Having seen a couple of completely inept and out of his depth performances from this guy I cannot believe he's got s fulltime contract from the RFL. Or maybe this being the RFL perhaps it is not such a big surprise

Desperation leads to bad decisions

I thought he was very young but he's actually in his late twenties, I believe.

To be fair, that is young for a ref and we don't know how much experience he's had, so maybe not all that much. I guess someone at Red Hall has seen some potential though, and we can only hope they are right.

Thing is for me, that within the world of RL, the Championship is a pretty high level, not to say professional, division and they really ought to let rookies gain their experience a little further down the chain, imo. We really can't knock him - he is who he is, but we can berate the people who appoint officials to a level they aren't yet ready for. It's every bit as unfair to him as it is the the players and fans of the teams involved.

He didn't exactly look the part, but he must have been reffing through the ranks for a long time and somebody must rate him to give him his chance. He'll have reffed hundreds if not more matches, I've only seen him in 1, so i can't write him off like that. Maybe we caught him on a bad day. He can't have been so bad all his career else he wouldn't be where he is.

More RFL ineptitude. Was he in the cadets system like Cobb? If so, there's why he's been given a contract. They want to prove their system works.

Your post is fairly typical of 2016. (1) Assume that some wild claim (in this case: [i"Mikalauskas is utter crap"[/i) is a given, rather than the mere opinion it is; (2) have a random thought (in this case: [i"there is a conspiracy to promote from the cadets system to 'prove it works' [/i)" and then, (3) without a shred of evidence, 'upgrade' it to an actual theory.

Finally, totally ignore the natural outcome of the suggested conspiracy theory if true (that promoting someone to Championship reffing despite being totally useless, would do the precise OPPOSITE of "proving the system works" - in fact it would be the [iworst [/ithing they could do)

I'd suggest Mikalauskas at this level is very green, and it showed, but has been judged ready to step up a level so has been given a chance. I've read about his background and he seems to be a thoughtful and intelligent guy, and a player and a fan, as well as having devoted a lot of his life to reffing at all lower grades, so i don't think he deserves a total "incompetent" character assassination. I'm happy to cut him some slack. Sure he won't find the video great viewing but then even the highly experienced long-time pro refs can have bad days at the office, and he has an excuse, he's still learning. We need new refs and how else do you suggest we get them, if not giving people precisely like the up-and-coming Mikalauskas some genuine and meaningful opportunities?
[url=http://rflmedia.therfl.co.uk/docs/RL_Bulletin_59.pdf2009 Article - see page 8[/url

There have been all sorts of tales and stories about the match officials setup, notably on the 'retirement' of Silverwood, and then the controversy around comments by Thomason and Stokes, I have no insider knowledge of the RFL's setup and doubt it's perfect, but am of the opinion that the referees in general and newly promoted officials in particular are not fair game for extreme bagging like yours. I doubt Mikalauskas is a tender soul, but still it would be deeply unpleasant to read a gratuitous opinion that you reffed a relatively big game not because you were thought a promising ref, not because you'd earned the chance; no, you'd been thrown in when not fit to be in, and cynically sacrificed on the altar of public opinion, as collateral damage just to somehow "prove the cadet system works".

Over criticism of referees is fine as long as you're willing to let someone who's never done your job before come to your place of work and pick apart everything you do and then post it all over social media.

I'll take that as your daily swipe at somebody is aimed towards me today.



I was merely hypothesizing, though my wording could have been better.

You should take it as what it was, my considered views and opinions on the same subject as you gave your opinion on.

It's a pity that you can't tell the difference between a person giving their opinion on a SUBJECT (in this case, Mikalauskas and the wider situation re abuse of officials) and an attack on a person. I have aimed nothing at you. I don't know you. You might be Santa Claus for all I know. Why can't people on social media discuss anything anymore? Like, do I have a point, if not, why not?

If you can't defend the position you "hypothesized", fair enough, but stop inventing [iad hom[/i attacks where they don't exist.

