But it looks bad, and that's the point. Perhaps Bentham wouldn't have felt so strongly so as to go in, because his team wasn't losing.

Agar clearly thought it was unusual, and hence his comments, and so we can probably accept that it wasn't usual. If it wasn't usual, why did Ganson do it? What was so upsetting about Roby's performance that merited a dressing down in the first half? That "you're letting them" etc.

It is an issue because Roby sought to address his boss's concerns.

Yes, Agar was in a team talk, but if the matters are so pressing that Ganson has to stomp to the ref's dressing room to give him a dressing down, then I'm sure Agar would have given up a couple of minutes. Surely it benefits everyone to know that the ref is concerned about this or concerned about that. By keeping it quiet, Ganson or Roby gave Wakey no chance to adjust, and laid themselves open to bias. Was Ganson's intention to ensure that the game was played properly? If so, tell Agar, and then the paying public can get what they paid for. If Ganson's intention was just to ensure that Wakey were penalised more, then he got his wish.

But he gave saints no time to adjust either. It's not like he told Roby to watch out for this that and the other, told saints, look lads keep an eye for this, and then said nothing to Wakefield. For every scenario you make up, I can make up an equally ridiculous one.

Obviously ganson felt mistakes were made in the first half, I imagine, if Wakefield had gone on and won, it's would of been the saints fans on here complaining about incidents that Roby failed to redress after half time. Equally, it's not gansons job to talk to the press about any performance related issue. There are ways for fans/ media to question specific decisions - but if you were called in and had a performance review, I doubt you'd want that passed around the office.

It looks bad because you want it to look bad. I do note however you haven't actually questioned any of the penalties given away, so I can only assume you actually think they were the correct decision. If it was a stop penalising saints by ganson how come Wakefield got a penalty in the first minute of the second half (which they scored from)? You want it to look bad.

The point here is that we don't have consistancy..yet again. If the referees/touchies cannot uphold the laws of the game correctly from the first whistle to the last in a manner that is consistant throughout then that is ultimately down to Ganson, he needs to ensure that the officials in his charge have the ability to officiate to the std required..
I've seen so few excellent/consistant refereeing displays in last 10 years that I know the whole officiating/rules enforcement/clarity needs an overhaul on an epic scale

I totally agree. The refereeing system needs a total and complete overhaul, from the politics of junior refereeing all the way up. Problem is it takes money - would the sl clubs take a 50k cut to pay for reffing improvement? (A wholly unquantifiable product)

The question is was the game reffed correctly in the first half or the second half. And the answer to that depends on whether your a saints fan or a Wakefield fan. Ganson, in his position with referees felt the need to address issues at half time, and did so. Whether that was right, because he is perceived as a saints fan (why this is still an issue is beyond me, he's overseen us losing grand finals! Surely then would be the time to show any feelings of bias!) shouldn't matter. Whether it was right for a refereeing coach to see mistakes, and want to correct them at half time, is. You would expect a coach to correct a player whose under performing - why is it different for a ref? In a perfect world, a ref would be perfect every game, but is half a game poorly reffed and half well reffed better or worse than 80mins or poor refereeing?

I'm not 100% sure (I'll check with my brother tomorrow as he used to be a ref) but there's nothing in the rules against officials from the rfl entering the refs room (though they aren't allowed in the player changing rooms) and that it does happen (at least at an amateur level) on a semi regular basis.

It's really not.

Isn't the relevant point here that he was most likely at the game in question as a st Helens fan rather than in his official capacity? This being the case then he should have given Roby a rollicking after the game. I'm sure from the sounds of it Cas would have liked the refs boss to have had a word with child's at half time but weren't that lucky.

If Ganson was there to keep an eye of Roby and assess his performance fair enough.....if at the end of the game, whichever way the result went he was unhappy then fair enough have a go.....

The big problem I have though is there was no controversy, no complaints from anyone as far as I can see with the way the 1st half was referee'd......the only disagreement I saw anywhere on the field was Tommy Makinson jumping around waving his arms around like a 12 year old grounded for not tidying their bedroom wtionhen Sammut broke through and fed Reece Lyne for our 2nd try.....he thought Sammut obstructed him after passing to Lyne, but having seen the replay there was absolutely nothing in it whatsoever, just a petulant outburst from Makinson because he couldnt prevent the try being scored....

The question you have to ask is what did Ganson see in that first half that apparently no-one else did, that he felt the need to go in and give Roby a dressing down? It seemed a flowing and open end to end game, and if anything, even though we were in front I thought we got the rough end of a few 50/50 calls.....

The penalty given to us in the first set of the 2nd half was about as blatant an offside call as you are ever likely to see.....their number 27 clearly moved off the mark a good 2 or 3 steps before the ball had even been played and was right at the side of the referee....a good 3 or 4 yards offside and making the tackle, it was a clear cut penalty.....

There is no doubt though that the period where the game swung Roby had a huge influence in....in a 10-15 minute spell we hardly touched the ball.....I think Saints scored on 4 consecutive sets all aided by 'soft' penalties......it seemed they scored, we kicked back to them, did 3 or 4 tackles in good field position then a penalty was given for hardly anything....as has been said even Saints local radio seemed to think that....then they scored on the next set and the repeat happened again.....

