Well, I have to be totally honest there and say he would have been one of my choices. But let's not forget that has only happened in the last few weeks. What we are talking about on this thread is over a long period of time, not just the last few weeks. But I do think Crashley and Leatherbarrow are at a level where they should be given an opportunity to take Childs role. Crashley for me was the best ref of that bash weekend.

I 100% accept that the RFL have themselves in a hole by limiting the pool of Super League refs. What I don't accept is that in Childs case the poor performances have being going on too long to continually ignore it.

The bit that says uneven effort may be required to ensure equality? Well that's a dumb thing to say isn't? Especially when the RFL tell us what that action consists of on the very same page.

Positive action – Is allowed under legislation to redress imbalances between under represented groups of employees. It allows employers to provide targeted training to under represented groups. And to encourage applications from groups that are under represented in particular areas of work.

Nope nothing there about promoting anyone beyond their competency. I wonder why you left that bit out........

As for how you are defending your special friend Zak.
Well who knows.

Crashley hasn't reffed an SL game and yet he should be promoted to a full time SL ref.

Remind us how Child became a super league ref again? and no, I think he should be reffing Super League games, instead of an incompetent one getting two on a weekend.

The fact that you are too blinkered to see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. It is perfectly clear, and I don't think that wrong, but it is wrong when you use the same goals to not deal with something that is not working.




You know very well that was an answer to someone asking the question, who had another agenda. But then again, considering the scrapping the barrel responses you have made so far, it doesn't surprise you don't understand

By reffing in the championship. Then when he gained more.ecperience he got a few SL games as VR. Then a few games in SL as on field ref then a full time ref.

A process crashley has yet only complete.

There is no blinkers it literally doesn't say it. In expressly describes what action could be taken and it is entirely different from your accusation. If the RFL are proudly declaring it why have they said something different?


And yes, we know who had another agenda for calling child's appointment in to question? You.

James Child in this month's League Express



Those posters who are complaining about Child's performances and linking his sexuality should ask if they're helping or hindering.

It was never in doubt that he was a rubbish referee......until an explaination was given that made people uncomfortable even to consider could be possible for a slight second. Then suddenly he became the bestest referee ever to grace RL ever. What this thread has shown is that some peoples version of equality is to treat minority groups like fragile little children that need treating with kid gloves and wrapped up in cotton wool and if anybody asks a tough question about one persons homosexuality it apparently means he's attacking every gay person on the planet and is probably a member of the Ku Klux Klan who'd love it if Watkins was racially abused. All the self righteous ranting from the other side is just smoke to disguise that they actually can't properly explain Child's position.

Some have "hoped" that' I'll retract what I said for my own sake. B*ll*cks they aren't bothered about "my sake", they want me to retract it because THEY HOPE it's not true. Problem is they can sit their and sprout morale highground view and they can sit their and tell themselves that the RFL wouldn't act in that way and they can be 99% percent confident that it doesn't happen. But no matter what, they know they can't disprove it and that makes them uncomfortable and angry. They hope I'll retract what I say because that'll be the closest they get to closure, if they can sweep it under the carpet and pretend that the guy who said it never said it. If he didn't say it, then it doesn't exist and we can all pretend the world is sweetness and light and bad things don't happen. Like you said people "want to believe that it isn't the case" because the possibility that it could be the case unsettles them greatly. Their concern isn't so much for James Child but for their own peace of mind.

whilst bigots do be bigotting, and we can't stop you doing so. The idea that anyone has a duty to disprove your pernicious and insidious allegation is idiotic childish nonsense. Worse than that, it is idiotic childish nonsense that has already been dealt with.

You don't have a DUTY to disprove. You just WANT to and have continuously tried, for your own sake more than Child's.

Congratulations on missing the point by a level I didn't think possible.

The point being I could sit here and allege you are a paedophile, and rightly, unless I provide proof of that allegation, it would be dismissed and treated with the contempt it deserves. And rightly people would be offended that I had made such a pernicious and insidious allegation without any evidence.

The question is why is Child in the position is?

Could it be that those who judge his performances - and I don't mean Printer and Gotcha - those that really know actually think he has some potential that is worth working with? He is definitely a better referee than he was and personally I don't think he is as bad as some with an agenda make out. Also the RFL are looking for referees that are prepared to go full time it could be that some of the proposed alternative candidates are not prepared to make that level of commitment. If you genuinely believe he has potential then he has to be exposed to the opportunities out there. The guys selecting him do their job for a living the fact that armchair warriors like Printer and Gotcha think they know better is laughable at best.

