There has long been a scheme for fast-tracking ex-players through the referee training programme. The fact that only Jamie Bloem has bothered to get close is evidence itself of the problem. Speak to any ex-player and ask if he'd want to take up the whistle, the answer will invariably be NO!

That’s the only one that has been settled irreparably by the officials, yes.



This is where I strongly disagree with the stance you usually seem to hold on the subject of officials. Yes, they will always have an influence on the game in the fact that they are there to enforce the rules, and therefore every decision made by them has an influence on the game. Where I think you are wrong is to suggest that in all but the single above case, the officials have not affected any other result in SL, to whatever varying degrees.

Any single decision can affect the momentum of the game and potentially swing it from one team to the other, so if that decision is wrong, they have had an effect on the outcome of the game. This is just as true when it is an accumulation of poor decisions putting one team at an advantage/disadvantage, as it often enables one of the teams to gain momentum/hang on with a greater share of possession than they should be having. This does not mean that sole responsibility lies with the officials, but it does mean that they do bear some of the responsibility, and it is simply unacceptable IMO how often this is happening. I don’t expect the officials to be perfect, it’s an impossible ask, but they are simply becoming an additional obstacle to overcome for one side more than the other in too many matches now, and I don’t only feel this way when watching Hull games.

Please re-read what you have written because in one sentence you are stating you don't expect them to be perfect and in another you appear to be expecting them to be perfect. I have already said they can have an effect but that effect is no more than any other element of the game. Would anyone berate a groundsman if a kicked ball deflected the wrong way off a divot and cost a team a try?

What many forget is the refs have one view and a split second to make a decision. 30 years ago we rarely had much controversy over referees decision because we didn't have multiple camera angles, slo-mo and multiple replays. There was also no t'interweb, so apart from a couple of people moaning on the terrace or in the pub, the only discussion and dissemination of an incident was conducted through the letters page of League Express or The Rugby Leaguer.

hicks was garbage . but so are most refs in super league

it was not that good

dont bite he is a retard

dont bite he is retarded

Which sentences, as I don't think I did? I'm not saying that I expect referees to never influence a result, or even that they ever could avoid affecting it in a slight way, what I am saying is that I think it is now happening too often to be acceptable. To expand upon your groundsman analogy, the occasional divot is acceptable, a quarter of the pitch looking like it's just been ploughed is not.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, IMO there are certain facets of the game where the way they are dealt with appears to be influenced by the team they play for, or simply how good they are at hiding an element of cheating. Key examples are the severity/likelihood of punishment, forward passes, ball stripping, and interference at the ruck. Teams seem to be inconsistently treated in these areas, and the last 2 in particular lead to teams having possession/position they should not have.

Then the teams that are crap at those aspects of the game should get better at it. Or would you rather the ref blow up for everything he sees? Any player will cheat, if he thinks he can get away with it, some players and clubs are better at it than others. For years we've been crap at controlling the ruck, especially against teams like Wire, Wigan, Saints & Leeds. We can bleat but it won't do a blind bit of good, we need to get better, that's all.

I think far too many people place far too much emphasis on the degree of influence a referee can have on a game, while happily overlooking the players' shortcomings.

Dave, I know you are an ex ref and I do think its a difficult job but its the inconsistency thats so frustrating. I also think that the big teams get a lot of the 50/50 calls, in addition Hicks and Child have had to be promoted and they are just not ready, players like Sinfield and Tomkins can quite easily influence them.

The biggest frustrations for me are offside and the play the ball, I have seen a lot of games this season where laying on penalties are just random, the second half at wakey Hull were almost playing touch as they kept getting penalised for it. Hull had a lot of penalties earlier in the game (for different infractions) and it seemed like it was an evening up of the count. Offside could be managed better by two referees but we just dont have the quality available, maybe we could just use a junior ref to only police offsides and get them used to the environment.

Its not getting any better but there seems to be no accountability and no indication that the RFL are looking to improve the situation.

Surely thats the whole point of having a referee? He should blow for every infringement on the rules he sees, not just pick and chose which he does/doesn't which seems to be the case more and more no matter what games we watch otherwise whats the point in having rules and officals?

The off side is becoming a joke and in particluar the fact that Hicks couldnt even take Salford back the 10 at one point and was only 6 or 7 metres back and similarly us at one point.

Its the inconsistency of the officials in general and not just from referee to referee but also the inconsistency that is very much apparent with a referee in the same game.

Cummings really should be gone after this season as the standards are slipping and now they are full time professionals there abilities and performances should be monitored and accounted for.

Policing of the offside was non existent yesterday. i'm pretty sure the touchie is supposed to do this so either they weren't (which would seem unlikely to me) or the ref was ignoring them. there were honestly times yesterday when the whole of teh salford side were 2 or 3 metres in front of him and he did nothing. Don't remember 1 penalty for offside all game. I'm of the opinion that we should maybe try bringing in a junior ref in to police the defensive line and allow the senior ref to police everything else

I still don't think it's any owrse than it ever was. The only reason we talk about it on internet forums is because technology says we can.

A few posts back I made my position clear. I'm not happy with the lack of any responsibility or accountability and I also think that Cummings has had his day. The TJs are (or should be) used to police offsides, they are mic'd up to the refs but it all depends on the level of involvement that the referee dictates his TJs should have, he's in charge of them and that decision is down to him. I also don't agree with utilising Grade 1 refs as touch judges, something that has increased in recent years and I believe has more to do with paying full-time officials than anything else. Refs & TJs are looking at completely different aspects of the game, so I would much rather use the old system of a Senior TJ and an up-coming referee, rather than grade 1 refs. I'm also in favour of teaming a referee with two TJs so that they get to know each other and work together.

