It's another of the wierd fallacies of this conspiracy.

The RFL are so desperate to be seen as diverse and inclusive that they promoted a gay man to the top echelon of refereeing, refused to discipline him for poor performance as they would other referees but neglected to mention to anyone, or even confirm publicly that said referee was gay.

Though in fairness that the RFL would attempt to do something but render it pointless by a failure to communicate is actually quite believable

Some things don't need to be nor can be publicised, but it doesn't stop the organisation getting 'moral brownie points', and at the other end of the spectrum, in some instances organisations or individuals may feel they cannot deal with an issue for fear of a false claim of discrimination... I have seen both ends of the spectrum happen within the work environment first hand.

You need to take off the tinfoil hat.

You've still not established that he is treated more favorably. By your own admission he doesn't get appointed to finals because of his poor performances. That would seem to be consistent with treating someone in keeping with his ability.

When it comes to refereeing "big games" throughout the weekly rounds, can it be shown that he referees more of these than his peers? If so, can it then be shown that refereeing these games is a positive experience rather than negative or neutral?

It's because it's an awkward question with a potentially uncomfortable answer so people would rather pretend there's no issue.

Even if people don't think it has anything to do with his sexuality they surely can't deny his appointment to big league games - lack of semi's & finals isn't worth questioning. Nearly 25 times in 4 and a bit years he's reffed games between the biggest teams in the comp of Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire and Hull....he's done Wigan vs Saints derbies, he's done Hull derbies, he's done Leeds vs Wigan, he's done Wire vs Saints & Leeds on numerous occasions......yet not one single semi final or final?

He should be asking the question himself. If he's deemed good enough to ref these biggest games in the league season calendar then why isn't he getting the big cup and playoff games? If the RFL don't think he's good enough to ref the big cup and playoff games then why do they keep picking him for these big games of the league season showcasing our best teams on live tv??? You're either deemed good enough to do both or neither.

Keegan Hirst wasn't great the other week. I reckon he'd have been dropped were it not for Wakey's agenda of inclusivity.

You are starting to sound like someone who didn't get a promotion at work and find it easier on your ego to convince yourself it was because they were gay rather than accept they are better than the job than you.

I once remember someone at work who seemed to get away with more than most, I guess you would have put that down to him being gay, all of us put it down to him being the owner's son. My point being, you have convinced yourself he is getting treated differently, you know nothing about the guy or the situation but you once read a rumour somewhere that he is gay and ergo you have opened a whole topic claiming positive discrimination.

child has refereed the biggest games as a touch judge.

Let's put aside that this is a textbook case of homophobia, and we can put aside your Woodward and Bernstein like crusade to ask awkward questions and shine a light on the truth. Let's lay out some facts.

We have a very small group of referees.

Those referees must be rotated

The referees appointed to big games must be rotated

Neither the RFL nor Child have publicly discussed his sexuality

your conspiracy is the RFL are appointing child to a disproportionate number of big games in the weekly rounds, disproportionately small amount of finals and semi finals though he is appointed to officiate the biggest games as a touch judge. The RFL are doing this as positive discrimination because Child his gay and they want to be inclusive and diverse. They are however doing this entirely secretly because neither they nor him have ever mentioned it and as such aren't seen as any more inclusive or diverse because nobody knows if it's true.

Let me ask you this. Other than message board rumours you have no idea if Child is gay or not. If it were to turn out he wasn't and he was straight as a die, a real muff monster would there be any thought in your head that his sex life bore even the remotest relation to his refereeing appointments?

Also of Child is getting a disproportionate number of big weekly round games, and a disproportionately small number of finals, wouldn't that be evidence of discrimination against him rather than in favour?

The last paragraph is exactly what I'm asking in my previous post, why isn't he getting the finals or semis? Your earlier paragraph is a reply to what Superted said not me.

And yes we do have a small group of referees but do you really think we get to the point of Wigan vs Saints or Leeds vs Warrington and we have no other choice but to put someone in charge who has never been deemed in the top 2/3 refs in the competition? In fact the majority of fans think he's constantly the worst year upon year?

"Oh it's Wigan vs Saints next week, one of our showcase games of the year, live on Sky, who should we get to ref....,oh well we'll get one of our poorest refs because our best ref did Wigan 2 weeks ago"......rotation, what nonsense.

Again if they think he's good enough to ref standout league games why isn't he getting finals featuring these same teams? Negative discrimination perhaps?
If they don't think he's good enough to ref finals between these big sides then why give him them as often as they do in the regular season? Positive discrimination perhaps?

Given he is widely regarded as one of the poorest we've got then the idea that the RFL think he's good enough for finals isn't the strong option there.

I genuinely didn't know or care for that matter about James child's choice of partner as it's nothing to do with me.i do know tho he was a terrible ref when he first started but I think he has improved considerably in the past year or so.i don't see any preferential treatment one way or the other

you're agreeing with Superted arent you. If not your doing a great impression of it. Child does work finals and semi's. Perhaps he is our best touch judge?


We have 8 full-time referees. One of whom has yet to referee an SL game. 2 Became full time last year, 1 the year before. So we have 4 referees with more than two years experience. Do i think it that as he represents a quarter of our experienced full time referees it is inevitable he will referee a decent portion of our televised games? I think it would be nonsensical if not.