Or is that he is gay!!

Neither Printer nor Gotcha have come up with any backing for their argument despite been given ample opportunity. This suggests their isn't any substance to their allegations and their views on this matter should be considered with that in mind.

Silverwood has consistently refereed poorly against Leeds - far worse than Child IMO - yet the likes of Printer and Gotcha think its more palatable he gets games? Child has never put in a performance of the glaring ineptitude that Bentham put in during the CC final against Wigan yet he is also an OK ref. We see a fraction of the games any referee takes yet some on here are experts on refereeing standards from the armchairs or terraces. If you think you know so much it should be a swift climb up the ladder to SL?

The pillaring of Child by Gotcha and Printer has on the face of it has got nothing to do with the standard of his referring?

You know what David, that post would have so much believability and be very valid, if you actually meant any of it, and it wasn't just another attempt at this daft agenda to get back at me or Printer for highlighting a few of your inaccuracies through this year.

But for the record I don't disagree with your first sentence of second paragraph. I am sure he does have potential, and had it been a couple of years rather than six wouldn't question it, but it still seems clear to me their motives for that patience are more than potential.

I also don't disagree with your comments on Silverwood and Bentham, but yet you fail to point out the good games from them, which have happened. Six years David, and where still waiting for Child's first, but the RFL still wait,

No you said it wasn't your duty to disprove it, I agreed and talked about your desire to disprove.......about as on the point as it's possible to get.

You've now gone on a wild tangent about pedophiles.

If it's not your duty to disprove then why have you wildly been desperate to disprove for 30+ pages? For Child's benefit or you own?

That last line from you of all people who is one of the most likely to criticise the way GH or McDermott do their jobs is laughable.



Our views should be considered to be A VIEW. Simple, either you agree or don't. If you don't fair enough, but why is it still troubling people 30* on? I can't prove it but I'm fine with that and can still keep my opinion on it. You can't disprove it though and that's really the bee in some people's bonnet.



Regardless of what people think of Silverwood he has consistently been booked as one of the top refs given top games for several years. Likewise now Thaler is consistently booked as the leading ref. At the other end of the scale Roby was booked consistently around the 5th/6th choice game of the weekend.

Child wasn't booked consistently. Normally booked in what seemed a natural position for his performance and experience around the 5th/6th choice game of the weekend....then randomly give him Leeds vs Saints. Then back to 5th/6th choice again for a couple of months and then give Wigan vs Saints.....repeat process over the next couple of seasons.

Therein lay the difference.

Is this thread really achieving anything right now? I'm seeing the same stuff written in different ways by the same people as i last looked about 20 pages ago,and with nobody willing to back down from their opinions.Are you really going to bash on for another day and 20 more pages to achieve nothing?

You are both entitled to highlight my inaccuracies - I don't get it right all the time, to err is human. Nobody more than you two should recognise that - your errors are highlighted on a regular basis on here. If you think the last post is a way of getting back at either of you you are more childish than even I thought you were. You have both been caught out here the fact you keep trying to divert the argument to cover you inadequacies is not lost on most who understand your usual argument modus operandi. You have been asked to give evidence of your claims and neither of you have been able to give any credence to your argument!!

Are you seriously saying that Child has never had a good game in 6 years - seriously? He has had a number of good games referring Leeds even some this season. You can look at every game and fans will criticise every referee - sadly the majority don't understand - refs make few mistakes - the % is very low - it is fans myopia that is the problem. It isn't helped that players are constantly pushing and often exceeding the boundaries of the rules. Last week you criticised him for the speed of the ruck - the ruck was slow because Leeds were beaten in the collision the whole night, that is not Child's fault that's the player's fault.

The fact that you have not come out - poor terminology - and suggested Hardaker was well out of order in his comments towards Child says a lot about you as a person and you childish idolisation of certain players - surely a man of your age has grown out of this behavioural trait?

Child is not 5/6 his 3/4 so he is going get some big games that is how he improves. He is a better ref now than he was two years ago. Even you must see that - he gets a lot of stick when Leeds lose. Leeds lost on Friday because Saints were the best side they would have won by a bigger margin if Thaler had refereed the game.

