Absolutely I have...

Whether that be due to wanting a show of how 'inclusive' the RFL are, or because they're reluctant to get tough on him in fear of cries of prejudice, I think it's possible, and would explain why he gets IMO different treatment.

This is in no way a dig at Child (although I do feel he is a terrible ref - nothing to do with his sexuality, if he were straight, he'd be equally as terrible), he is who he is and I have no problem whatsoever with that. it is purely a quwaiting of the RFL....

And as you will see, I didn't say you linked his inconsistency to his sexuality. I said that your perception of his inconsistency was.

And you think that it's ok to do that?

You have said he gets preferential treatment because he's gay but don't follow it up with any evidence only assumptions. That in itself is a cause for concern. The question you should ask is 'Why does one referee get punished for missing something but another doesn't?' By bringing someones personal preferences into it automatically shows your way of thinking. Hence the the reason for the majority of replies to your post

Your attempts to separate Child sexuality from his performance whilst explicitly arguing that his sexuality:
Positively colours the judgement of his performance,
affords him opportunities that are ostensibly based on performance, that he otherwise would not get,
And has advanced him beyond the level his skillset deserves,

Is a logical fallacy and intellectual cowardice.

So it's not positive discrimination, it's RFL inconsistency. There, you've answered your own question.

I do think it's ok to do that yes. I've given evidence based on my opinion - he's been dealt with leniently on the Westwood incident compared to Thaler only 1 week previously. My opinion on his performances in general are not as good as other referees (I'm not going into specific examples as we'd be here all day), yet he seems to get a disproportionate number of big sky games compared to referees I perceive as being better referees.... That's the discussion point - my view is that it could be related to positive discrimination - I don't feel the need to pussy foot around with my wording to appease the easily offended, I'd rather just say what I think and people can take it as they please.



You may well be right - I'm cynical.

So just to clarify what your saying here.

Referees who referee games like Wigan v Leeds or Wire v Leeds inevitably end up refereeing finals

James Child has refereed a disproportionate amount of these games.

James Child has not refereed finals

Ergo James Child is the beneficiary of positive discrimination.

If you don't believe that positive discrimination happens in this day and age you should look the leader of America. A rich old straight White man who was born in to money.

There is actually no evidence you've provided whatsoever that he has been dealt with leniently because of his sexuality. You have come to that conclusion on your own. You have picked out his sexual preference as a reason with no facts to back up your assumption.

Anyway, is it 'fact' or opinion to say that Thaler has been dropped, as such.? Have the RFL said so? Moreover, is it fact or opinion to say that, if he was dropped, it was because of his perceived failings with regard to Ferres?

FWIW I think the Westwood incident was a much easier one to rule on that the Ferres/Gildart incident (and I say that as a Wigan fan). In other words, I would have expected a red card for Westwood; for Ferres, in real time, not so much. Not that, with hindsight, Ferres didn't deserve it, but with several in the tackle, plus broadly similar incidents (admittedly without the 'lift and drop') being not uncommon... As I said elsewhere, when was a player last given red for a crusher tackle? I can't recall. But Westwood's assault *is* the kind of shot players have seen red for in the past.

All of which chimes with my general view that Thaler is a better ref than Child.

And I must be the last one in the village to find out

but I didn't even know (or care, natch) that Child was gay! The only gay ref I was aware of was Nigel Owens in RU.

I think one of the issues with Child is that he seems to have a poorer relationship with the players than other refs. At least, that's my perception. Whether sexuality has anything to do with that: who knows?

Agree with all of that (I think he has an air of arrogance in how he communicates with the players, that coupled up with poor/bizarre decisions then escalate the game into a penaltyathon as players get frustrated and deal with it badly) - Child comes in for criticism from both players and fans on a regular basis.

My question is why is Child treat differently (which IMO he is).

The operative part of that phrase is 'IMO' - no one else seems to share that particular 'O', which should tell you something; either you're wrong, or every other poster who's commented is a PC snowflake. What do you reckon?

That we'll never know who's right or wrong... would have been interesting to hear people's thoughts on the Ferres/Westwood incidents, and the scheduling of refs to games - unfortunately not many people have actually shared their thoughts on that, with a preference to showcase their snowflake-ism...

Just me that didn't know about his apparently sexuality, nor care?

It's another of the wierd fallacies of this conspiracy.

The RFL are so desperate to be seen as diverse and inclusive that they promoted a gay man to the top echelon of refereeing, refused to discipline him for poor performance as they would other referees but neglected to mention to anyone, or even confirm publicly that said referee was gay.

Though in fairness that the RFL would attempt to do something but render it pointless by a failure to communicate is actually quite believable

Some things don't need to be nor can be publicised, but it doesn't stop the organisation getting 'moral brownie points', and at the other end of the spectrum, in some instances organisations or individuals may feel they cannot deal with an issue for fear of a false claim of discrimination... I have seen both ends of the spectrum happen within the work environment first hand.

You need to take off the tinfoil hat.

You've still not established that he is treated more favorably. By your own admission he doesn't get appointed to finals because of his poor performances. That would seem to be consistent with treating someone in keeping with his ability.

When it comes to refereeing "big games" throughout the weekly rounds, can it be shown that he referees more of these than his peers? If so, can it then be shown that refereeing these games is a positive experience rather than negative or neutral?

It's because it's an awkward question with a potentially uncomfortable answer so people would rather pretend there's no issue.

Even if people don't think it has anything to do with his sexuality they surely can't deny his appointment to big league games - lack of semi's & finals isn't worth questioning. Nearly 25 times in 4 and a bit years he's reffed games between the biggest teams in the comp of Leeds, Wigan, Saints, Wire and Hull....he's done Wigan vs Saints derbies, he's done Hull derbies, he's done Leeds vs Wigan, he's done Wire vs Saints & Leeds on numerous occasions......yet not one single semi final or final?

He should be asking the question himself. If he's deemed good enough to ref these biggest games in the league season calendar then why isn't he getting the big cup and playoff games? If the RFL don't think he's good enough to ref the big cup and playoff games then why do they keep picking him for these big games of the league season showcasing our best teams on live tv??? You're either deemed good enough to do both or neither.

Keegan Hirst wasn't great the other week. I reckon he'd have been dropped were it not for Wakey's agenda of inclusivity.

You are starting to sound like someone who didn't get a promotion at work and find it easier on your ego to convince yourself it was because they were gay rather than accept they are better than the job than you.

I once remember someone at work who seemed to get away with more than most, I guess you would have put that down to him being gay, all of us put it down to him being the owner's son. My point being, you have convinced yourself he is getting treated differently, you know nothing about the guy or the situation but you once read a rumour somewhere that he is gay and ergo you have opened a whole topic claiming positive discrimination.

child has refereed the biggest games as a touch judge.

Let's put aside that this is a textbook case of homophobia, and we can put aside your Woodward and Bernstein like crusade to ask awkward questions and shine a light on the truth. Let's lay out some facts.

We have a very small group of referees.

Those referees must be rotated

The referees appointed to big games must be rotated

Neither the RFL nor Child have publicly discussed his sexuality

your conspiracy is the RFL are appointing child to a disproportionate number of big games in the weekly rounds, disproportionately small amount of finals and semi finals though he is appointed to officiate the biggest games as a touch judge. The RFL are doing this as positive discrimination because Child his gay and they want to be inclusive and diverse. They are however doing this entirely secretly because neither they nor him have ever mentioned it and as such aren't seen as any more inclusive or diverse because nobody knows if it's true.

Let me ask you this. Other than message board rumours you have no idea if Child is gay or not. If it were to turn out he wasn't and he was straight as a die, a real muff monster would there be any thought in your head that his sex life bore even the remotest relation to his refereeing appointments?

Also of Child is getting a disproportionate number of big weekly round games, and a disproportionately small number of finals, wouldn't that be evidence of discrimination against him rather than in favour?

The last paragraph is exactly what I'm asking in my previous post, why isn't he getting the finals or semis? Your earlier paragraph is a reply to what Superted said not me.

And yes we do have a small group of referees but do you really think we get to the point of Wigan vs Saints or Leeds vs Warrington and we have no other choice but to put someone in charge who has never been deemed in the top 2/3 refs in the competition? In fact the majority of fans think he's constantly the worst year upon year?

"Oh it's Wigan vs Saints next week, one of our showcase games of the year, live on Sky, who should we get to ref....,oh well we'll get one of our poorest refs because our best ref did Wigan 2 weeks ago"......rotation, what nonsense.

Again if they think he's good enough to ref standout league games why isn't he getting finals featuring these same teams? Negative discrimination perhaps?
If they don't think he's good enough to ref finals between these big sides then why give him them as often as they do in the regular season? Positive discrimination perhaps?

Given he is widely regarded as one of the poorest we've got then the idea that the RFL think he's good enough for finals isn't the strong option there.

I genuinely didn't know or care for that matter about James child's choice of partner as it's nothing to do with me.i do know tho he was a terrible ref when he first started but I think he has improved considerably in the past year or so.i don't see any preferential treatment one way or the other

you're agreeing with Superted arent you. If not your doing a great impression of it. Child does work finals and semi's. Perhaps he is our best touch judge?


We have 8 full-time referees. One of whom has yet to referee an SL game. 2 Became full time last year, 1 the year before. So we have 4 referees with more than two years experience. Do i think it that as he represents a quarter of our experienced full time referees it is inevitable he will referee a decent portion of our televised games? I think it would be nonsensical if not.

There are 6 SL games per week. Of which at least 2 will be televised. Statistically, if chosen at random from the 8 SL referees Child would be appointed to 8/9 SL games per year. When we remember that half of the SL referees are very new, one not even having refereed SL yet, you would expect that number to be closer to about 15 televised games per year. Does he referee a significantly higher number than that?

It seems far more likely that he is judged good enough for SL but others are thought of as better so they get the finals. You know when the RFL can pick any of the available referees for 1 game rather than spreading them about between 6.

Good job at trying to condense the larger picture towards the current lineup of referees at this present time, but as clearly pointed out this has been going on for several years now. He was still getting these random big league gigs when we had Silverwood, Ganson, Thaler and Bentham. 2012 you have those four much more experienced and better referees.....current SL champions Leeds vs current CC champions Wigan in one of the seasons premier games.....guess who gets the gig.