After watching the game back (and re-watching certian bits) I can honestly say.................the officials actaully did a pretty decent job. Whether by design, fluke or professionalism they got most of the calls right.

Its also good when you look at other things. Should Wood have stayed? In a normal game he probably wouldnt. Should officials take the nature of the game into consideration when applying the rules. BUT call it karma, he satyed.....as did Ablet who actually hit out at Wood first (go back and watch it and watch Ablets left hand).

In all...........a good day at the office for the guys in yellow.

I reckon the officials did a pretty good job in such a big game though Leeds fans will nitpick as much as they like if it makes them feel better...

I assume Wood didn't 'walk' because the severity of the offence wasn't witnessed fully by the ref hence Wood being only put 'on report' ?

I was about to laugh at this thread, and then I got depressed instead. Once again there are people spouting things on here about the 'laws' of the game that bear no resemblance to those laws which are [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/rugby_laws_book_2007_%20(2).pdffreely downloadable[/url from the RFL website. Inexcusable.

I vote coddy to replace Cummings at Red Hall. Common sense suggestion where it's easy to see the benefits that could result from it.

maybe some of the officials would care to browse through them sometime ? especially before attempting the Perpignan run...

Quite a strange thread this one.
It starts off so adamant that the officials are useless and get everything wrong and yet all of the forum experts are unable to agree on the 2 decisions.
IMO the Briers knock on was a knock on, but the decision to disallow the try was spot on (with the benefit of the VR)
Having said that, both of these decisions would very likely be given the opposite way round on a Sunday afternoon (without the VR)
Certainly the "try" would have stood.

The BBC summary where they CGI'd in lines across the pitch at 1) the point of contact with the ball, and 2) where the ball actually landed, shows pretty clearly that the ball landed behind the point of impact with Briers, but I would definitely not be grumbling had that been given as a knock on, mainly because it would be so difficult to judge that on eye sight alone and could forgive the touchie for making the call - A lucky (but correct) break for Wire IMO.

Kylie decision at the game baffled but did ref get it right, yes

Briers decision at the game baffled but did ref get it right, yes, he leans ever so discreetly into Hall.

Briers knock on, again at the game baffled on TV right call

only ones wrong for me is Paul Wood not going to the bin and Carvell ball strip when Bailey had clearly dropped it.

It's very, very rare that I've been to watch a game and come home convinced that the ref got it wrong, to then be proven correct on watching the replay on TV. The majority of the time the officials actually get it right, it's the arrogant big headed berks in the terraces who are mostly wrong. The most difficult aspect for the refs is the forward pass, and the only way you could be sure of getting that right every single time would be to have the depth perception of a falcon. Maybe we should be having a word with scientists to see if they can genetically modify our officials so that they have the additional fovea that birds of prey have!

...and yet again Mr Thexton brings sense and reality to the situation.

The majority on here need to actually go out and referee a game - at any level. Only then will they appreciate how difficult it is. I've done it and it's not easy, without the pressure of 80,000 in the arena and millions watching on TV.

I'd say they get at least 95% of the decisions correct and the rest tend to be 50/50 calls.

I have no problem with the discussion abou the decisions. They are important. That's what we do. I thought each of them were good decisions, though close ones.

But saying all that, a couple of 50-50 decisions in a game is not "Rugby League no credibility left any more"!

I reckon even if those three decisions were all proved to be wrong the ref wouldn't be in the top half in a list of errors on that field.

the forward pass is indeed a tricky one to get right and I have every sympathy with the poor old hard done ref but maybe if he instructed his TJs to be more proactive , like Messers Roby and Child in the CC Final then their decisions would be more credible and even correct !
Some refs ask the TJs to help with certain decisions and others don't it would seem

How many passes in that game, how many tackles, how many separate dummy runs.

Just those things alone add them up, the ref is making a judgement in his mind on every single one, and that is just those things, add in getting the players onside and the other countless things, i'd be actually amazed if any ref ever gets a 100% correct game.

it's the old ' go out and try reffing yourself' chestnut again ! it always rears it's head when reffing is on the agenda
why should anyone need to go and try reffing in order to give an opinion on a reffing display ? I don't need to be a mechanic to know what's wrong with my old banger, I take it to a pro mechanic who is paid to do that job on my behalf nor do I need to play at being a doctor to find out what's wrong with me or any other professional practioner for that matter - these guys are paid professionals who should be expected to get the correct decisions and most of the time they do a great job - Mr Silverwood plus TJs were excellent in the CC Final IMO and the 50-50s are always going to be open to debate
my problem is the old question of consistency and interpretation which is so unbalanced this season for some reason, again IMO

the reffing at Perpignan has been farcical at the GB this season with some reffing performances totally incredulous and I say that as a neutral fan, except for the Saints game where we somehow managed to scrape a victory thanks to some very dubious ref & VR calls

Brilliant idea.

A jet lack may be a simpler solution though!

Your mechanic example is laughable at best - a mechanic can generally sit and look at a problem for more than a split second then offer a diagnosis, largely the same with a doctor other than an emergency.

The try refereeing was more to highlight the difficulty and pressure of needing to make the right call at that second. Some here seem to think that shouldn't be a problem. I've already said that the majority of decisions the make are correct. I'm probably one of the biggest defenders of a ref in the stands, and tend to support decisions even if against my team.

I agree that was lucky and the TJ did actually pointed out Paul as "starting it" BUT, as I posted earlier, on the replays, if you look careful Ablit's left hand makes the first strike out at Paul. So even when the officals get it wrong, fate makes amends

glad I keep you amused mate but to justify the difficulty in reffing by advising to have a go is equally laughable - it's a thankless job but asking for consistency from game to game isn't too much to ask surely ?
I will back a ref to the hilt and have done often much to the wrath of the Catalan fans but honestly mate, some of the officiating at the GB this season has been criminal !

I can't believe this argument is still going! Ref got both decisions right (as all the replays showed) and the better team won. Simples...

the debate/discussion isn't over as if you go back to the original poster :
'fartown since 1961'

you will recall he/she remarked :
"Time Cummins was sacked and refereeing standards changed dramatically !!!"

so the debate is still alive and PopTart quite rightly saying that getting a couple of 50-50 calls wrong doesn't mean that "Rugby League no credibility left any more"

something has to be done though to make officials more uniform regarding consistency and working towards a more united interpretation of the rules - officials are too ambigous at the moment for whatever reason IMO

Dont feel too hard done by, that is the preserve of the smaller clubs.
Usually, the big 4 seem to get all the calls, which is probably just down to the perception of the fans of the lower clubs.
Is is really a case that the officials have been so poor in Perpignan or, is it the failiure of the ref to have a leaning towards a voiciferous and partisan crowd ?

I personally don't feel 'hard done by' - my team is Saints and we get our fair share of the calls , being one of the 'big 4' that is..

yeah, the officials have been poor this season at the GB with Halibut being the worst at Montpellier with Roby, Thaler & Child not far behind - true what you say though about the 'partisan crowd' and credit to the opposing players and the officials for being strong enough to overcome that vociferous and sometimes hostile crowd though it's no different to the good old days in the threepenny stand when away fans as well as officials were treated to similar verbal and occasional physical abuse when things didn't go for the home side ! haven't been to the KC so I don't know how it is nowadays but if some of the travelling FC fans are anything to go by then I don't really fancy a visit.

Regarding the OP - sporting history is awash with mistakes or contentious decisions - ball across the goal line? RU refereeing around the scrum - always open to interpretation, especially in world cup games.

As RL fans we worry too much about our credibility rather than concentrating on improving the game.

Regarding the main issues in this game;

1) Knock on from Kylie - the question is not whether he knocked it on, but whether he hit it unknowingly whilst making the tackle or did he attempt to grab the ball.
We see many games where a defender knocks the ball forward when making a tackle and it is ruled play on as they were not trying to get the ball. It didn't look like he knew where the ball was to me.


2) Briers - 99% of all games that would have been given as a knock on. Even where a ball more obviously goes backwards, the referee usually rules that the defender didn't control the ball and it is a knock on - It's pretty much a given other than when the ball continues to go straight behind the player. There was more than enough change in the direction of the ball for that to have been judged a knock on. It was also a very funny attempt by briers..........

3) Woods punch. Only a penalty? In a recent game Wigan v Wakefield. McIllorum was sent off for throwing a single punch on Elima - despite appearing to get elbowed in the head.

This is the most obvious area where referees should show consistency - a punch is a punch - everyone saw it, Woods was penalised for it, did he mean to do it - of course - it wasn't misjudged, mistimed, accidental. No debate at all - it's a sending off - regardless of the context of the game.

IMO - there should be room for a bit of biff - but something like this is so easy to apply the law consistently - why a completely different outcome for exactly the same offence?

Another ref and Warrington could have been playing most of the final with a man down - and then the main talking point would have been 100% about this - as it is, just because the ref decided to do something completely different in this case it is completely ignored. In other games punches are ignored - why the difference?

Doesn't matter what Leuluai's intent was, Delaney was offside so it still goes back to the original knock-on



Decision was technically correct, but often that would have been given as a knock-on



Contentious indeed. If only one player throws a punch or punches, there needs to be a sanction applied IMO, but refs will be accused of "spoiling a game" if they send a plyer off in those circumstances, even though that would definitely have been an option.

Fighting/punching should be simply 10 mins in the bin, 2nd offence same game red card.

Allows for a bit of biff but stops the game becoming a farce, everyone's a winner.