He was bad both ways, but was a lot more lenient towards you in some decisions even some of your fans would probably admit that.

Watching the match on Sky in the pub with no sound on I thought Lulia was lucky to stay on the pitch, going by the same rules that saw Mr Raynor sent off for decapitating Tomkins in the no.1 moment on last season's highlight reel

No he wasn't, for the 75% of the game I saw he was very good. An average player might make 20 tackles & 20 drives, with those around PTB handling far more. Look how many mistakes they make. Then multiply their involvement by a hundred. The ref has to judge every single pass made, every PTB, every single tackle, every kick, every position of every player, while keeping up with play & barking instructions to the players. I was captain a few times & one of the fittest players at my level, I could barely talk with exhaustion, never mind keep a running commentary. If we assume the ref made 5 wrong calls in a game that is a percentage of miniscule proportions, compared to most players, yet we have a 5 page thread of posters trying to outdo each other with hyperbole. A friend I introduced to the greatest game is now a season ticket holder, we were out with him last night, he said he is surrounded by fans who whinge about everything from start to finish. I'm afraid it's a cultural thing rather than the ref's fault.

Just for the record though, & next week's assassination of the ref, do you want the ref to let the game flow or penalise every suspicious borderline pass, PTB etc? Me? I'd let every one go.

I'd have like to have been a ref, I think I would have been ok at it. But there's no way I would stand the abuse at amateur games with no fence between you & the crowd, or 10,000 at a pro game. Ocasionally players become the focus of ridicule, the excellent Mike Platt a recent on; some posters say it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you get that much abuse. Again, multiply that by 100 & wonder why we are desperate for referees.

everyone realises the difficulty of the job and most fans will recognise that mistakes are inevitable but I believe the one thing that every RL fan (as well as every fan of whichever sport) wants is a reasonable level of consistency - no more no less

the 'interpretation' of the laws seem to be so diverse among such a small elite band of officials which is ruining the game IMO - the disallowed Millard try against Saints was punished when a much worse challenge by a player going for the ball in the Bulls v HKR game (I can't recall who) was allowed to stand for example

some of Gansons 'interpretations' differed quite markedly from those of Mr Child on friday - the officials led by Mr Cummings have to get their act together and play the rules from the same hymnsheet

Imo there should be a presumption that offences are going to be penalised. If (say) at the moment 75% of PTBs are incorrect or that a player is offside in 1 in four occasions if the players realise that they are not going to be penalised , then before you can chant 'you're not fit to referee' [ievery[/i ptb will be incorrect and we'd have defenders five metres away at the ruck.

Players aren't stupid and if they see that cheating ('cos that's what it is) is a business move, then they will cheat.

Think we need to compare Gansons performance to Childs to see how bad he was.

Accoridng to the letter of the law, Childs probably didn't get many decisions wrong, but you could find an offence in every single tackle and Childs is like a shaken can ready to go off. You don't know when he's going to blow the whistle.

Sean O'loughlin went high on just about every single tackle he did yesterday, but Ganson was sensible in his decisions. Yes he could have blown the pea out of the whistle for every offence,he wouldn't have been wrong in blowing for penalties but he would have frustarted the players and fans and it would have boiled over.

Refereeing is about game management.

How many tackles are there in a game - 500? How many penalties did Childs blow - 20-30? So he blew for only 5% of tackles, I would think it was actually far less than that. But he could have called 500? I didn't see the Wigan game so can't comment. Are you giving credit to Ganson for ignoring O'Loughlin's constant high tackles? I'm sure you would have been equally as magnanimous if it had been against Bradford.

Sadly a huge number haven't got a clue. The majority I work with in Leeds see it all in simple black & white, it is all part of an agenda by the RFL &/or ref against Leeds - unbelievable I know.



Officials are not ruining the game in the slightest, it's like blaming the courts for the state of the country. The officials do not make the rules. I do accept however that Cats probably get the rough end of the stick, I know for a fact that London suffered statistically decision wise in the past, I am sure this is unconscious on the part of the officials. Every person is going to interpret & enforce the rules differently as they are human beings. I find it frustrating when refs obviously have a directive to enforce a certain part of the game & then forget about it a few weeks later, but it hardly ruins the game.

Hardly controversial. I said borderline, which are 50/50 possibly not an offence.



If you are not talking about the player actually touching the ball with his foot then I'm not sure where you get that proportion from or what you mean. Are you saying there are 200-300 offences a game at PTB?
The game is 10 times quicker than in the 70s & 80s, players & refs infinitely fitter, the PTBs are all about speed, the game usually won & lost around it, it's inevitable that's where the controversy s going to be.

exactly my point - the officials are not showing consistency with their interpretation of the rules - there's too much misinterpretation and not a standard line of thought - one mans 'interference' is another mans 'knock on' for example
Refs aren't robots but there has to be a common unity and not the diversity of thought that seems to dominate the game lately

