Yeah probably, he must be used to being a c**t by now.

He was dropped on the first occurence as well though, wasn't he?

No, they won't.

Possibly, although as I added in my edit, Ganson does have a habit of ignoring his linesman when he feels like it. Not always correctly, either.

Oh dear.
After briefly dipping your toes in the waters of reason you have since returned to frolic on the beach of denial.

the second half yesterday was probably the worst most bias incompetent reffing i have ever seen.
I think they are told to make the games as close and as competitive as possible by hammering one or other side with penalties.
The Sky commentators where only concerned with the number of tries that where being scored, this is all that matters to them and the RFL, try to make it as 'entertaining as possible.
Ruined the game, robbed us of two points, PG should put in an official complaint to the RFL, absolute joke the lot of them!!!

no, [ithey[/i are useful !

Didn't know Russell Brand was a Wovers fan.

If he's a cheat, he's an incompetent cheat. If he wanted us to win so badly, why check the restart which led to Martin's try or bin Dobson in the first half? Neither of those would have raised eyebrows if he'd given us the benefit. Easier to believe that he's merely a less than perfect ref, IMO.
It's the nature of the sport that in any close game you can identify decisions that turn out to be crucial. It was an especially egregious mistake, I admit.
I hate getting Thaler or Child against the big clubs because I think they have an unconcscious bias. 'Cheat' is a strong word though. Ganson is 'just' massively erratic, IMO. Easy for me to be sanguine today, like.
On the penalty count - one our penalties we got on the stroke of halftime, another instead of a scrum in the same position. Strips, interference and loose carries are often toss of a coin situations. It was a close game, we had some good fortune, and ultimately made the most of it.

He employed a very clever tactic which myself and some rovers fans discussed/predicted at the time. He binned Dobson (relatively harsh IMO) but he gave us no ball for that 10 mins and helped rovers back into the game. His agenda was clear for all to see. We just happened to be the team he'd decided would lose!!
The guy is a joke and he knows it, but he just loves everyone talking about him!!

My head says that's a good summary, but my heart says he's a cheating moron who lost us the game. His decisions led to you wining the game, at the very least putting us in a massive disadvantage.

If you truly believe that Rovers apparently not committing a single penalisable offence in the second half of an intense Derby game was 'good fortune' then I have a couple of bridges you may wish to purchase.

The linesman makes a bad call and that makes Steve a cheat.
Ok.

Refs can call for forward passes....Childs did it today dopey...like the use of the 1st name...Steve this Steve that.

Hull scored a few seconds after Dobson was sin binned FFS ! difficult to score a try if you have 'no ball' ?

Steve was behind the defensive line, which makes it the linesmans call.
Dopey.

he nearly caught the bloody thing and he can still make the call you inbred pr1ck.

We don't have linesmen in Rugby League - we have Touch Judges.

Thicko

I am thick today.
Far too much moet last night.

thank you for finally admitting that yesterday was your cup final!!

think Thaler is more likely to get in bother than Ganson

Where did i admit that ?
Thats right , NOWHERE !!!!!

Dave, I appreciate and fully respect your experience and objectivity here, but having had 24 hours to contemplate it, here is my view of some people's thoughts.

With regard to forward passes and the video ref, if the receiver of a pass is in front of the passer when catching the ball, it's a forward pass. If the video ref can judge on offside from a kick, then they should be able to judge in the position of one player to another.

There are some who have said something on the lines of "if you cannot defend a 14 point lead with 12 mins left...". Does that go for 8 point leads as well? I agree, defending 14 point lead within the laws of the game is a reasonable comment. That wasn't the case yesterday.

You will know from your officiating days, that teams "get a roll on". The Martin injury meant rovers got the ball uncontested, ok, there's one which gives a team hope. Then there is the Marino try. . It completely alters the situation.

Also the non penalising of rovers ruck defence. I lost count of the number of time in the 2nd half that Houghton got tackled by a non square marker, yet no penalty was forthcoming. Add to this the penalties given against us, Westerman having the shear nerve for standing up (I thought the ball carrier had an obligation to respect possession). Then it's difficult not to think there is an issue with the official.

I am afraid I cannot be as gracious as Mr Gentle. I am a fan and I feel the pain of being robbed.

Regarding the Latus try. Why should the game have been stopped?

The game only stops if the prone player is in the ruck.

No problem with that, just unlucky.

Not so. Games are frequently stopped for injured players in back play, especially serious injuries. If we'd taken an interception and broke clear towards the player being treated you can guarantee the game would have been stopped.

Play was stopped twice? today in the Wigan - Saints game

why ? what did he do wrong ?

he could, maybe should have yellow carded Wilkin & McColorum but apart from that he did ok IMO