certainly not blaming Childs for our muted performance but he simply cannot do his job. Some of his decision making is bizarre and a lot is based on absolute guess work. That penalty he gave for dissent near the end was because he had pulled a nonsensical decision from nowhere. The players get frustrated with him because hes massively inconsistent and doesnt seem to know the rules or flow of a game. Any other profession except pope and he would have been out of a job years ago but for some reason like the pontiff SL refs are infallible. You only have to listed to the rubbish that clown cummins comes out with on sky when he swears black is white

The elephant in the room.....the guy ticks a certain box of "equality" because of his sexuality. That's why he gets the gigs he does.

That's exactly what it is, you didn't have to be so suttle.

I really hope you two are wrong, although with the antiquated attitudes at the RFL it's just their sort of thinking.

"We have 'one of them' on the books which means we can be accused of bigots."

Sexuality should never be a criteria in any selection process - it should be entirely irrespective.

I don't believe for one minute that James Child is a beneficiary of positive discrimination. Why would he be, given that he himself has made no comment about his sexuality nor confirmed it either way?

So it's not like there's any positive publicity the RFL can get out of it.

It's childish nonsense to believe otherwise IMO.

I honestly hadnt heard he was gay. Thats completely irrelevant to his competence or lack of it

That was because until he made an issue of something last year that was not about him, in order to get his headlines, he was discreet about it. However, in order to make those headlines he had to then be public.

He confirmed it last year after the game against Warrington, when he had to, to cover his incompetence of the incident.

I remember when Child first came onto the scene, I hated the fella. He seemed to have it in for Leeds and can remember him giving Sinny 10 in the bin at Wakey one day for backchat, something highly unlikely to be levelled at Sinny to say the least. I think he has matured more as a human being, but unfortunately not as a ref. Having said that, I would rather have him as a ref than Bentham or that little snake Hicks, both who have an agenda against Leeds. At least Child is bad both ways, and I'm prepared to forgive someone who makes honest mistakes or has poor eyesight.

What, you mean the game where a Leeds player used a homophobic insult contrary to the RFL's respect policy, which would have been a homophobic insult irrespective of the sexuality of the person it was directed at?

So explain to me again how he's been a beneficiary of positive discrimination on the basis of his sexuality?

No, I mean that exact incident which was not about him, but turned into about him because of his lie. This has resulted in the RFL giving way more leeway for incompetence than what should be happening, a fear of how it looks.

If he was reffing a kids game and allegations were made that he told one to F off it would be handled much more differently than the one the RFL are handling right now with another ref.

You have a different view, and are perfectly entitled to that opinion, but I am confident in mine, and know that a large percentage of the Leeds squad have no respect for him at all. Which considering the champion players we have had over last dozen years, seems a strange,

I'm not going to be 'suttle' some people are a f#cking embarrassment to our game. And none of them were on the field on Friday.

At least have the strength of character to own your homophobia, don't hide behind pathetic insidious bigotry.

I didn't know and don't care about his sexual preferences or orientation. But I do feel uncomfortable with the fact that this thread has migrated from discussing his competence to an analysis of whether he is given leeway to be incompetent because of a"hidden agenda" linked to inclusivity. I think such talk is BS and should be left out of discussions on here. He's not the only incompetent ref we've had, he doesn't have an anti Leeds agenda IMO and we should try to avoid sounding like the whingers who follow other teams.

Whether he's a good referee or not has nothing to do with his sexuality, and his continued employment by the RFL is nothing to do with his sexuality either.

There are no referees who can step in and be promoted to full-time for underperforming or incompetent current referees. You can't have "positive discrimination" in a job where there are more jobs than there are applicants. That's the problem, and that's why Child can happily cash a pay cheque no matter how useless he proves himself to be. The thread drift is unnecessary.

There isn't a suggestion of anti Leeds agenda. You need to take Leeds out of the equation. What is being discussed is why the RFL are ignoring consistent incompetence. Not mistakes, which happen, refs are only human, but consistent incompetence.

You only have to look at the post from Smokey TA, who clearly proves the point, of what would be levied at the RFL should they act properly.

Don't try an excuse what Hardaker did - it was directed at Child and his punishment was light IMO. In a normal work environment he would have got fired. Disgraceful would be an understatement - no doubt you will condone whatever he says to Nathan Massey during the next game. You attempt at trying to defend the indenfensible does you no favours.

For the record - Child was out well before the Hardaker incident.

I pmsl at people who honestly think refs have an agenda against their club. absolute bollox

Gotcha, clarify your stance for me, are you suggesting that Child is given free reign by the RFL regardless of whether he is competent because he is gay?

the RFL are acting properly. They have no need to do anything to placate bigots lobbing un-evidenced insidious accusations from the sidelines.

The reason James Child is a full time referee is because he is amongst the best we have. He is amongst the best we have because very people volunteer to referee, partly because of people like you.

Free reign? I am suggesting that Child would not be handled the same way as another ref for incompetence, because yet again proven by a second post from Smokey TA. This is what would be levied at them.

I don't believe for one minute however there is a club agenda by Child, I think he is equally incompetent who ever is involved in his matches. And that is the question to be asked on why the RFL ignore this.

That you cannot tell the difference between what you are saying/doing and your pattern of behaviour and the RFL having to discipline a referee for incompetence only confirms what your bigotry is telling us about your intelligence.

As I said, rather than giving a point to disprove the opinion, you back it up fully in your posts, by showing what is suggested of those that highlight the problem.

Thanks for the clarification Gotcha




I hope and believe that you are wrong about this, but don't have any evidence to support my belief that that is the case.




I suspect the answer to this has already been given, see below

hitchens razor. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You haven't highlighted a problem at all, you have invented a problem that plays in to your own bigotry. Nobody has any duty to disprove that.