.

So Leeds lack of trophies in the first 10 year of SL is solely down to Russell Smith?

Nothing to do with St Helens and Bradford having the better teams at the time?

Nurse, another 50 milligrams please......

A bit narrow minded from the Leeds coach there.

Two years back in the referees briefing packs pre season was a dictat that ANY laying on at the tackle was to be immediately penalized. It went as far as to say that if you heard the players counting you could presume they were deliberately laying on and blow up. The same pack deemed that as soon as a tackled players leg was lifted off the floor, the tackle was completed. And to call held.
The thinking was that this would speed up to PTB and clear up the ruck quicker.The coaches went nuts. Said that the referees were clearly out of touch with the game etc etc.
So if Cummins has asked the coaches what they do want, and they have nothing to say. . .

Okay 'critical' might be an over emotional remark.....I don't want to get into semantics. Even if it was only 50% a break like that does [iusually [/i result in a try from the next play the ball at least.

My main point was that Childs is the worst referee for breaking up continuity and flow with an over zealous use of his whistle.

However, again let me stress again Leeds did not deserve to win. Hull were a far superior looking side with a game plan and clinical execution. I loved the way they dominated down the middle and then ruthlessly stretched Leeds's sliding defence by spreading the ball at the right time. As others have stated Leeds depend too much on off the cuff individual brilliance and have done for a long time now.

If I was a Hull FC fan I would have been very proud of that performance and would hope they can repeat that consistently: they're in with a shout of getting to OT if so.

Best I've ever seen of Manu...pity you cannot retain him alongside Ellis for one season at least.

My biggest hope is that Leeds will [unot[/u continue to resist making some good young uns on the fringes (Ward, Singleton, D.Smith, Hood etc) more regularly selected. They should be an integral part of the first team already IMO. Without a doubt [u[iour[/i[/u ageing pack is an area of concern.

Quote ="Wellsy13"He passes the ball on the 10m line and it is received about 3m in front. It definitely travelled forward.'" Since when has pitch markings had anything to do with judging the direction of a pass? Quote ="Wellsy13"I think you misunderstand what the momentum rule is. It has nothing to do with how fast the player travels after the pass (like Stevo seems to think), so Crooks challenging Webb is irrelevant. The ball travels in the forward direction faster than Webb was moving, therefore it should have been disallowed.'" This - www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg - it's a Union film but the reasoning equally applies in League - is why using pitch markings misses the point. Webb stayed in line with the pass even after Crooks' intervention. He would have stayed ahead of the ball without it. The pass was released either flat or backwards making it legal. Camera angles, unless precisely in-line, are deceptive.

Quote ="Wellsy13"He passes the ball on the 10m line and it is received about 3m in front. It definitely travelled forward.'" Since when has pitch markings had anything to do with judging the direction of a pass? Quote ="Wellsy13"I think you misunderstand what the momentum rule is. It has nothing to do with how fast the player travels after the pass (like Stevo seems to think), so Crooks challenging Webb is irrelevant. The ball travels in the forward direction faster than Webb was moving, therefore it should have been disallowed.'" This - www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg - it's a Union film but the reasoning equally applies in League - is why using pitch markings misses the point. Webb stayed in line with the pass even after Crooks' intervention. He would have stayed ahead of the ball without it. The pass was released either flat or backwards making it legal. Camera angles, unless precisely in-line, are deceptive.

Quote ="tvoc"Since when has pitch markings had anything to do with judging the direction of a pass? This - www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg - it's a Union film but the reasoning equally applies in League - is why using pitch markings misses the point. Webb stayed in line with the pass even after Crooks' intervention. He would have stayed ahead of the ball without it. The pass was released either flat or backwards making it legal. Camera angles, unless precisely in-line, are deceptive.'" I am familiar with the video, thanks. Let me repeat, the speed at which Webb is travelling AFTER the ball is passed is irrelevant. It's the speed he's travelling AS HE PASSES that matters. He cannot add velocity to the ball after he's passed it. He's running virtually sideways as he passes, so his forward velocity will have hardly affected the past. He straightens up after the pass. It was definitely forward.