There are 6 SL games per week. Of which at least 2 will be televised. Statistically, if chosen at random from the 8 SL referees Child would be appointed to 8/9 SL games per year. When we remember that half of the SL referees are very new, one not even having refereed SL yet, you would expect that number to be closer to about 15 televised games per year. Does he referee a significantly higher number than that?

It seems far more likely that he is judged good enough for SL but others are thought of as better so they get the finals. You know when the RFL can pick any of the available referees for 1 game rather than spreading them about between 6.

Good job at trying to condense the larger picture towards the current lineup of referees at this present time, but as clearly pointed out this has been going on for several years now. He was still getting these random big league gigs when we had Silverwood, Ganson, Thaler and Bentham. 2012 you have those four much more experienced and better referees.....current SL champions Leeds vs current CC champions Wigan in one of the seasons premier games.....guess who gets the gig.

How many 'big games' were there that year? Leeds finished 5th in the league? The top 4 have to play each other so thats 12 games, plus their games against leeds you have decided so thats 20, Hull Finished level on points with leeds so if we include leeds we include hull so now we are up to 30 'big games'. Then we have the derbys so 2 more for The hull derbies, 2 more for Wakefield v Cas, 2 more for Leeds Bradford so we are up to 36 'big games'. To share between by your 5 referees.

So out of those 36 games, the 5 senior refs, if chosen at random, would get just over 7. However Phil Bentham broke his leg midway through the season and didnt ref again, so there were really 4.5 senior refs. So each of them, if chosen completely at random would have refereed 8 of those 36 'big games'

Can you guess how many James Child refereed that year? Your year, that you chose as an example of his preferential treatment?

Go on, take a guess. Then google the phrase 'confirmation bias'

You lost all credibility when you added Wakey v Cas as 'big games'... and even adding in Hull shows how desperate you are to get the numbers to balance.

Lost credibility?

People in glass houses....

So after arguing in your previous post that we should expect the more experienced refs to get more big Sky games you're now trying to make out how they should be shared out and including some extra nonsense games to boost your figures. BTW i didn't even include Thierry Alibert so another official much more experienced than him in that year and you think he got Leeds vs Wigan and Wigan vs Saints in the league just out of pure dumb luck of rotation? Didn't see Hicks or Tim Roby get any of those marquee games by pure dumb luck of 'rotation'.....oh and Child's is reffing Leeds again for the 2nd week running this week and 3 time in 6 games..,,,,rotation eh

Can you provide any link to show that Thaler was dropped for not sending off Ferres?

In relation to Westwood, it wasn't so obviously late, it was more to do with where he hit him. I don't think Child saw it, and the touch judge only really came on because Sutcliffe stayed down and realised the hit might have been higher than they'd realised. The touch judge ambled on and Child referred to the video ref.

You don't know what personnel issues are going on during the week. They don't work just one day a week, you know.

[list=[/list
I could point out your factual errors that hicks and Roby did referee those games, I could point out their relative lack of experience. I could explain to you confirmation bias, I could prove your argument wrong on it's merits.

But it has no merits, So if you wish to out yourself as one of 'those people' feel free.

Go on then, list those big games between the big 4 clubs that Hicks and Roby got around the same time. As for experience they weren't far behind Child, who himself was miles behind several other referees but got picked for marquee league games well before he was ready for them.

Can anyone making the case for positive discrimination actually show that he got more games? Surely before we debate why he got them or how this unfairly benefited him you need to actually prove it happened in the first place.

I think they need to ask why is it positive discrimination. If they are getting preferential treatment, why do they think its because of their personal preferences? Its all assumptions and no proof which tells you more about the type of person the OP is.

Indeed.

Keep digging that hole. Your baseless accusations say far more about you than anyone else.

Though it is funny that to save face on your nonsense about 2012 you have redefined what a 'big game' is so that it now excludes the game you are complain about Child being appointed to this week.

In 2012/2013 he was for the most part booked to the teams near the bottom of the table, the "lesser" club for lack of a better term. The week before he got Leeds/Wigan he did Catalans/London, the week before he did Wigan Saints he did Widnes/Wakey, the week before Saints/Wigan in 2013 he got the only non all SL clash in the CCQF's Sheffield/London.

The latter games were how he was booked 80/85% of the time, befitting of his experience and performances at that point......yet somehow he got 3 of the most plum league games in a 12 month period with the 3 aforementioned games even though he was like 5th most experienced??!

Even if you don't think it's to do with positive discrimination surely you must admit there's something very dodgy about the way he got given these massive games given his position on the refereeing ladder at the time.

So to recap, in the year you chose to highlight his positive discrimination Child was 5th most experienced referee, and 1 of those 4 more experienced only refereed for less than half a season because of a broken leg.

In that season you have defined the games between the teams finishing 1,2,3 and 5th as big games (the teams finishing 4th and joint 5th arent big games, even though you are complaining about him refereeing Leeds v Hull the teams who finished joint 5th)

During that season when Child was 4th most experienced ref for most of the season he refereed 3 big games.

By your definition their being 13 big games that year

So the 4th/5th most experienced ref, refereed just under a quarter of the big games.

This is evidence of his favourable treatment.

Also most of the time he didnt referee big games

This is also evidence of favourable treatment.

So in conclusion in 2012 James Child was the 4th/5th most experienced ref, got just under 25% of the big games, and when he gets big games this is evidence of favourable treatment, when he doesnt get big games this is also evidence of favourable treatment and ThePrinter cannot work out how to google confirmation bias.