In just about every set of six you could find something small to give a penalty for, but Roby only brought this into play in a period where the score went from 16-4 to 16-24......all throughout the game Saints were failing to mark square, on numerous occasions in the second half you could have driven a bus through the two marker tacklers, but they were let go....

Never usually one to call refs as it's a thankless task they have.....I'd even go as far as saying that without the news about Ganson I could just have accepted that we didn't get the rub of the green, like we did at home to Catalans where a lot of calls went our way....

Ganson's intervention though and the difference in the way the referee performed 2nd half to 1st there have to be questions asked why he went in their and why he spoke like he did....

This will be the same Ganson who can't spot a huge forward pass at the Magic Weekend so compensates for his balls-up the following year by tracking the "wrong man". How the hell he ever got the job of refs boss I will never understand and no way should he intervene during a match with the obvious cries of "foul play" from the opposition. Its time he, and many of his colleagues, were read the riot act by those allegedly in charge.

Err it really is…

The VT code of denial continues ever thus.

What Ganson did is unheard of - whether he was right regarding the refs performance is a matter of opinion but it's not happened before as far as anyone I've spoken to knows. So why start now, especially with your home town club as the beneficiary - come on it looks terrible by anybodies standard.

As far as I was aware the match official was and always has been the man in charge of the match from start to finish - at which point his performance is then reviewed - you and your fellow apologists please tell us when this changed?

This weekend I assume!

Another week in which the sport is dragged closer to being the team sport equivalent of Wrestling.

How does Richard Agar know Roby was given a ‘dressing down’?

Why do you think?

Because the refs dressing room is right next to the players and the partitions trust me are flimsy and as such a "dressing down" can easily be heard. I grant you the content may be sketchy but I reckon you'd get the gist.

That’s not quite what was said, Agar said
[i"Apparently Steve Ganson has entered the referee's dressing room at half-time and has given him a good old-fashioned dressing down.

"I'm not sure that is in his remit. I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall."[/i

Which would indicate he doesn’t really know what, if anything was said, nor that he has first hand knowledge Ganson even went in to referees changing room.

Seems a bit of Chinese Whispers mixed with a little perception bias to me.

If we accept Ganson has the role he has, then we accept he is doing it entirely impartially and if he did visit the referee at half-time it was entirely within his capacity as match officials coach and technical director.

Whatever Smokey, in you're world of denial I accept this would be totally acceptable.

Twist and shout old boy, you play on semantics all you want, it's your stock in trade.



Please don't bother with a long winded reply, your mind regarding Wakefield is made up long before you hear the issue so no point discussing it is there.

Err it really isn't (this could go on some time)





There's a good book somewhere in that title. "Code of denial", ffs




No, what Ganson did is not actually known, not the specifics. The only thing that appears to be "known" is the refs' boss spoke to one of his charges for some reason at half time.


And you can feck right off with your "apologists" crap too, stick it with your risible "code of denial". When did I claim any such change?? Do you actually read posts you respond to? My position is pretty much identical to Agar's, in this quote:

I'd agree it would seem sensible for Ganson/RFL to put out a brief statement given the extreme conspiracy theories that are about, with the caveat that whatever they said would of course be dismissed by conspiracy theorists.

you are funny vastpants, i cant decide whether you are an Alan Partridge level of satire or just unintentionally hilarious.

Why dont you get another petition together, the RFL, Ashley Klein, now Steve Ganson are all after you............

Team boring is back in town I see, just need adeybull to make the hat trick.

Faced with the soaring heights of your intellect, your cutting edge contributions and your deep and unrivalled insights we need some boring as a counterpoint. I mean, gratuitous jibes at posters not even on the thread, that's just what the forum needs more of. Well done you.

Haven't we just been through all this on another thread - it's not me luv it's you, you're simply a dreadful human being, people keep telling you but you're not listening.

Funny isn't it (or hilarious as you'd say), when accusation or point are made that don't suit you're SL apologist stance those involved are derided as paranoid nutters with no valid argument. Just how most fascists bullies or crass pseudo intellectuals behave - North Korea or New Labour is probably the place for you. I can see you peddling the party line and burning all dissenters as heretics. Corruption exists in all walks of life so why this imbecilic desire to kid us that RL is any different - give it a rest for all our sakes.

[size=50NB: Predict "hissy fit" as first and most predictable line of defence.[/size

Struggling to see what the issue is, storm in a tea cup.

Clearly not, it's obviously a big conspiracy and if you don't agree your a pseudo intellectual as is common on in North Korea apparently.

As we all know, the major problem facing North Koreans is of course pseudo intellectuals.

brilliant. Absolute genius

Personally, I don't think it is acceptable for the head of referees to go into the dressing room at half time and instruct the match officials on how to do his job and/or to tell him to change his officiating style mid match. I could give lots of reasons, some subjective but others I believe are just really obvious from a sport competition POV and also from an employee/line manager reasoning

TBH in 35 years of watching sport from all parts of the globe and being to about 30 or so differing sports live (from ice dance to gridiron and everything inbetween

) I've never seen the head of officiating come and stamp their authority on officials at any point during a match/event.

