Your views are most certainly considered, sir. They are also extremely aggressive, accusatory, and inflammatory, and I don't think you actually believe that when you post something like that, it is for the good of the thread and not to simply condescend whoever you're aiming your gun at. So don't be surprised when people don't read on. I'm not the first to call you out that that, and by heck I won't be the last.

My original comment, for clarity, was built on the basis that:

1. I have never seen Cobb have a good game with the whistle
2. I have never seen Mikalauskas have a good game with the whistle
3. Cobb came through a new RFL initiative called the cadets and was the first full time graduate
4. I wondered if Mikalauskas did the same
5. If so, I also wondered if it was the RFL looking after their initiatives so they can post success stories from their work.

I would hope most people could spot that, and I apologise if you could not (or more probably chose not). I don't often get the time in my work day to post long posts a la Ferocious Aadvark, save for the odd occasion when I'm eating my lunch at my desk with tomato soup all round my gob now.

I think he did three out of four or five of our games over a very short period - so it was more than the one bad day.

I can remember 3 games he's done of ours this season. I was at 2 of them and listened to the other on the radio. Whilst the radio commentary team were less than impressed with him, I personally don't judge him on that. I didn't see it myself, so don't echo someone else's opinion. However the 2 games I have seen him in this year, he was dire. Totally lacking control, conned by players incredibly easily and seemingly some sort of eyesight problem. It is possible he had 2 (3) bad days. It's also possible he's terrible at his job. Either way, you would think becoming full time will only improve him, it surely can't make him worse. So from that viewpoint, maybe not that bad a thing. I'd just rather we didn't get him again until he has improved or has more "good days".

And yes I appreciate saying it can't make him worse is like saying Bradford's season next year can't get any worse. Much like we've said for about 10 years on the trot, only to be proven wrong.

Yes I know what you mean. But actually last season was our best for a long time (fair enough it didn't have much to beat) and but for one missed kick,(and/or probably but for one crocked stand-off) despite all the, errm, let's call them 'issues', we would've been in SL in 2016

It seems to me your typical rugby league fans , who think stood 100 metres away from the pitch seem to see more than the refs. Why don't you take up the whistle up then you can be closer to the action.

We pay our money and reserve the right to vent the week's frustrations at them.

They perform an important role.

Can you point me in the direction we're this is the said rule, as I thought the entrance fee allowed you to the glorious facilities and watch a rugby league game.

This old chestnut again.

We'll do it after we've been head coach after being critical of Lowes and the CEO after Ferres.

I'm sure one or two have been highly unimpressed with what's happened in far off lands so we'll referee after sorting the Middle East too.

I won't say on here what my job is, but if I'm crap at it, I get criticised by a number of people. I don't get criticised often, because I am good at it. But if I make a mistake, I accept that it's my own fault I'm getting that criticism.

But referees should be different? That's up there with the suggestion that players who are crap should be protected if they're relegated against getting a pay cut or losing their contract. Because they're more important than normal people.

I believe that people pay their entrance money to support their club - home or visiting fans. I am not aware anybody pays to support the referee. Might not be fair to the ref but I'm pretty sure this happens at just about every game. So unfortunately criticism of the ref is just as much a part as critisizing the team, the ale and the pies etc

Well I don't think your in the kind of job were 26 people are all trying to cheat you then if you want to go a bit further there are another 8 waiting on the sideline if they don't do a good enough job. Then every week there the coach is trying to find out new ways in how he can teach his players to beat the system if that week he fails he will then tell the press how bad the officials are.

They know what they're getting into when they become a referee. If they're so bloody sensitive that they can't handle it, they've chosen the wrong job.

I couldn't do the job. I don't mind admitting it. I also couldn't do brain surgery or rocket science, albeit for different reasons. So I chose not to go into that particular field.

They did choose it, so they take what comes with the role.

Well then you seem to love to criticise someone about a job that you couldn't do yourself tells me your a complete fool.

There's a certain irony to calling someone a fool and using the wrong "your".

Oh the grammar police are out, there the ones when they are cornered resort to going off the subject .

