Quote ="cod'ead"You've got to be kidding. He's an idiot. Quite apart from not getting the fact that in Rugby League a referee has to find a reason to disallow a try, the rest of his knowledge of the Laws of the Game is laughable. And it's not just matters relating to the game itself where he's an embarassment.
Rewind to the Good Friday derby and Hemmings handing over to Wells:
EH: "Well Jon, it's true to say that Hull today is a city divided"
JW: "Not just divided Eddie, it's split right down the middle"
It's not just his comments that grate, it's also the way he delivers them. He's like Sky Sports answer to Al Pacino in "Any Given Sunday", every statement he makes is shouted at the mic, it does my crust in.'"
Totally disagree.
I don't see what is wrong with his split down the middle comment. He's trying to say there is an even division. A city divided doesn't make that statement.
And anyway, he's new in the job and these are just minor points you're picking on. His actual job is to analyse the tries and he does this very very well. Whilst I disagree with his Tickle no-try analysis, that is just one in many that I feel he's gotten wrong (but wring in a positive way in that he's agreeing with the officials, and not bickering against them like the rest and detracting from the game).
I think it's extremely unfair to call him an idiot on the back of two borderline comments. Do you not think his analysis is good? And whose was better?