I don't think the fact Ganson is from/supports 'tellins makes a jot of difference, it's his attitude and lack of control here that I feel is massively at fault. he is deffo of the look at me I'm in charge brigade but as a match referee he swung so wildly from one end of the scale to the other (obscenely leniant/blind to ridiculously OTT in handing out punishments) it doesn't surprise me of his actions or those that are reffing now are outside what his set prameters are (probably different for any given game I reckon)

It is acceptable that the head of referees is involved from the bottom up but on match day he has to let his charges officiate and deal with the fallout afterwards. Yes they should always be pro-active in ensuring what is required BEFORE any set of games but humans make errors, applying the same set of errors (or style of officiating if you like) will effect some teams greater than others depening on what is being left alone or focused on.

To me the whole concept of officiating/judging is interesting, a massively misunderstood psychological based job that if done really well is hugely draining, if you let stuff just go and apply rules ad-hoc(i.e. be inconsistant) it is far less demanding and because in some sports the application of the rules is very subjective at times officials get away with being poor/rubbish.

For me I see that the touchies aren't used enough and/or allowed to make decisions/notify the ref, not by a long chalk, they fail to communicate among themselves and between the players at all, never nind effectively. Rules that can be easily applied are not, which spoil the game and annoy the hell out of your average supporter as well as players, that they aren't is down to the likes of Ganson and the big wigs at Red Hall plus of course officials whom just sit on their laurels.

Personally I'd like to see the rules applied more firmly (At SL at least) until coaches/players start adhering to them and not pushing the rules to breaking point. From that we see massive amounts of leeway given in certain areas (oft over compensated for in others) a very subjective application of such & unintentional unconscious bias week in week out which makes the sport look amatuerish pretty much season on season until it snaps and we go back to square one again.

I could give you a list of rules that I think really need cracking down on but actually pretty much everything needs looking at in one form or another, not to change them specifically but to ensure clarity/definition & to have them applied correctly in a manner that takes into account things we all know can/do effect the players themselves, whatever that is it must be seen to be the consistantly the same every game to every team. At present that is the case and hasn't been for a very long time..

Is Ganson the only ref who supports a team? If not, non-story, move along, nothing to see.

If so, how did they come to be involved in RL refereeing?

My view is that it would be unacceptable to referee a game the second half of a game differently to the first. But unless I've missed something there's no evidence that this happened.

The Ganson/Roby incident aside, I think the RFL really has to start looking at getting it's refereeing and disciplinary system in order. The inconsistencies in the decisions, suspensions and such is very poor, and the lack of transparency is what really aggravates fans.

I recall a few years back that my team Castleford played Wakefield at Millenium Magic, when Mr Child set a record amount of penalties for a game, much to the dissatisfaction of both coaches. He then was in charge of the Good Friday match a few months later and gave what I believe was less there or there abouts a record low amount. I remember thinking at the time, how can a game with the same teams, and the same referee in charge, be officiated so differently? Offences such as laying on and offside, that were given literally once every two or three minutes, had just disappeared? How can that happen?

That illustrated to me how a referee can literally pick and choose how to officiate a game. It appeared almost a defiant two fingers to the people who'd complained about too many penalties, with a new attitude of "fine, I won't give any penalties."

From the sound of it, Wakefield were given a similar treatment according to Agar, but over the course of a half time interval, which, if so, is unfair.

We don't pay money to watch referees. On Sunday at Salford, James Child made almost every scrum re-pack or re-feed the ball, and you can just sense how frustrated both sets of spectators become. It's not necessary, and the lack of awareness and common sense is just astounding.

I genuinely do worry that the referees Tim Roby, Robert Hicks, James Child are three of the worst officials in my time watching the game. Steve Ganson, Bentham, Kirkpatrick, Silverwood, Ian Smith, these guys at least seemed or seem to be in control, in a sense. I guess this generation of referees are younger than the aforementioned, but it's clear to me that fans are more disillusioned with officials than ever before. I mean, it's a rugby fans' perogative to complain about referees, and will be until the end of time, but something needs to change. Whether that is bringing in new referees, bringing in a second referee, I don't know - but I think the RFL needs to act.

Same goes for the disciplinary. Ben Flower and Mickey Pea both committed cannonball tackles against Castleford in the last two weeks - one resulted in a penalty and a sin binning with no ban, one wasn't sin binned with a 2 match ban? Likewise, Justin Carney got two three match bans for lifting/spear tackles against Saints and London last year, and committed a similar offence in the game on Sunday, but this season, doesn't get charged (even though it looked to me as though if following last years precedence, he should well be).

I'd like to think the RFL will start to see how these decisions can anger/put off supporters, and I don't think an #asktheref Twitter publicity machine where a referee tells you that night is day and black is white to justify the decisions is any help. We have a fantastic game as a spectacle, and the officials are really beginning to spoil it.