There's nothing brave about the question you are asking. You arent some straight talking crusader, railing against the evils of political correctness to speak truth to power. You are, on the basis of purr speculation, linking a person's performance in their job to their sexuality. You are suggesting that he is held to a lower standard because of his sexuality. That he has the role he has, and conducts the job he doesnin the way he does it because of his sexuality. It is a textbook example of homophobia. You aren't fighting the good fight here. You're not the hero prepared to take the slings and arrows of PC culture to shine a light on a necessary truth.

Well said Smokey.

I wish I'd written this.

Absolutely spot on.

I cannot abide those who think they're being "brave" challenging "PC nonsense", when all they're really doing is giving vent to ugly prejudice. I'll tell you what bravery is: a gay bloke who every week goes out in front of thousands of people, including some deeply unpleasant knuckle-draggers, to referee a sport which gives us all entertainment and pleasure, knowing every week that those same knuckle-draggers are going to subject him to abuse for being gay, both on and off the pitch.

That's brave.

Suggesting gay blokes get an easier time because they're gay, is cowardly.

Bravo... Now that you've got that off your chest... I think you'll find you've shot your load a little early and thrown out a number of innacuratr claims - you've got lost getting in a hissy fit. Nowhere have I claimed to be some sort of brave crusader, no where have I mentioned his sexuality having any impact on how good he is at his job - the only part of your statement above that is in any way accurate is that I'm questioning if he gets preferential treatment or held to a lower standard - which I think based on his performances, he does.

Since when did the OP say he was "brave" or a crusader for asking the question?

Fact is Child has been getting games such as Lees vs Wigan as far back as 2012, he's reffed Leeds vs Wire 7 out of the last 12 games between the two. When refs get these fixtures they inneviatably end up doing finals and semis, he's not been given a single one yet (others like Hewet and Hicks who became SL regulars AFTER him have done finals) so definitely something out of the ordinary with the way he's appointed to games.

Also with regards to people saying it definitely couldn't happen, we're in the 21st century! Yeah and look who the leader of America is in today's world and the RFL and the match officials department have plenty of history with regards of treatment to staff with incidents and rumours of bullying and jobs for the boys, we've seems number of refs quit lately with that pointed towards the reason so we're hardly dealing with a whiter than white department even if you personally would never treat someone that way doesn't mean others don't.

Absolutely spot on - couldn't have said it better, so I won't try.

Your post explains and highlights your prejudice better than I ever could.

You chose to give the thread the title, 'Positive Discrimination'. The very concept of positive discrimination is that it favours members of groups that are perceived to be discriminated against. So, unless Child's belongs to some other discriminated against group (that only you know about), why do you suspect positive discrimination??

Of course it does - so, any comments on the points around my perception of inconsistency that I actually raised?


Not sure what your point is - I've stated that I believe he appears to get preferential treatment - what I haven't done in any way shape or form is state that his sexuality impacts in anyway his ability to do the job...

No but you have pointed to him getting preferential treatment because of his sexuality.

My comments would be that Child's inconsistency has nothing to do with his sexuslity.

Your perception of it however...

I never linked his inconsistency to his sexuality - only you are doing that... you're seeing what you want to see.... I've only ever referenced the RFL's inconsistency

Absolutely I have...

Whether that be due to wanting a show of how 'inclusive' the RFL are, or because they're reluctant to get tough on him in fear of cries of prejudice, I think it's possible, and would explain why he gets IMO different treatment.

This is in no way a dig at Child (although I do feel he is a terrible ref - nothing to do with his sexuality, if he were straight, he'd be equally as terrible), he is who he is and I have no problem whatsoever with that. it is purely a quwaiting of the RFL....

And as you will see, I didn't say you linked his inconsistency to his sexuality. I said that your perception of his inconsistency was.

And you think that it's ok to do that?

You have said he gets preferential treatment because he's gay but don't follow it up with any evidence only assumptions. That in itself is a cause for concern. The question you should ask is 'Why does one referee get punished for missing something but another doesn't?' By bringing someones personal preferences into it automatically shows your way of thinking. Hence the the reason for the majority of replies to your post

Your attempts to separate Child sexuality from his performance whilst explicitly arguing that his sexuality:
Positively colours the judgement of his performance,
affords him opportunities that are ostensibly based on performance, that he otherwise would not get,
And has advanced him beyond the level his skillset deserves,

Is a logical fallacy and intellectual cowardice.

So it's not positive discrimination, it's RFL inconsistency. There, you've answered your own question.

I do think it's ok to do that yes. I've given evidence based on my opinion - he's been dealt with leniently on the Westwood incident compared to Thaler only 1 week previously. My opinion on his performances in general are not as good as other referees (I'm not going into specific examples as we'd be here all day), yet he seems to get a disproportionate number of big sky games compared to referees I perceive as being better referees.... That's the discussion point - my view is that it could be related to positive discrimination - I don't feel the need to pussy foot around with my wording to appease the easily offended, I'd rather just say what I think and people can take it as they please.



You may well be right - I'm cynical.

So just to clarify what your saying here.

Referees who referee games like Wigan v Leeds or Wire v Leeds inevitably end up refereeing finals

James Child has refereed a disproportionate amount of these games.

James Child has not refereed finals

Ergo James Child is the beneficiary of positive discrimination.

If you don't believe that positive discrimination happens in this day and age you should look the leader of America. A rich old straight White man who was born in to money.

There is actually no evidence you've provided whatsoever that he has been dealt with leniently because of his sexuality. You have come to that conclusion on your own. You have picked out his sexual preference as a reason with no facts to back up your assumption.

Anyway, is it 'fact' or opinion to say that Thaler has been dropped, as such.? Have the RFL said so? Moreover, is it fact or opinion to say that, if he was dropped, it was because of his perceived failings with regard to Ferres?

FWIW I think the Westwood incident was a much easier one to rule on that the Ferres/Gildart incident (and I say that as a Wigan fan). In other words, I would have expected a red card for Westwood; for Ferres, in real time, not so much. Not that, with hindsight, Ferres didn't deserve it, but with several in the tackle, plus broadly similar incidents (admittedly without the 'lift and drop') being not uncommon... As I said elsewhere, when was a player last given red for a crusher tackle? I can't recall. But Westwood's assault *is* the kind of shot players have seen red for in the past.

All of which chimes with my general view that Thaler is a better ref than Child.

And I must be the last one in the village to find out

but I didn't even know (or care, natch) that Child was gay! The only gay ref I was aware of was Nigel Owens in RU.

I think one of the issues with Child is that he seems to have a poorer relationship with the players than other refs. At least, that's my perception. Whether sexuality has anything to do with that: who knows?

Agree with all of that (I think he has an air of arrogance in how he communicates with the players, that coupled up with poor/bizarre decisions then escalate the game into a penaltyathon as players get frustrated and deal with it badly) - Child comes in for criticism from both players and fans on a regular basis.

My question is why is Child treat differently (which IMO he is).

The operative part of that phrase is 'IMO' - no one else seems to share that particular 'O', which should tell you something; either you're wrong, or every other poster who's commented is a PC snowflake. What do you reckon?

That we'll never know who's right or wrong... would have been interesting to hear people's thoughts on the Ferres/Westwood incidents, and the scheduling of refs to games - unfortunately not many people have actually shared their thoughts on that, with a preference to showcase their snowflake-ism...

Just me that didn't know about his apparently sexuality, nor care?