If you are talking about the current trend for defenders reaching round the PTB to grab the arm of the attacker then it is a very fine line between hitting the arm & ball, how can every decision be the same? Or if you mean interfering in the tackle, trying to dislodge the ball, it's a skill that has always been there, it's increasingly difficult as a defender preventing the offload when stealing is not allowed. Unless you can read the mind of the defender it is completely impossible to know if there is intent or not. Every incident is individual, it is equally impossible to achieve consistency without psychic powers.

not every incident is 'indivdual' - far from it

take the case of football and the 'tackle from behind' - the dirctive from the FA was clear not long ago - any tackle from from behind will be penalised, end of - very rarely do you see such a tackle (even when the ball is won) go unpunished
or, any interference with the GK when going for the high ball will be punished with a free kick - how many times do you see the goalie not being protected like that nowadays ? answer = never, no contact is allowed
these are rules that era easily defined and easy to administer - there's no ambiguity

RL is the same - very few of the rules are ambigous, they are just misread by the officials who even have TJs plus the VR occasionally to get the call correct FFS !

I’m not sure what we are arguing – stripping the ball in the tackle was outlawed years ago. Are you suggesting every time the ball comes out in the tackle it must be a penalty to the attacking team?

Actually they do - it's called interpretations. I'm not talking about 'judgement calls' but how the rules are implemented. As an example, the law about using a shepherd (AFAIK) hasn't actually been changed but the way it is used changes season by season (if an interpretation ever [ilasts[/i a full season), it seems the refs , en bloc, have meetings pre season and decide to change things just to confuse everyone else - and often enough, change them back again, mid season, just to confuse us more.

And why are attacking players allowed to run in front of their ball carrier into the defensive line?

No they don’t. Just like the police decide whether a law is being broken or likely to be broken the officials interpret the laws of the game. Saying officials make the rules is completely wrong, they would have to invent a new offence for that to be the case.
The RFL obviously change the emphasis of the rules on an ongoing basis, as does the referee’s controller, usually in reaction to a perceived issue or because a pair of clueless numpties on Sky bang on repeatedly about something. I have no doubt whatsoever that the controller goes through the changes in emphasis, & any new rules, with all the clubs throughout the season. Similarly I am sure the referees brief the players before games on specific issues.

They aren't. HTH.

The RFL are dragging their heels with the officiating at matches it is blatantly obvious referees are struggling trying to get it right, they need to look at the whole way the games is policed e.g. amount of touch judges running up and down the line, amount of referees in the middle, the use of video for forward passes where tries are involved. At least make an attempt to help the whistle blower instead of just burying their heads in the sand.

Yes they do! Oh no they don't, it's fun this, isn't it!



But they do, as do the police incidentally, though in the case of the police it is ultimately decided by the court, which can, and sometimes does, tell them their interpretation of the law is wrong.

Yes I know the rules, as interpretted, are subjective; it is all 'if in the opinion of the referee', as we all know and couldn't in reality be any other way. In the end it boils down to whose job it is to "change the emphasis" (your words) and it should be the people who devise the rules in the first place who change what is or isn't allowed on the field of play, not the referees. It is their job, similarly to the police, to see that the laws of the game are observed, as written, not to "change emphasis" as and when they think it might be a good idea.

Exactly the same with referees & the judicial panel.



I didn't say the referees change the emphasis, they do not & should not, I said the controller (Cummins).

the whistle blower must help himself a lot more and show more consistency - easy to say of course but is it that difficult to ask a ref to be consistent for both sides during the same match ?
Refs seem frightened to make the big mistake which puts themselves under pressure and surely TJs could have more input rather than the ref referring to the VR if one is available - let's either use the VR efficiently and not at every moment a ref has a fraction of doubt or scrap the VR completely and go back to the ref making the final decisions
a more consistent interpretation of the rules is more difficult to get to so the RFL/Cummins needs to stress the guidelines as has happened in football with the tackle from behind for example

If that 's the case he shouldn't be; it's not his job.

When a change in the laws of the game is thought to be required, isn't there a whole committee who thrash out things like this? Putting forward points, and debating the rights and wrongs, bests and least worsts and coming up with a (hopefully) viable and coherent set of laws under which the game can be best played - and then one bloke can make amendments on a whim - well, actually I don't suppose we should be too surprised - this is RL!

I have no evidence either way but would doubt immensely if Cummins makes anything such as this up on a whim. I would fully expect he meets regulalry with a committee from the RFL & they fully review the state of the game from an officiating perspective. The committee will agree with Cummins a change in emphasis or indeed confirm any change in laws. Cummins will communicate that down the chain. I would expect, however, that Cummins has the express authority to direct referees on interpretation but rarely does this without consultation, & never on a whim.
It is all too easy to slag off the RFL, it is disappointing that even usually sensible posters on here revert to it.

I hate email teniis but am still not sure what you are comparing the tackle form behind to. It is not allowed, end of. Stealing the ball in the tackle, except one on one, is not allowed, end of. Are you saying that every time the ball comes out in tackle it must be a penalty to the attack?

what i'm trying to explain is that the rules, whoever they are made by be less ambigous and that officials become more consistent, that's all

the way to make them less ambigous is for Mr Cummins and his cronies to give much clearer guidelines to the officials

what's difficult to understand there ?