That would be "they're" too by the way.



And I'm not cornered in the slightest. I've given my opinion, you've given yours. I have nothing more to say on the matter. I don't continue a debate when I've nothing more to say, otherwise I'm just repeating the same point over and over.

People are confusing the issue. AFAIK Mikalauskas hasn't been on here whingeing so whether or not he can "take" the criticisms is a non-point.

At games, most partisan fans encourage the officials to make decisions in their team's favour. That's stating the bleedin obvious too. Nobody would be surprised nor object.

All this is about, is not whether a particular ref had a poor game or games ( he did), but whether, overall, as an actual ref, he is irredeemably incompetent and total rubbish and should be sacked. It's that last bit I object to, for reasons I've set out. His history and background are clear evidence that he has done very well in his early days of officiating. Whether he can make the steps up to Championship and beyond is always the question for any new official - but they must all surely be given full credit for how they've got to that level, which boils down to controlling a whole bunch of competitive games consistently very well, over a long period of time, and earning promotions. Green he is, and whether he will make a SL ref remains open, but that's a different issue. Hyperbolic claims of utter crapness and boo, hiss, get rid, sack him, he's totally incompetent etc. are simply ridiculous and unfair.

I love the weird belief that being in the middle, surrounded by several players running around, causing confusion, and obviously simply blocking one's line of sight, actually affords a better position to make decisions. I guess that is why coaches sit high in the stand and don't view the action at pitch level, and why the video referee, from a camera in the stand, is used so much.

As for not being able to do it myself - I can't build a house but if a builder does a rubbish job I reserve the right to have a view on the matter.

TBF the cameras most used for the contentious VR decisions are those carried on the shoulder by the mobile cameramen.

:1jzdvbfw


Some of them are FA, I guess that's fair comment, but they usually only use the shots from ground level where there are fewer players milling about spoiling the view, and crucially they are outside the pitch, which to be fair only improves the argument about often getting a better view from [i:1jzdvbfwoff[/i are also badly treated by the authorities and pitched into a level they are not yet equipped to deal with. I think we have every right to point out when this occurs.

I do wonder if the, "you can't do the job yourself", brigade would just accept any shoddy job from a tradesman on the basis that, "well, I couldn't do it better myself"? I assume they must.

You surely can't be such a tender soul that sees personal affrontery and Vaderesque evil in every word? One of us needs to calm down but it's not me. I was, and am, objecting to hyperbolic writing off of match officials, and in particular even writing down a theory that a ref might be given a Final despite being useless, just to somehow post a "success story". The most bizarre part being the failure to explain how appointing a known total incompetent to make a porridge of a big game might work as a "success story" to post.

There were until recently I think only 4 full-time refs, and now Cobb (and Smith) have been promoted, but Mikalauskas is still part-time. There's no reason or justification for writing him off (or Cobb, for that matter). I remember a very similar situation with James Child when he first came on the scene, but he has grown into the job and I think he's a highly competent ref now.

I have no time for silly conspiracy theories, so I do tend to ridicule them. You try to make it sound like a reasonable thing to suggest; it wasn't.

Dealing specifically with the Final, having watched it again, I think he made the vast majority of decisions well enough, and it was only several inconsistencies (aided and abetted on occasion by his touchies) that were the problem. But, I disagree that this means he was promoted beyond his ability, overall the game flowed reasonably, there was not one single major mistake, the players were kept under control and he kept a lid on things, and the key point is he didn't have any influence on the outcome.

Whilst it was a Final, and so a step up, it wasn't the Superbowl. There was no reason not to give him the game and with hindsight I still say the same. Hopefully he'll have watched the video and gone through it inside the department, and will come on for it.

Did I mis-read the story then that Mikaluskas was promoted to full time along with Smith? Or am I mis-reading your post?

No I think you're right, I was mixing up Cobb with Mikalauskas. I think Cobb went full time a couple of years back. At the time these two were promoted I think they were down to just 4 f/t refs

While you're probably right, I have never seen either have a good game, and therefore I will not accept that they're good enough. I suppose that's fair