Hattons Solicitors Banner
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 160

Thread: Standard of referees

  1. #26
    Learning All The Songs roy litherland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Moss Bank
    Posts
    1,625
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    The problem imo is the reluctance to let refs be semi professional. We lost a lot of experienced people and have never replaced them.

    This means instead of learning the trade in lower levels, anyone willing to go full time get a job in super league. In union an aspiring ref has to start at society level and earn promotions through the grades.

    They also get ex players coaching them on technical issues like scrums and lineout to help them. We have the egomaniac Ganson

    We have people who may know the laws but really dont know the game

    Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
    Childs being the prime example.
    roy litherland it's happened i told you it would

  2. #27
    Learning All The Songs Tabasco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Rivington Road, St Helens
    Posts
    2,362
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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?

  3. #28
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,466
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by southernsaint7 View Post
    Dont need a screen to have a video ref
    You are right you don't and there are cameras at every game to. Granted not as many as a sky game so the angles would be limited, but they are there all the same

  4. #29
    Starting A Programme Collection Armourer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    live in Rainford / Seat in North Stand
    Posts
    600
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    Exactly, and its what Eamon was referring to in his column of the program Supporters come to watch the rugby not the referees.

  5. #30
    Learning All The Songs roy litherland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Moss Bank
    Posts
    1,625
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Armourer View Post
    Exactly, and its what Eamon was referring to in his column of the program Supporters come to watch the rugby not the referees.
    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

  6. #31
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,026
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    I wonder if the players are aware of what mood the ref might be in in the lead up to a game? Maybe offsides, maybe not. Maybe holding down, maybe not. All good fun I suppose

  7. #32
    In The West Stand Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,649
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Armourer View Post
    Thought as much its a money thing then it will always be an imbalanced system with some games having the tech and some not, while I'm at it I would also dispense with the tacky try/no-try roulette wheel
    I mentioned getting rid of that wheel the first time I saw it. It's tacky looking, and takes too long. I wonder if we send so many decisions up because sky guarantee those sponsors so long on TV? Maybe because Wembley was BBC Hicks didn't bother.

  8. #33
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    1,572
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    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.

  9. #34
    Noooobie Roger Moore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Warrington
    Posts
    20
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  10. #35
    Learning All The Songs Blue Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,117
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    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.

  11. #36
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    201
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Belgian Saint View Post
    I mentioned getting rid of that wheel the first time I saw it. It's tacky looking, and takes too long. I wonder if we send so many decisions up because sky guarantee those sponsors so long on TV? Maybe because Wembley was BBC Hicks didn't bother.
    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.

  12. #37
    Starting A Programme Collection NortonSaint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Norton on Derwent
    Posts
    762
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    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.

  13. #38
    In The West Stand Belgian Saint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,649
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by St Michael View Post
    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.
    I hope he was winding you up? (Rather than his Tissots)

  14. #39
    In The South Stand STIDDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Kingdom of Wigoon
    Posts
    3,602
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    If thats true then thats ammunition for McManus to bring out into the open, the RFL keep talking about transparency but if they allow this to happen then their statement concerning officials is shot to pieces.

  15. #40
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wilts
    Posts
    4,009
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by St Michael View Post
    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.
    Thats Ganson down to a tee. Classless attention seeker bordering on a narcissist.

  16. #41
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,097
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    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

  17. #42
    In The West Stand paulscnthorpe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St Helens
    Age
    35
    Posts
    7,432
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NortonSaint View Post
    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.
    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 .

  18. #43
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Wirral
    Posts
    1,572
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulscnthorpe View Post
    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 .
    Child certainly did NOT officiate like that on Friday. Cas were offside at nearly every ptb. Paul McShane was the main and constant offender.

  19. #44
    WARNING! PIE EATER!

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,085
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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)?

  20. #45
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    castleford
    Posts
    275
    Rep Power
    2

    Default

    The Marshall tap was literally ten meters off the mark with the ref looking straight at it and he waves play on

  21. #46
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,026
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steve17 View Post
    The Marshall tap was literally ten meters off the mark with the ref looking straight at it and he waves play on
    Thats just sheer incompetence, 5 officials on the field and nobody sees it

  22. #47
    Starting A Programme Collection Angry Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    706
    Rep Power
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddiewaringsflatcap View Post
    Thats Ganson down to a tee. Classless attention seeker bordering on a narcissist.
    Correct. Witnessed it more than once.

  23. #48
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,082
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    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

  24. #49
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,082
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tabasco View Post
    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?
    https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sto...ting/?cs=14274

  25. #50
    Got A Season Ticket
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    408
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •