You serious?

I thought it was a really good game.

Does that not kind of prove the point?

I'll be honest, I didn't see a lot wrong with pretty much all the penalties Child gave. Personally thought he had a pretty good game.

Got somethings wrong at important times for me. I did agree with most of the pens but as a spectacle I would rather see free flowing game than start stop all all of the time

Agreed obviously. However I'm willing to bet had he not given them there would be the same amount of whinging on here about how many blatant penalties he missed, blind as a bat, no control, etc etc etc.

Was a really enjoyable game I thought. We all know "that" pass wasn't forward, but that just made up for the questionable one that was given. A very good performance from Hull and they out enthused Leeds and thoroughly deserved their victory. You can go through every super league game these days with a nit picking comb to go on about bad decisions but overall I think Child did orite. And was nice to see him putting Webb in his place too.

To be fair, the one that he gave at the start that was forward should have been seen by the touch judge.

I don't like how Sky made it out the the ref was somehow harsh in Leeds overall. I'm glad Gentle put them in their place pretty quickly and in amusing fashion! I like how Leeds can get penalties when they initiate foul play as well (Ablett eye-gouging).

The Sky commentary team are embarrassing, they pick up on a small incident and then play on it all night. Bill Arthur, when interviewing the coach’s, was clearly given instructions to question the ‘forward pass’ – why? I was at the game and in line with the pass, for me it was forward. Even if it wasn’t, did it really warrant the scrutiny of the whole Sky team during and after the game? Eddie and Stevo are well passed their sell by date, the games far more professional then it was 20 years ago, unfortunately the commentary isn’t.

People on here, the coaches and players complain about consistancy. For me like him or loathe him Childs is by far the most consistant ref in SL. Every match he refs he will blow for anything and everything some you'll disagree with some you'll agree with.

are you f**k*ng thick or what your moaning about penaltys but you want a free flowing game ur a f**k*ng looney

It was Rod Studd.

The one who is particularly grating on me this year is Jon Wells, they guy just talks complete bollox most of the time.

The Good Friday handover from Hemnmings to Wells was a classic:

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"

Then in his summary last night, on the subject of Danny Tickle's disallowed try: "you can see from that, there's no way that Ian Smith could find a reason to allow the try"

Look Wells, you muppet, this is Rugby League and even a cursory look at the Laws of the Game would show you that a referee needs to find a reason to [udisallow[/u a try, not the other way around!

The only thing Childs displays consistency in is his ineptitude. There really is no ther way to describe him, he is simply inept.

Is that true?

Yes thats always been the case. Hence why benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker if there is no conclusive evidence.

As for the forward pass, the thing no one mentioned is that Briscoe was on Webbs shoulder when he took the pass and would have tackled him anyway.

No, I made it all up. Why do you think I wrote it?

From The Laws of the Game:

[iThe Referee should not disallow a try because he was not in a position to see the grounding of the ball.[/i

Hence "Benefit of Doubt"

Was at the game last night and sat virtually parallel with that incident. It was marginal but you cannot fault the refs positioning for it, he had the best view of anyone. That nothing has really been made of the Dan Marino pass for the first Leeds try shows that some cannot accept that these things even themselves up. In this case it was in the same game.

Regarding Childs, yes his blows his whistle too much and there were a couple of odd ones, but it was both ways.

I couldn't see why tickles wasn't given on BOD.

Ha thanks for that

I think everyone wants a free flowing game but it's the not refs fault if the players are offside or attempting to gouge someones eyes out or head high tackles.

Enthralling maybe but as a professional RL game I still say it was pants and both teams, especially Leeds are capable of far better. The error rate was off the scale at times in both attack and defence.

Like I said on the Leeds board, have to disagree. I think Jon does a great job, and I don't see why you can't see the difference between "divided" (which can be any proportion) and "split down the middle" (which is an even division).

And whilst I disagree with his comment about the Tickle no try, he's trying to be positive and back the ref.

Other than those two, what else has he said to grind your gears? Must be more than two things surely?!

Off the scale? Really?

But, of course, if the Winos had won there would have been no comment.

Not wishing to offend or anything, but had you been drinking heavily prior to the game?

Don't support Leeds and not having a go at either team in particular, just making a general comment as a neutral.The game was entertaining and I suppose that's the point but the standard was generally poop.

Only for medicinal purposes.