What get me posters sticking up for the bad ref's standards.The money fans pay they expect better from the man in the middle.Nobody would put up with bad service in a restaurant"you would complain"If you got bad service in a shop you wouldn't use that shop again.If a player has a bad game the fans let him know.So why defend a man in the middle making mistake after mistake.He should be answerable to somebody. Before posters have a go and say it's a hard job other people have hard jobs and if they make an error they are disciplined.If a person cannot do they job for 80 minutes without making error after error they should look for another job.

Cummings was at yesterday's game, if we had open accountability, he could be quizzed on aspects of Hicks's performance. His responses would be interesting

What gets me is clueless idiots who have nothing better to do in their retirement than bang on about poor standards of refereeing, when they have shown a distinct lack of comprehension of either the job in hand or the Laws of the Game

Yes because that really is going to work isn't it?

There's an old maxim that the best refs keep their whistles in their pockets. Now think back a few years to when Hull played Fax (IIRC) away and Colin Morris never gave one penalty all game. Now with the best will in the world, you wouldn't find many people, other than his wife, mum & dad that would ever claim Colin Morris to be one of the better referees of his time.

You get your fact right. In the passed I played both codes I know the Laws and rules Plus I have plenty to do in my retirement thank, you, "and I am not clueless" .What I will not accept is poor standards more so from the Game that I believe to be the best in the World .So get your hanky out a wipe your snotty nose Just because other people have have different options to you.doesn't make them Idiots .You will understand that one day when you grow up

In what way get better at it? With forward passes it should be the teams that are getting away with it more often who need to improve their technique, but what incentive have they to do so? With ball stripping and interference, I refuse to accept that the answer lies in getting better at cheating. For one reason, I don't entirely subscribe to the idea that the reason some teams get away with it is because they hide it better, because plenty of times there are near identical situations that are handled differently. For another, it is not up to players to cancel out cheating by cheating. That is the exact situation where I would personally walk away from the game, which was the initial worry being raised. Sport is not supposed to be about who is the cleverest cheat.

Rules are there to be enforced as much as possible, not just allow everyone to bend them to the same degree. If what it takes is to whistle for every single infringement, maybe it's worth it. I suspect that what would happen is that players and coaches would wise up pretty quickly, because they'd have to. In the current climate there simply is not enough incentive for some clubs/players to work hard enough at playing to the rules.

Finally, I think there are few who overlook the players' shortcomings. This board for one example is full of criticism of players.

Disagree with that. The lack of policing the offsides (particularly square markers) and forward passes over the last 5 years is the worst in my time of watching IMO. The ruck is different, as it has been affected by rule changes but the referees simply seem to either not understand it, or go with whoever the most in vogue team is and stick with them, or both.



Agree with all of that.

And why not? If this actually happened and referees stamp their authority on a game from the off teams will eventually cut out slot of the crap they currently do knowing they won't get away with messing around at the ptb which will makes the refs job a little easier.

As for the old maxim I agree about the best refs are the ones that keep the whistle in the pocket. Nico Toeman a prime example in ice hockey but there was a reason for it as he'd earnt the players and coaches respect & he respected them. When he thought he'd become more important than the game itself his performances as a ref suffered & I certainly think a lack if respect both ways is also part of the problem.

The sad fact is there are fundamental problems with the standards of officiating currently in SL which need addressing before the damage to the game is ruined beyond repair

The question should be asked how many mistakes are made by the officials in a match, including touch judges. The mistakes made by officials in matches is now the main talking point of both sets of supporters, win or lose, and is far worse than it has ever been. As a teacher who has refereed games, I know how thankless the job is, but that doesn't excuse the poor standard of referees and touch judges in our game. The other interesting point in the article was the fact that the referees, after watching the DVD of the game, then AGREES the report that is sent to clubs. Isn't that a bit like asking kids to write their own school reports! No wonder there is no improvement.
Cummings: You had a crap game!
Ref: Yes but you have to tell the clubs I was great or I'm not signing my report.

Any wonder the fans have had enough/
get rid of Cummings and replace him with an ex player who the fans and coaches have some respect for ( e.g.paul sculthorpe)

The only thing worse than an incompetent referee is an ex-referee sticking up for the incompetent ones. Most of them take arrogance to the [in[/ith degree and are compensating for an early life of being bullied and a failed RL career.

Hicks lost control of that very early on and only Karma saved the game from being abandoned for fighting.

You see I have a problem with this (and I did when I was refereeing), someone like Ganson who is very arrogant might frighten the life out of his TJ by telling them not to interfere. This is him assuming he knows better and will see everything. The odd time they do come on you can see he hates been undermined/overruled. Plus it means that TJ can have a greater role in some geames depending who the ref is which is simply unfair.

I never said it was right but that's the way it works. In the past I've received instructions what have swung between "anything you see, come on for it and I'll back you up" to "we're on telly today, so all I want you to do is mark touch and flag goals". It's wrong, of course it's wrong and little appears to have changed in 30 or so years.

That's why I would like to see referees partnered with the same two TJs. You get to know what's required and instinctively know who should go long or short etc. Weaknesses in any system or individual would also be easier to pinpoint and work to eliminate.

I have never been uncritical of referees, despite what some may believe but if a few more people tried to catch them doing something right, instead of doing something wrong, we might start to get a better appreciation of what's happening on the non-playing side.