Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:16 am  

cadoo wrote:

Egg on face for most of this board me thinks.

Thought that to!!!

I cant believe anyone is suprised about the on reports! If 1 or both get bans a certain team close to Gansons heart benefit!! If they had gone for 10 or a red last night it may have been on field caution sufficient!! He could stick us in the bin as it wouldnt affect Stains!!

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am  

saint at wire wrote:

Don't complain about Ganson - his biggest issue is that he loves himself and wants to be centre stage - you should feel sorry for the two teams tomorrow night; they have alibert who shouldn't even be reffing super league.
Look forward to numerous forward passes and off sides completely ignored (by both teams) by the cretin.

At least you know your ref is just plain bad and will be for both teams plus you get the side attraction of playing guess the call as he waves his hands round!!
As you say Ganson is all about himself and trying to get one over on players but he also looks after Saints he just needs the RFL to have the rubbish to ban a Leeds player now!

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:25 am  

Ganson bottled it big time. It was a straight red for me, a blatent attack to the head. If he was out of position why didn't he consult his linesmen or listen to Bentham chelpin away in his lughole??? I wouldn't let him ref St Pats the cretin!!!

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:39 pm  

Gallini wrote:

Ganson bottled it big time. It was a straight red for me, a blatent attack to the head. If he was out of position why didn't he consult his linesmen or listen to Bentham chelpin away in his lughole??? I wouldn't let him ref St Pats the cretin!!!

He was out of position because now he is nowhere near fit enough to be a top class ref.

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:19 pm  

At least we didn't have Alibert, the lads having a shocker so far.

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:23 pm  

I take it that none of you saw Ganson take J Tomkins aside and list a load of offences, counting them off on his fingers as he did so?

No?
Thought not.

Shortly afterwards, Ganson lost patience and binned poor Coley who was taking the rap for others' repeatedly foul play.

By the way, congrats on a good overall performance.
Good game.

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:39 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I take it that none of you saw Ganson take J Tomkins aside and list a load of offences, counting them off on his fingers as he did so?

No?
Thought not.

Shortly afterwards, Ganson lost patience and binned poor Coley who was taking the rap for others' repeatedly foul play.

By the way, congrats on a good overall performance.
Good game.

yes I heard that. wigan were on a warning so any more foul play should have resulted in a sinbin. Coley didn't commit a foul so shouldn't have been sinbinned, is that clear enough for you? No? Thought not.

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:55 pm  

gpartin wrote:

yes I heard that. wigan were on a warning so any more foul play should have resulted in a sinbin. Coley didn't commit a foul so shouldn't have been sinbinned, is that clear enough for you? No? Thought not.

As it happens, I had noticed, hence my comment about "poor Coley".
If not him, it would have been whoever Ganson thought.

Do we agree that Wigan had reached the limit on foul play?

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:01 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

As it happens, I had noticed, hence my comment about "poor Coley".
If not him, it would have been whoever Ganson thought.

Do we agree that Wigan had reached the limit on foul play?

Yes, but then we didn't commit a foul, and still had someone sin binned.

Re: ganson : Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:04 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

As it happens, I had noticed, hence my comment about "poor Coley".
If not him, it would have been whoever Ganson thought.

Do we agree that Wigan had reached the limit on foul play?

reached it at the point of getting a warning but didn't go over it at the point Coley was wrongly binned. Hence your sarcy comment about Wigan fans not knowing we were on a warning was totally ridiculous because it doesn't change anything about the wrongness of the decision.