Nope. You saw something and made an opinion. The ref saw the same thing differently. That's not cheating.
If he was cheating he'd have given them the game wouldn't he.

And he was closer.

I'll watch on Trinity TV. It may well be a mistake but the ref isn't cheating.

Sorry pops but you can’t win this one - it was simply impossible not to see what we did - end of.

The ref isn't cheating
The ref isn't biased
The ref just wasn't very good at the fundamentals, like offside and slowing the ruck, that hurt us far more than a few controversial decisions, which went against both sides btw.

Its funny how your impression of a game changes from watching it on the terraces to seeing it again on TV.
After being at the game I thought Shudds had been a bit unlucky not to have got something from it, but after watching it again on TV, I've no idea how they managed to lose by only one point.
And......its a hideous watch if you want to be entertained.

It's not a win or lose thing. You are trying to say the guy cheated. It would be a pointless thing to do to cheat that incident yet let Wakefield still win.
Sport history is full of fans who think the ref has a personal vendetta against them and their team.
In actual fact he just made a judgement. Given all the things going on around him maybe he made a mistake but to say he is cheating is potentially libelous but more so not what the evidence is shoeing you.

How about James C. Last season he was a very regular official in our games possibly 30%, until after the away game at Saints.
This was a game where he clearly cost us the points through what you would call "incompetence". Imo we complained and he was dropped down for a couple of games and then returned to SL. If it was just a poor display surely after the slap on the wrist he would return to normal duty.
We have not had him as main ref since, apart from the friendly with Hull in Jan, I don't know about VR or TJ duties.
Again Imo admittedely, that tv performance and previous stats combined has led others to draw certain conclusions about the matter.
I guess we are all entitled to draw our individual conclusions, incompetent or libellous thought deleted.

I think we need to take a chill pill on the cheating thing. I was chanting it with the thousands of others. Of course Mickalauskas wasn't cheating. But he was being a poor referee last night, last week on on a number of occasions I have seen over the past year or 2.
It's just the passion of the moment. It's what we pay our 20 odd quid for if we are honest. Imagine no controversy! How dull!

It was a great game Wrencat. A proper arm wrestle. I thought both teams completions were superb and the game was developing one way that would have been even better than what happened when terrible officiating changed it, but we stuck in and turned it round in spite of that. I remember one of my mates at School in the 70's telling me that his Dad was a young man in the 1950's and saw a young Neil Fox play in the A team. Apparently he didn't like what he saw and shouted " You'll never make a Rugby League player Fox!" I am a bit embarrassed at my slagging of Reece Lyne 4 years back. I am not saying he's Neil Fox but He has certainly turned out to be vastly better than I ever thought he would be.

What I can't fathom is how the referee feels obliged to reward this grubby tactic with a penalty yet chooses to ignore failing to play the ball with the foot and constant offside. Now if he called all of these it would ruin the game, but he is making a judgement call. In the same way, he can give this penalty, wave play on, penalise the acting half for ungentlemanly conduct or give a scrum for losing possession at the PTB. It's all a matter of judgement and giving this particular decision shows very poor judgement and a lack of understanding of the game.

Just watched it back.
Clearly a penalty.
Crowther may not have intended it but he was on the wrong side of the ruck and didn't get out of the way.

Whetger you like it or not it's the rule and the Hooker had every right to pass the ball.
22.11 mins on Trinity TV if you want to look.

As I mentioned on the other thread. The attacker cannot deliberately throw the ball at a defender which he did whether wrong side or not. He must have been all of 1 1/2 foot high in the crouch position. Unless the receiver is 3 foot high the pass wasn't going to another player. He clearly throws it down towards the defender which is a penalty to us.

Having watched it back I'm astounded how much Dave gets held down but pinged for 4 pens himself. The offsides is debatable whether the linesman was telling him but they usually do.


The RFL statement read: “Following a review of the first two weeks of the Betfred Super League season, it has become clear that some players are deliberately passing a ball into a player with the sole intention of forcing the Match Official to award a penalty for offside.”

“Having reviewed these incidents, Rugby Football League Head of Match Officials, Steve Ganson, has written to all Head Coaches and made it clear that in these situations, Match Officials have now been instructed to consider Section 15 (i) of the Laws of the Game which state that a player is guilty of misconduct if he behaves in any way contrary to the true spirit of the game.

“This does not in any way absolve a defender of his responsibilities to clear the ruck and the defending team will still be penalised should the Match Official deem he is interfering with play.”

So if Jordan wasn’t there the ball would’ve reached the first receiver, I don’t think so , you can defend it till the cows come home, there’s things put in place called “ referees discretion “ but he chose a player conning him instead, so again he’s as guilty

Sorry I don't see it that way.
I'll watch it again but I think the problem was that Jordan didn't move. He tried to avoid but didn't.

Certainly not a cheat, just a poor ref unfortunately.

I was at a Hull KR game earlier in the year, and he was the ref in that game. He was just as poor, then, as he had been for us in the past couple of weeks.

No you’re wrong!

The review by the RFL only opens up the option for the Referee to “consider” awarding a penalty for misconduct, it doesn’t dictate that he must!

Ben Thaler opts to ignore these incidents and tells the players to get on with it. Robert Hicks seems to give the penalty to the attacking side. Other Referees have very occasionally awarded the misconduct penalty.

I’d like to see Referees en block, award the misconduct penalty which would soon bring an end to the cynical grubby tactic altogether.