My views on McDermott and Hetherington are opinions in some cases facts in others - you are now back tracking from your stated fact that Child gets games because of his orientation. I agree with you about the Aussies they will do whatever they can to reduce the risk of losing and that includes getting their own ref.

He might be now but I'm not on about just the last few months, I'm talking about a period dating back 4 years. He wasn't 3rd in 2012 or 2013 clearly.



My view on Child is an opinion.



You keep saying this but how am I back tracking exactly, I still maintain my original view.

In your other post you say me and Gotcha have been "caught out". How have we been "caught out".....because you and Smokey don't agree with us? That's not being caught out.

As for trying to divert, me and Gotcha are they ones continuously trying to keep the subject about Child. But every time we ask the our questions those on the other side of the debate bring up "every gay person" or Alibert or what about Silverwood and Bentham or does Ryan Bailey only get games because he's black.

Divert you have raised just about every other possible variation on a theme - who raised Alibert, who raised the Aussies? You even suggested the Aussies threw the 2008 WC - really?

For the past 3 seasons Child has been 4th best ref not the past few months who was better than him last year other than the 3 current leaders? Two years ago many were suggesting Thaler would never make a top ref now he is flavour of the month!!

I have never said its a fact that Child gets big games because he is gay what I have suggested it is very unlikely to be the case and I have suggested alternative reasons why he might get these games - you on the other hand are saying there is no other reason why he gets big games.

No other people first mentioned Alibert, so I then discussed Alibert. Much like you asked what about Silverwood, so I just discussed Silverwood. 'Him' actually accussed the Aussies of cheating btw not me. And the point was about their appointment of Sutton in 2014......no one at all ever mentioned anything about the 2008 WC being thrown by the Aussies, where you've pulled that random line from I don't know but it's not this thread.



Yet the RFL were giving Thaler cup and playoffs semi finals in 2012 and booking him consistently. Yes every referee take a pasting from the fans, I'm taking about the booking of them.



I've not said its fact either.



I've not said there's no other reason at all. I've continuously asked people to provide any good reasons for his booking inconsistency. If people had provided some GOOD reasons I could alter my view. But so far we have the counter reason he got Wigan vs Saints and Leeds vs Wigan in 2012 is because he might be a nice lad and make the teas at Red Hall and have good punctuality.

And there we have it. You were getting away with it so well first two paragraphs, but the true reasoning came out in the end. It has to be about Hardaker and your obsession in trying to prove he is over rated and a monster, after you dug your hole earlier this year. As I said you don't really believe in anything you put on Child.

As for the above, why would I say that? Only an idiot or someone looking to have a go at Hardaker believes Hardakers comment was to Child. Had it being that then you would only be highlighting Child's incompetence further.

And there we do have it indeed, diversion technique there for all to see - realistically who else would a comment like that be directed at - come on Gotcha you are better than that!! I have mentioned the Hardaker incident at least 6 times in this thread and now when your behaviour is revealed you come up with this - you really do back your back against the wall!!

For the record Hardaker is at the moment the best FB in SL and has had a much better season than I thought he would have. He is not perfect and he makes mistakes like all players pity you seem incapable of accepting the errors whilst praising the good stuff.

At that point of the incident Warrington were completely dominating Leeds - that is not Child's fault, Leeds just weren't good enough on the day. The fact Hardaker let his frustrations reveal his underlying attitudes cannot be defended by anyone. So it would have been OK if Hardaker had directed a racial comment to one of the Warrington players to rid his frustration. - what is the difference?

Don't try and excuse the inexcusable. Child may not be the best referee but he is far from the worst and nowhere near as bad as you are pointing out, to say he hasn't had a good game in 6 years is ludicrous - it is just a screen because the hole is too deep, you know it and I know it.

you really are determined to miss the point aren't you.

There is no tangent it is the same point. Nobody has a duty to disprove your point, it is up to you to prove it, and people will be offended should you make such an allegation whilst unable to do so. like you have. That is what offends people. Just as they would had I accused you of being a paedophile without any evidence (an allegation you can't disprove by the way, but, by your logic an allegation you should be comfortable with me making).

Because it is wrong to make pernicious and insidious allegations without evidence. People aren't desperate to disprove you, they are trying to get it through your thick skull that it is wrong to make such allegations when you have no evidence, and you have no evidence.

It really isn't a difficult thing to understand, the fact it has gone over your head twice now is pretty telling.