: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:25 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

i think 10mins in the bin is too much of a punishment, with too big an effect on the game for dissent,

dissent could and would be stamped out with better communication between refs and players, its no coincidence Ganson punishes more players for dissent than other refs, and they give him more for a reason, his communication and attitude towards players is appalling for a so-called professional

respect works both ways, refs need to earn it and it will be given, marching them for ten for laughing like he did with ablett was laughable, it made him and his position a joke and would simply be massively counter-productive

I see what you're saying, but I dont see why the ref should tolerate someone laughing at one of their decisions, its undermining the ref's authority and should be penalised as far as im concerned.
However I do agree with you about Gansons attitude and communication with players.

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:32 pm  

BigRob wrote:

I see what you're saying, but I dont see why the ref should tolerate someone laughing at one of their decisions, its undermining the ref's authority and should be penalised as far as im concerned.
However I do agree with you about Gansons attitude and communication with players.

if your authority is undermind by someone laughing at your decision you didnt have any authority to begin with,

so what if ablett laughs, the decision was made and that was that, the players dont need to agree with your decisions, just abide by them, and ablett did that, feeling the need to discipline him showed someone who has some serious insecurities, probably because he knew he had made the wrong decision. Had he just got one with the game it would have been forgotten about, he made it a big deal, because he wanted to be the centre of attention and he wanted people to know he was in charge

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:50 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

thing is you need dialogue with players.it is important to have that bond between players and refs. there is a line you don't cross however and we do that to much

A "good" ref needs dialogue with players and should talk all the time


BUT IMHO it should generally be a one way street.

There is no good reason for a player to talk to the ref and if he does talk then he is not concentrating on playing.

The exception is the captain can seek clarification but thats not to say he should do so on each and every occassion.

: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:01 pm  

DoubleAone wrote:

A "good" ref needs dialogue with players and should talk all the time

Agreed and the better one's do. Referees are similar to on field coaches telling the players what he wants and expects of them as the need arises. Get a foot on it next time, quicker next time etc are better than hearing endless whistle.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:29 am  

tvoc wrote:

Agreed and the better one's do. Referees are similar to on field coaches telling the players what he wants and expects of them as the need arises. Get a foot on it next time, quicker next time etc are better than hearing endless whistle.

Hello all ....yes its my first post on this board!
In respect of acting positively and telling players proactively what they the refs want i have yet to watch and LISTEN to a sky match when this doesnt happen.I hear players called by name to 'watch the tackling techniqe/stand square etc etc....
I think that then suggests how much sinks in.
End of the day a match isnt a democratic forum in totale.

It would be more interesting if Eddie/stevo/etc shut up when refs spea at a stoppage to players then we could hear something significant about the match issues.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:07 am  

Answering back - sin bin or ten meter advantage to opposition. Absolutely. I have a 15 year old playing in the amatuer ranks. You see some really poor reffing decisions but I don't want any of these lads, including my lad to think that back chat is fine, it gives a bad impression. Calla is correct, let it slip now and the next generation see it as normal, give it another generation of players and you are into the realms of soccer.... this must not happen, it will completely ruin the game.

While I am at it the RFL has to do something about Alibert, how on earth is that guy allowed to ref a super league game. He is going to be responsible for a life threatening injury to a player sooner or later.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:41 am  

rotherhamrhino wrote:

Answering back - sin bin or ten meter advantage to opposition. Absolutely. I have a 15 year old playing in the amatuer ranks. You see some really poor reffing decisions but I don't want any of these lads, including my lad to think that back chat is fine, it gives a bad impression. Calla is correct, let it slip now and the next generation see it as normal, give it another generation of players and you are into the realms of soccer.... this must not happen, it will completely ruin the game.

While I am at it the RFL has to do something about Alibert, how on earth is that guy allowed to ref a super league game. He is going to be responsible for a life threatening injury to a player sooner or later.

bet thats something you never thought you'd say!

poor standards : Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:26 am  

Well let me say i'm a rhinos supporter and have been for some 45 years and have to feel sorry for the players. The standard of refs is pretty dismal i agree they will never see everything and every 50/50 call will never be right depending on which side you are supporting. These decisions and penalty counts can turn a game, as we know. Having watched the HKR V Hull game on sky just to mention one , the forward pass decision Hull lose 6 points and before they settle down Hkr score 6 points-decision means 12 point. Also went to watch Wakey v Cas, Cas player knocks on 25m from wakey line in front of sticks ball goes forward 10-15m wakey player picks up and is tackled, no advantage, but ref waves play on wakey have lost 10-15m captain other side of field Brough ( i think) asks ref for advantage rule, ref gives dissent penalty 2 points to Cas in a tight game. Why should the player in these circumstances not be able to question if in a reasonable manner and not continuously. The ref penalises one team constantly for holding down but not the other would you not get frustrated and these are just the tip of the iceburg

Re: poor standards : Tue Jul 28, 2009 10:24 am  

digger47 wrote:

Well let me say i'm a rhinos supporter and have been for some 45 years and have to feel sorry for the players. The standard of refs is pretty dismal i agree they will never see everything and every 50/50 call will never be right depending on which side you are supporting. These decisions and penalty counts can turn a game, as we know. Having watched the HKR V Hull game on sky just to mention one , the forward pass decision Hull lose 6 points and before they settle down Hkr score 6 points-decision means 12 point. Also went to watch Wakey v Cas, Cas player knocks on 25m from wakey line in front of sticks ball goes forward 10-15m wakey player picks up and is tackled, no advantage, but ref waves play on wakey have lost 10-15m captain other side of field Brough ( i think) asks ref for advantage rule, ref gives dissent penalty 2 points to Cas in a tight game. Why should the player in these circumstances not be able to question if in a reasonable manner and not continuously. The ref penalises one team constantly for holding down but not the other would you not get frustrated and these are just the tip of the iceburg

Thats the issue, Brough is in the wrong for aproaching the referee! who is he? not the captain! Whether the captain is 100m away is beside the point. only the captain should be abl to talk the referee, I back the referee in that decision to penalise Wakefield!

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

if your authority is undermind by someone laughing at your decision you didnt have any authority to begin with,

A ref automatically has authority simply by being the ref. I dont care if he's the most biased, bent and unfair ref in history on the field he's in charge and the players should respect that in public at least anyway.

SmokeyTA wrote:

so what if ablett laughs, the decision was made and that was that, the players dont need to agree with your decisions, just abide by them,

So you dont mind if players, coaches or CEO's come out in the press after games and publicly criticise ref's?

SmokeyTA wrote:

and ablett did that, feeling the need to discipline him showed someone who has some serious insecurities, probably because he knew he had made the wrong decision. Had he just got one with the game it would have been forgotten about, he made it a big deal, because he wanted to be the centre of attention and he wanted people to know he was in charge

Now this i agree with you on. Ganson often appears to want to be the centre of attention and far too often gets carried away.
But it's still not up to Ablett to decide whether Gansons decisions are correct or not. Thats up to the coach or CEO to discuss with the RFL in private after a game.