Quote ="tvoc"Since when has pitch markings had anything to do with judging the direction of a pass? This - www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg - it's a Union film but the reasoning equally applies in League - is why using pitch markings misses the point. Webb stayed in line with the pass even after Crooks' intervention. He would have stayed ahead of the ball without it. The pass was released either flat or backwards making it legal. Camera angles, unless precisely in-line, are deceptive.'" I am familiar with the video, thanks. Let me repeat, the speed at which Webb is travelling AFTER the ball is passed is irrelevant. It's the speed he's travelling AS HE PASSES that matters. He cannot add velocity to the ball after he's passed it. He's running virtually sideways as he passes, so his forward velocity will have hardly affected the past. He straightens up after the pass. It was definitely forward.

Beat me to picking up on this one! One eyed or what?

Almost as good as the poster who said "had the referee been better, Leeds may have gotten an undeserved win." How does that work?!

Oh, and for the love of God, can people start saying his name right!

[size=200James Child[/size
Not "Childs".

On a thread of people complaining about how much someone gets something wrong, you'd think the same people would be able to get his name right!

Ah but does he deserve [u[ithat[/i[/u respect ?

Does Rob Burrows?

Ask Eleph ..Epaha....that Lauaki fella

Are you fooking blind? Incredibly biased? Or just clueless?

It was a clear try and he could have walked on his hands to the line without been touched by an Hull player.

Dear god.

And yet it was you who wished to use pitch markings as evidence of a forward pass when we both know they are almost always irrelevant as players tend to be moving rather than stood still when delivering the ball.



Are you suggesting Webb speeded up after releasing the pass?

Webb was travelling both laterally =#0000BFand towards the Hull line when he passed the ball. Webb doesn't appear to accelerate after passing the ball, indeed his progress forward if anything is impeded by the challenge of Crooks and yet he stays in line as Jones-Bishop receives the pass.

Probably best also not to lose sight of the fact we are debating a subjective matter and refrain from ending messages with definitive statements.

Apparently you're the only one that's blind, as Tom Briscoe clearly had him covered. They may have scored off the subsequent tackle, but there was no disallowed "try" as there wasn't one scored.

The fact that you have said "almost" always means that they aren't irrelevant to you.
The pitch markings cannot be used to determine a forward pass alone due to the "momentum" rule (that technically isn't anything to do with momentum, it's constant velocity). However, they can be used to estimate the velocity of the player and the ball and make a comparison.

To me, the main point is that the ball is ALWAYS in front of Webb. Had it been passed backwards, it would have been behind him at some point.



Webb was travelling both laterally =#0000BFand towards the Hull line when he passed the ball. Webb doesn't appear to accelerate after passing the ball, indeed his progress forward if anything is impeded by the challenge of Crooks and yet he stays in line as Jones-Bishop receives the pass.'"

The remainder of the 'almost' sentence I used to indicate an example of when the pitch markings could be relevant but clearly that situation didn't apply to Webb on Saturday.



Webb's pass was a face ball to the winger cutting the centre out, the longer the pass the less reliable an indicator pitch markings become.



And to me the main point is the ball is never in front of Webb until after he is checked by Crooks' challenge. There are three possible directions for a pass to travel: backward, flat or forward - two of the three are legal passes.



Why are you focussing solely on a pass needing to be 'behind' ? As explained above a ball can also be flat ie in-line for it still to be deemed legal.

I agree Webb plants his left foot to steady his delivery at the point of release where I disagree is that there was any element of acceleration in Webb's run after that point, if anything I'd say the opposite was true as he prepares for contact. Despite this slowing Webb remains in line with the ball before Crooks' intervention.



It's interesting that when applying the pitch-marking theory in isolation Crooks' pass to Briscoe for his first should have been disallowed.