Hicks was on Rugby AM a few weeks ago and admitted that he referees games differently and does not strictly adhere to applying the laws in every instance. His excuse for such inconsistency was that it’s an entertainment business and people would get sick of constant whistling. For me this is wrong on many levels and such inconsistency causes more dissatisfaction than anything else. It is not for referees to decide on interpretations of the laws but merely to enforce them. If he genuinely believes the rubbish that he spouted, why is he not ignoring knock-ons when it’s a wet day or the sun is in the eyes of the player trying to catch the bomb while he and his mates should ensure that every team has won 50% of their games come the final weekend of the regular season so that the “entertainment” value is maximised?
Spot on Armourer , but from Hicks point of view he likes to be seen as THE man in the middle controlling the game as HE sees fit , and I've said it before he loves to go to the screen and look at himself , and controlling the game that's what a top ref should do , but in he's case it's all about him , how many times does he "not" go to the VR ? in a normal run of the mill game , yet here we are in a challenge cup final and he instantly decides on a no go , beggars belief.
roy litherland it's happened i told you it would
And here's the problem! Hicks is there to fairly apply the laws of the game. He is not there to entertain, that is the responsibility of the coaches and the two teams on the field. Hicks is there to ensure that the framework which holds the game together is followed, thus allowing the most expansive, competent and (usually) skilful team to win. It is NOT Hicks's job to entertain or ensure that the crowd are on the edge of their collective seats. Instead of watching a team that has won all but three SL games all season score in the first three minutes and then proceed to destroy the underdogs who rightly earned their tag, being 16 points behind in the league and having lost their previous five matches Hicks contrived to "entertain" the viewers by enabling the plucky underdogs (who doesn't love one?) overcome insurmountable odds to lift the trophy. Hurrah for first class entertainment Robert...………...except that's not why you're there. Where in your contract does it say you are employed to entertain? Next time leave the red nose, oversize shoes and water shooting plastic flower at home and let the entertainment be determined by the two sets of players.
I find it strange that quite a few people, including pundits, used the excuse of him not going to the screen as keeping the game flowing. That didn't last very long when he started to give Warrington a water break every set of six in the 2nd half.
Loyal and true, not a glory hunter.
His job isn't to do that though is it?
If he said that publicly, the RFL has it's self a rogue ref that wants to change how he applies the rules depending on the day.
Knowing this is his approach prior to the CC final appointment, why was he appointed?
Add to this the Warrington fan incident and his subsequent involvement with the club, his impatiallity and ability to apply the rules correctly have to be questioned. Do the RFL not have a duty of care to their referees? If so, he should never have been put in the position to referee a game of such magnitude, whilst also being advised to adhere the rules of the game in the way they are intended.
Good point. I was in a pub one night and Ganson came in straight from reffing at Wigan. He was asked by one bloke why he went to the screen so often when events were so obvious. At the time the sponsor on screen was an energy company and Ganson replied that every time he goes to the screen he gets £150 credit against his energy bills. He then went on to boast about having "a drawer full of watches" from Tissot's spell as sponsor.
This is what is wrong with modern day Rugby League and you see at all levels in the game. The referee is there to enforce the rules of the game in an impartial way and nothing else. The referee is not there to coach the players and tell them they are offside, if they are it's a penalty. This idea of letting the game flow is nonsense it lends itself to the referee deciding the out come of a game and not the players. It will take a huge effort for the RFL to reverse the way the game is now refereed but if they don't more fans will walk away, 6200 at Wembley for two finals will Warrington and St Helens have to pay a deposit to play in next years Challenge Cup.
I see Chris Chester has gone nuts post-match about the refereeing in their game against the crust munchers this afternoon. Luckily for Wakey London lost, but it's difficult to wrap your head around referees simply choosing not to apply rules when there are jobs and mortgage payments on the line in the relegation battle
For balance I think the point he was making is in reference to referee the game how he'd want to watch it. The specific incident was the Sarginson no try in the cup where by the absolute letter of the law was a knock on, yet everyone who watched disagreed
Child for example referees to the absolute letter of the law and gets panned for seemingly having no control or feel for the game .
How much of it is down to the lack of understanding/communication between the referee and the other officials (touch judges, in goal judge etc)?
I've been to Wakefield today and Wakefields 1st try looked dubious as the ball appeared to be kicked dead and not grounded.
I've seen a still photo of the tap taken by Liam Marshall and it's nowhere near the mark on the twenty metre line but then ran 80 metres to score.
Then Clubb went over, in goal judge indicated a try but the referee disallowed it. Refereeing is a difficult, maybe thankless job. Is there a case for keeping the same "team" (Ref, touch judges and in goal judges together)?
The Marshall tap was literally ten meters off the mark with the ref looking straight at it and he waves play on
Just posted on another thread that I agree but they are slated as arrogant and egotistical when they blow all the time
I would be really happy if some of the posters from here went and applied to be a ref, their insight would be brilliant and help add balance to these discussions
https://www.rugby-league.com/get_inv...match_official
I think a lot of these posts are getting to the crux of the matter when considering refereeing. It is the balance between refereeing to the laws of the game and refereeing for entertainment or to let the game flow. Hicks said he refereed to create an entertaining game. There was a post on here recently quoting an ex referee (Silverwood?) who said he based decisions on the penalty count so he didn’t get criticised for favouring one side over the other.
This playing fast and loose with the laws of the game is detrimental to the perception of refereeing quality when in fact they may be doing everything correctly as per their own aims or as instructed.
Going back to a model of plainly giving decisions as seen and not advising players that they could be penalised would create a bit of a backlash initially as spectators would be fuming over what they would see as interference by the referee. If this was to happen there would need to be communication and understanding on all sides.