We went through a phase maybe 12 months ago, slightly more after this announcement of the referees penalising the cheat. This hasn't been followed through. Technically when I said penalty to us is wrong, they can say play on, I agree but to penalise the defender is woeful. It's the way the games going sadly and it's disgraceful. Cheating is rewarded in many areas.

we won ugly and that is what we needed and will need to do for the rest of the season!


great job all concerned

I don't buy the view that the ref was cheating - he was incompetent and out of his depth - but not cheating.

With regards the now infamous passing the ball into a defender deliberately - the frustrating thing about that is we now have a new inconsistency; as someone else said, Ben Thaler is in the habit of admonishing the attacker and waving play on - Robert Hicks seems to go either way - but this lad was willingly old-manned by a blatant and obvious deliberate act. He chose not to exercise the discretion he's been awarded by Ganson, and just went straight for the penalty - the result being that the player and the coach involved will continue to use that strategy.

I was fulsome about Big Dave straight after the match btw - I also want to echo the comments about Reece Lyne; I hear howls of frustration about his sideways runs from the terrace, but these days, they are causing absolute chaos in defensive lines and setting up some scores - he's probably one of the most improved players we've had for some years. Lovely stuff.

I think nowadays there is on this forum a truly pedantry mentality (not a dig at you).

You're right of course he wasn't cheating in the true sense of the word but in RL calling the ref a cheat has a different meaning, I think we have all been around long enough to know that. However for those who don't, people mean that he cheated us out of and advantage we should have got by beingeither incompetant or as in this case gutless, in that he didn't have the bottle to pull a player for blatant cheating.

Basically he wasn't cheating personally but he was IMO sanctioning cheating. I say this because it doesn't matter how many times you view it and despite poptarts pleading he could not have missed it! In that sence he cheated the fans by willfully not making the correct call.

I tend to agree - but this is a form of pedantry that feels worth sticking with; we've all seen what's happened to referees in recent years - with one example being absolutely tragic. My view is that they are not sufficiently well trained, supported or developed - and that the directions they are given are chaotic and confusing, hence the inconsistency we see on the field from game to game. We talk a lot about wanting 2 refs, but at the rate we are losing them from the game, we won't even have enough for 1 per game.

I don't like to hear a stadium full of people chanting "cheat" or "wanxer" at a young fella - particularly when a lot of what they get wrong is because they are not sufficiently supported by the governing body, who seem happy to chop and change based on the new holy grail of 'speeding up the game.'

My lad started a reffing course last year, did two matched then dropped out due to a total lack of guidence, which is tragic because he was really up for it. You are right the training of our refs is beyond a joke and they do get no support. The head of refereeing clearly just wants to be a TV pundit, is it just me or does him being on SKY commenting on his charges performances just seem wrong. Rugby League is imo weakest at the top.

That said on this occasion that does not excuse the reff imo.

Cummings isn't the boss anymore is he - I thought that was Ganson now?

I know but I think he was when he started doing it, might be wrong.

That's a real shame - and probably one example of many.

I used to be involved in the junior game, and even at that level, watched young lads get absolutely slaughtered by players, coaches and spectators (parents) when they were doing their referee qualifications - and it seems to continue right through to SL level; how many of them have the will to go on become professional referees, I don't know, but I would bet that its very few. Despite the cheating, gamesmanship, player errors and lack of understanding of rules by many spectators and even pundits, it's always the ref who gets criticism. Every Sky game includes audible footage of the ref being abused by the crowd and sometimes players and coaches, all the while, Eddie and co analysing every decision and proclaiming whether the ref was right or wrong, with Cummings gleefully dissecting and pronouncing judgement - much of which finds it way on here as a direct result - wrong or right.

I'm not in any way saying they always get it right - but I remain firm in my conviction that the ones we've got are *not* cheats - they are simply doing their best with a system that doesn't help them; and whilst the governing body tinkers with the edges, coaches and players devise new and more devious ways to cheat, and refs are left high and dry trying to understand how to interpret and deal with thousands of incidents in every game they oversee.

I say it every year - but the RFL need to reset around rules and how the game will be officiated; let every coach and player know what the new standard is; then implement it ruthlessly and without compromise for as many games as it takes to change behaviour - and sod whether it means the opening rounds are penalty-fests - that will be the fault of players and coaches, not referees.

I agree Bren

The problem is exacerbated by the rules being more finicky.
I used to moan about rugby union because they were penaltyfests as every step could be penalised around a ruck or maul.
They learned from us and let a lot go now to make it easier to watch.
We have made our play the ball so strict it is going back to their way.
Needs to be that if the ball doesn't obviously go forward or if the interference doesn't actually impede play then just play on.

All you say is correct but in my lads case that wasn't the issue, he's thick skinned, don't know where that comes from. No it was the lack of organisation ie not knowing where he was to officiate til the last munute. Then turning up there expecting to find his mentor and his kit only for neither to materialise. In his first game he had to borrow an old club top and where the leisure shorts he's arrived in - that's more demeaning than any fan abuse. So it went on, dates for interviews and tutorials cancelled and endless postponements of matches etc.

In the end he did get a kit, one that didn't fit and looked circa 1998 to me. It was diabloical, I knew it wouldn't be slick but we never expected it to be so disorganised, I wouldn't even call it amaturist tbh as it was nowhere near that good.

IMO he'd have made a good ref but at 26 the clock is ticking and I don't see any sign of him hirrying back but then why would he as nobody has bothered to get in touch to see why he stopped attending - incredible!