As a referee myself I see ways of dealing with it without losing control. Firstly you have to look at what the game is like and for instance if it is close and tense then just pull the player to 1 side and explain that there is a line and that you understand that emotions are running high but this convorsation is where it stops. That way you have spoken to the player and he knows exactly where he stands. Obviously the Captain will be involved in this so hen you sent the other player away you have a word with him too and tell him exactly what will happen next.

On the other hand though I will not tolerate any abuse when it is uncalled for like for a penalty or something like that.

As I say though you have to look at the game as a whole and just use common sense first which unfortunately some refs dont.

I'd agree.

Ablett is prone to the odd tantrum here and there.

The one in the WCC this year was my particular favourite.

Someone needs to drag him to one side and tell him to shut the f up every now and then.

Not that I am dissagreeing with you.

But this is all well and good having a go at Ablett, but did anyone actually see Ablett open his mouth to the ref? Did anyone actually hear what Ablett said if anything?

His coach said he laughed at one point and got done for it.

All we know is that a well renowned idiot of a ref pulled him for dissent, and that the Sky TV commentators discussed it. It never showed Ablett saying anything on those tv pictures, and nor did it give any sound to it.

Perhaps it wasn't captured by the Sky cameras and microphones but Ablett was clearly the one spoken to for dissent in the 23rd minute by Ganson. The viewer doesn't need to know what was said in a particular incident to prove it happened though.

Oh dont get me wrong tvoc. I know it was Ablett who was pulled. I am asking the question that nobody saw Ablett say anything, and nobody heard what Ablett said. All we do know is an idiot of a ref who is well known for these monumenatal cockups, decided it was dissent.

Yet on the back of that Ablett is getting some stick.

If he did what he was accused of then fair enough, the coach should be giving him what for and disciplining. But I cant help but think that Ganson looked for easy prey and got it.

I do think that Ganson was shocking on Friday and worry not only about his consistency from game to game, but his consistency during the game. I don't think ref's have agenda's at all and do not believe that Ganson has it in for us as such but do worry that maybe sub-consciously Leeds and Wigan tend to get the worse of his 50/50 calls.

There were a number of things that I thought were odd. I am not sure why Wakey were not penalised when Ablet was picked up and put in touch. The rules are clear, if you lift a player, the tackle is over, no matter how close to any line you are! He was of course correct to penalise us for the same offence later in the game but you can see why players could get confused and frustrated!

I also thought that the Webb binning was wrong, I would have accepted a penalty, but when Wakey did not have anyone in acting half ready to take the ball how are you holding up play? It would have been interesting to see if Ganson would have panelised Wakey if Webb had jumped straight up and Wakey failed to play the ball straight away... I doubt it!

The whole on-field team missed the knock-on at the play-the-ball prior to Atkins try, so the whole Video ref decision should have been irrelevant! Which left me to beg the question about when the video ref can and can not intervene in on-field play? We can take a video ref descison back to the last play the ball before the try, that is clear, but Ganson did not ask him so he did not lookat it, ok so we were unlucky, but with the head-high report, how come Ganson admits to Ablet that the on-field team did not see it, so he must have had a call from the video ref based on the Sky reply and puts him on report. I thought after 'Ganson Gate' this was not allowed, period!!!

Exactly, we KNOW what he is like, the players KNOW what he is like, so don't do anything. Don't backchat and don't laugh right in his face after he's just given a decision. It doesn't really matter what Ablett said. He shouldn't be saying anything - he's not the captain.

When Sinfield asked Ganson what Ablett had said, making it perfectly clear he wanted to know so he could talk to the player about it, Ganson mentioned that he'd "been disputing the decision and stuff", i.e. he didn't give anything remotely specific. Make of that what you will.

In which case he should have learned from Sam Tomkins the week before, who got binned for giving the referee a thumbs up to confirm that he understood the explanation for a decision.

It is IMO worse to suggest that Ganson was looking for easy prey when you don't know what was said than to give Ablett stick for getting pulled up.

