Oh shut up, you tart.

The coaches fear of the referees?

The coaches don't fear the referee's........they just fear the repercussions for speaking out against incompetency.

The referees are just too protected, and are never held accountable for their actions/mistakes. Coaches should be allowed to say what they want to say about a referee's performance, and if the ref's feel that they did a good job, they should have the balls to come out on live television and confirm that they feel they did a good job.

But because they don't, they won't and they are never held accountable for their actions, then nothing will be done.

Head. Nail. HIT.

No, I disagree. Refs should NOT have to earn respect, simple as that. You can't have that situation. It's dishonest cheating players that are the problem. There needs to be 2 refs, that will help, but still mistakes will be made, as they're human. Look at the DRS in crikeet ffs!

It's not a question of earning respect, it's a question of making them accountable for their errors. You can respect a referee, whilst at the same time questioning a decision. The way the RFL see it though, you question the decision of the referee, you question his integrity.

So for instance, you could come out and say "referee didn't have a good game, made a pretty poor decision and unfortunately it had a bearing on the result". Nowhere in that statement are you questioning the referees integrity, just on the decision made and the impact and outcome it had on the match in hand.

However, if you come out and say "yeah, this referee was very biased, gave everything to the other team, he was absolutely shocking" THEN you are questioning their integrity. Has any coach ever come out and said that though?

But coaches can't even question a decision without apparently bringing the game into disrepute, yet when referee's balls up like Ganson did in the magic weekend, he gets a rap on the knuckles, given a week or two off on full pay, and then come back. Did he get fined? Did he get demoted?

You should be able to come out and say "yeah, I respect the hell out of the referee, he does a tough job, but he messed up that call" without fear of the mini Hitlers at Red Hall charging through like the Light Brigade to protect the referees.

The RL referees don't need protecting. They can hold their own, moreso than their football counterparts.



So I'm assuming that in order to eradicate this "problem", you want to use 2 referees as you state below?



There is not enough quality to go around in Super League to get 14 referees in.



Completely different. The umpires in cricket make a call, and if the players don't agree, they can review using the DRS. If the referee makes a balls up in RL, the players can't go to the screen to check it out, they have to take the decision of the referee on the chin. The only correlation between the two is the amount of stupid decisions made recently by the TV umpire in cricket and the video referee in RL.

Indeed. Sandercock put it best on Friday.
'No comment. But you saw it, I saw it, Everyone saw it' and that was as far as he dare go!

Coaches can say what they like about referees.
There are rightful restrictions about where they say it.

Yes, but it's slightly different for someone, say Peter Gentle for instance, saying what he feels like about a referee to Chris Irvine, compared to saying what he feels like about a referee to his pet budgie (if he has one).

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't BE restrictions.

He's able to talk to the RFL, head of referees and the ref himself. What would he hope to achieve by talking to a journalist?

That is the comparison with crikeet I'm making, there are gonna be mistakes even by video-refs, you have to accept it, that's the way it is. And the refs on the field are going to favour the better teams too, as a Storm fan, good, we put on 68 pts today

And Feb.22, what a great day, first hit-out of the season, away from home, against apparently the best player on the planet, Mr.K.Sinfield, and we win. As M.Boyce said, "I was there".

Indeed.
We then get 'tracked the wrong player' as an apparent valid excuse. Most rightly thought 'How is that even possible?' but the moron Jon Sharp obviously thought it was all ok. Most would have said 'No sorry Steve that makes no sense as it isn't possible.'.
Still as long as it is all behind closed door's it's all good I guess. I mean we wouldn't want transparency now would we.

What would he hope to achieve by talking to a journalist?

If that only happened behind closed doors, how did we all hear about it?

When a ref drops a massive blunder the coach should be allowed to talk to whoever he want's without fear of the big bad RFL for daring to have an opinion.

Because Jon Sharp COULDN'T keep it behind closed doors as it was such a MASSIVE balls up the excuse however doesn't in anyway stand up to any real scrutiny but Jon is happy with it.
Now you have to ask. Is he thick or did he give a BS excuse to appease the masses whilst in private saying 'Come on Steve that can't be right'.

What would he hope to achieve by talking to a journalist?

Are you allergic to answering questions or something?

BTW, you don't seem to understand the difference between an excuse and an explanation.

Putting it out there instead of having to hide under a rock. Which was the point of this thread.

I know the difference and 'Tracked the wrong' player maybe many things including an excuse but it certainly isn't an explanation as it explains nothing that makes any sense.

You still haven't actually answered the question

"Putting it out there" isn't a gain.

Referreing decisions aren't hidden under a rock.

"Tracked the wrong player" was the reason given for making the error. In this particular case, what explanation did the Hull player give for making the error of chasing the kick from an offside position? Not sure why I'm asking you, considering your allergy

Yes I have it's not my fault that you don't like it.



Reason given yes (An excuse is also a 'reason given' BTW) explanation no as it actually explains nothing. Again it's not my fault that you don't like that.

Sorry, this is cobblers.

Rugby League is an incredibly violent game played by incredibly aggressive men. The line between a hard game and an illegal brawl is actually very thin. That line is held only by the referee, often with 10,000 fans urging their players across the line. If you have a situation before a game where the players, and the fans, all have been given tacit permission by a coach through public criticism, to believe that the referee has no authority, then you will have chaos.

Even at an amateur level, anyone who watches the game will know that if a club begins a game without respect for the referee, then it gets very nasty, very quickly.

It is absolute nonsense, and frankly demonstrates a very limited understanding of the game, to suggest that coaches or players should be given carte blanche to publicly criticise referees. It would be a fast and ugly road to a serious car crash.

No, you still haven't answered.
If you weren't happy with the explanation, can you explain what kind of explanation you would have been happy with? Can you answer the prior questions too please? If you were able to do that, we might progress the discussion. Sorry if that interrupted what you only intended as a drunken rant

When was Josh Charnley a dishonest cheat? He did his best to get the ball down. He didn't. James Child still gave the try. How can you respect James Child for decisions like that?

So referees can carry on making terrible decisions and get away with it? I just hope a referees decision doesn't send a team down next year.

I refer you to my previous post.
Unfortunately you clearly you don't like the fact that my answers don't fit your point of view. That can't be helped it's called having differing opinions.

I'll leave you to get upset that my answers don't give you what you want.

Your answers can't upset me, because they weren't answers. I asked what was to be gained by a club coach taking his referee complaints to the press. Your answer about "putting it in the open" didn't imply any gain at all. Whilst I'm sure you have an opinion, you're struggling to articulate it, hence my questioning.

What do you mean by "getting away with it" ? What do you want to happen to them?

James Child will just come out next week and referee/video referee another game. Surely he has to be stood down as punishment?