Your views are most certainly considered, sir. They are also extremely aggressive, accusatory, and inflammatory, and I don't think you actually believe that when you post something like that, it is for the good of the thread and not to simply condescend whoever you're aiming your gun at. So don't be surprised when people don't read on. I'm not the first to call you out that that, and by heck I won't be the last.

My original comment, for clarity, was built on the basis that:

1. I have never seen Cobb have a good game with the whistle
2. I have never seen Mikalauskas have a good game with the whistle
3. Cobb came through a new RFL initiative called the cadets and was the first full time graduate
4. I wondered if Mikalauskas did the same
5. If so, I also wondered if it was the RFL looking after their initiatives so they can post success stories from their work.

I would hope most people could spot that, and I apologise if you could not (or more probably chose not). I don't often get the time in my work day to post long posts a la Ferocious Aadvark, save for the odd occasion when I'm eating my lunch at my desk with tomato soup all round my gob now.

I think he did three out of four or five of our games over a very short period - so it was more than the one bad day.

I can remember 3 games he's done of ours this season. I was at 2 of them and listened to the other on the radio. Whilst the radio commentary team were less than impressed with him, I personally don't judge him on that. I didn't see it myself, so don't echo someone else's opinion. However the 2 games I have seen him in this year, he was dire. Totally lacking control, conned by players incredibly easily and seemingly some sort of eyesight problem. It is possible he had 2 (3) bad days. It's also possible he's terrible at his job. Either way, you would think becoming full time will only improve him, it surely can't make him worse. So from that viewpoint, maybe not that bad a thing. I'd just rather we didn't get him again until he has improved or has more "good days".

And yes I appreciate saying it can't make him worse is like saying Bradford's season next year can't get any worse. Much like we've said for about 10 years on the trot, only to be proven wrong.

Yes I know what you mean. But actually last season was our best for a long time (fair enough it didn't have much to beat) and but for one missed kick,(and/or probably but for one crocked stand-off) despite all the, errm, let's call them 'issues', we would've been in SL in 2016

It seems to me your typical rugby league fans , who think stood 100 metres away from the pitch seem to see more than the refs. Why don't you take up the whistle up then you can be closer to the action.

We pay our money and reserve the right to vent the week's frustrations at them.

They perform an important role.

Can you point me in the direction we're this is the said rule, as I thought the entrance fee allowed you to the glorious facilities and watch a rugby league game.

This old chestnut again.

We'll do it after we've been head coach after being critical of Lowes and the CEO after Ferres.

I'm sure one or two have been highly unimpressed with what's happened in far off lands so we'll referee after sorting the Middle East too.

I won't say on here what my job is, but if I'm crap at it, I get criticised by a number of people. I don't get criticised often, because I am good at it. But if I make a mistake, I accept that it's my own fault I'm getting that criticism.

But referees should be different? That's up there with the suggestion that players who are crap should be protected if they're relegated against getting a pay cut or losing their contract. Because they're more important than normal people.

I believe that people pay their entrance money to support their club - home or visiting fans. I am not aware anybody pays to support the referee. Might not be fair to the ref but I'm pretty sure this happens at just about every game. So unfortunately criticism of the ref is just as much a part as critisizing the team, the ale and the pies etc

Well I don't think your in the kind of job were 26 people are all trying to cheat you then if you want to go a bit further there are another 8 waiting on the sideline if they don't do a good enough job. Then every week there the coach is trying to find out new ways in how he can teach his players to beat the system if that week he fails he will then tell the press how bad the officials are.

They know what they're getting into when they become a referee. If they're so bloody sensitive that they can't handle it, they've chosen the wrong job.

I couldn't do the job. I don't mind admitting it. I also couldn't do brain surgery or rocket science, albeit for different reasons. So I chose not to go into that particular field.

They did choose it, so they take what comes with the role.

Well then you seem to love to criticise someone about a job that you couldn't do yourself tells me your a complete fool.

There's a certain irony to calling someone a fool and using the wrong "your".

Oh the grammar police are out, there the ones when they are cornered resort to going off the subject .