I don't think that was a knock on anyway, although Peterson clearly did from the resulting kick.



Ablett? Was that the one where Lauitiiti made contact with Peterson in the first half?

The video ref isn't supposed to interject unless requested to do so by the match official. As Peterson was down injured I'm sure Ganson was more than capable of instigating that conversation.

He didn't change his decision either, he still gave a scrum down but put the incident on report. I'm sure if he hadn't the match commissioner would have asked for it to be looked at anyway.

Why? Ganson is well known for making up things on the rugby field, so it is not so silly to suggest he might have made something up about what Ablett did.

Had it been another ref, I wouldn't have even quiestioned the decision. But Ganson is a bit of a "cry wolf" scenario now.

Do you know what Ablett said? Can you say with confidence that he disputed Gansons decision? I dont believe you can, just like me. Therefore I am not going to critisize Ablett for something that I know there is a big chance on that Ganson got it wrong.

:29co7b5g

It could have been a fumble though?







I do agree that the video ref did get it wrong though, either way.

No like you I don't know what was said. On that basis I'm not going to question the decision that was made when I have no proof to the contrary. Can't think of any incidents where Ganson has made up things, maybe you'd care to enlighten me.

It was a fumble but one that was recovered before becoming a knock on so play on was the correct call for me.



As long as it's the match official that instigates the conversation I believe he can ask for advice from the video ref at any point in the game in any circumstance. There was the instance of which Ryan (Atkins or Hall) knocked the ball dead in the second half (where Webb was also obstructed by Peterson.) Leeds got the drop out in accordance with Silverwood's brief from Ganson.

I wonder if he was in any way tempted to rule on the obstruction? He'd have been wrong to do so if Ganson had not requested an opinion on the collision.

TP got marched 10 for dissent. There was plenty of dissent that wasn't penalised in the Leeds game too.

It needs stomping out though, I was very disappointed with Eastmond but not at all surprised. He's a very, errr, "confident" lad.

That's the kind of thing that officials alwauys trot out (in any sport) when talk of clamping down on things emerges. The thing is, you would see 4 or 5 players in the bin every match for a few weeks, then players would either learn or become too much of a liability to continue to be selected. I would sacrifice some of the quality in those first few weeks to stamp out petulant backchat in the longer term.

I think I missed the Puletua one in that case but the Eastmond incident appeared worse than those penalised at Belle Vue although I agree Ganson let Jones-Buchanan escape likewise late on.

I don't believe this is a major issue just yet but it's important it isn't allowed to become one. The referees authority should be protected at all costs and that extends to the SL where the example should be set for the rest of the game to follow.

I would like to see the RFL deal with dissent towards officials via the weekly disciplinary committee. Each and every case should be referred to the panel with a warning, then a mandatory fine of say £500, then a suspension for each subsequent proven case.

Clubs should also be in the RFL dock where their players can't refrain from challenging referee's calls.

It was never a problem in the past and I don't see any reason why it is inevitable that it should become one in the future.

I remember him getting pinged for carrying on running and not playing the ball where he then threw the ball away in disgust. Was that the incident? I didn't realise he got marched another ten for it as well.

Does anyone remember the short lived RFL experiment in zero tolerance in a lower league game a few years ago (Barrow sticks in my head for some reason).

They gave the ref (Kirkpatrick?) licence to basically penalise every infringement no matter how minor, resulting in 20-odd penalties in the first half. Second half there were around half a dozen.

Players and coaches are quick learners. If they know exactly what to expect and it is consistent from week to week, official to official then they will adapt their games as required.

The problem comes when that consistency isn't there, and what was being let go last week suddenly becomes "penalty du jour" the next.

For some reason, I thought it was Huddersfield when they were down in the National Leagues. Maybe even under TS.

Whatever, I remember the results being pretty much as you described.

I think you're right on that. Certainly on the result of the experiment

Spot on AG the consistency isn't there which leads to the confusion and out cry every other week.