Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:25 pm  

I wonder if someone will unintentionally do a 'Tony Archer' on him next time he refs us

search the famous video site for 'carney runs over tony archer'

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:26 pm  

littlekemp wrote:

My view as a Cas fan is he was inept. His pedantic yet inconsistent application of the rules was ridiculous and was the main contributory factor to 2 teams becoming very frustrated.

The writing was on the wall after 10 minutes. He had sin binned someone, according to new rules, for a tackle that would normally just warrant a penalty. He penalised you guys for blocking on a kick return. This happens in every game of rugby league and goes unpunished. There was another incident if I was a Hull fan I would have been furious about I can't remember but it was again an inconsistent application of a rule very other referee ignores. We went 6-0 up then you controlled the game for 20 minutes. He levelled the penalty count on our line and warned Orr. You scored luckily or we would have definitely been down to 12. I would have been happy at 6-4 after how dominant you were in the first half and knowing child wasn't going to have to level the penalty count in the second half. We got some pressure and we were all happy to go in ahead still with 13 men.

The second half started badly as you got on top again and went ahead. We controlled the game from then on and did get penalties and at 20-12 with 20 to go you guys had to start chasing the game. We kept you in your end and defended well. You got back into it with a soft try and probably should have scored again in the 3 sets on our line before long walked. After that we just scrambled and were grateful to hold on.

As well as the first 10 minutes and the blatant levelling of the penalty count there were 4 other key incidents from what I saw.

1. In the first half Brett Ferres was warned after a head shot then the very next tackle he was bounced off the tackle and went swinging from behind the ball carrier. Only the fact the referee saw Isa as the culprit and warned him too kept Ferres on the field in my opinion. I was sure he was going to walk and I'm sure he will be in front of the disciplinary.

2. The fight in the second half in back play. This was dealt with by way of 2 yellows and a penalty to FC. I didn't see how it started as I was watching the play but did see it end. I'm pretty sure none of the officials or your fans did too as Long would have seen red. It was 3 on 1 and Aspinwall was helpless. I'm sure he will be banned for this too if they have the footage of it.3. The long supposed head shot. I didn't see it but I think normally players reactions tell the story. From the reaction I guess Long was on the end of a bad one but it has to be remembered he was ducking ready to dive for the line. I'm guessing this should of been a penalty but it is never any more than that because Long was ducking. As I say I just saw him flattened and was happy tbh. He shouldn't have been on the pitch.

4. The red card. Correct decision - He will get a hefty ban as the punishment on the night was insignificant with 4 minutes to go. With the other incident I can't see him being available for a while.

I would expect Long to be the only man to receive a ban although Ferres' stupidity could have cost us the game. He needs a lesson so I wouldn't mind him missing a match

I think everyone agrees the guy worthy of the biggest suspension is James Child

Agree with most of your post, but after watching Superleague Show tonight, it showed the late challenge to Longs head before the fight and that must of been why Long reacted like he did (not condoning it by the way).
The penalty against us that really did my head in (one of many admittedly ) was the one against Rich Whiting for having his hand in the Cas players arm. You could see he was telling the ref he had his hand trapped and if he was to drag his hand away he would of given a penalty for a ball steal. In my opinion, he couldn't win.

Plus how many warnings does a team get before someone gets sin binned for persistant infringements?

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:21 pm  

muddyboots wrote:

I wonder if someone will unintentionally do a 'Tony Archer' on him next time he refs us

search the famous video site for 'carney runs over tony archer'

There's a better one if you type in

NRL Referee gets knocked out in Brisbane Broncos VS South Sydney Rabittohs NRL

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:26 pm  

GJJ 79 wrote:

Agree with most of your post, but after watching Superleague Show tonight, it showed the late challenge to Longs head before the fight and that must of been why Long reacted like he did (not condoning it by the way).
The penalty against us that really did my head in (one of many admittedly ) was the one against Rich Whiting for having his hand in the Cas players arm. You could see he was telling the ref he had his hand trapped and if he was to drag his hand away he would of given a penalty for a ball steal. In my opinion, he couldn't win.

Plus how many warnings does a team get before someone gets sin binned for persistant infringements?

The super league footage also showed the clear 'choke hold' on Lauaki which started that particular mass brawl. Again - just a warning and no sin bin in direct contradiction to Radford's sinbinning.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:57 pm  

I have seen him perform on the u18s/20s and his performances there where 3rd rate at best how the heck he ever got onto the SL panel is beyond me. Perhaps with the shortage we had early on with Smithy retiring they bumped him up, well that was a mistake.

I can see Rich Agar getting a hefty fine as will the club judging by some of the comments I have seen attributed to KH. The RFL has always backed up its officials and I see it will do no different here, they may deal with Mr Childs put him back a division or have him quietly retrained. If they admit one of the officials has boobed it opens up a whole load of what ifs, including teams asking for re matches etc.

Hefty fines,even touchline bans and warnings about future conduct to those involved, Longy will get at least two matches. The RFL will be keen to snuff out any dissent in the ranks and anyone expecting this too end with him getting publically censored are going to be awefully dissapointed.

For my money they where right to think it and very wrong to say it, they know the rules.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:03 pm  

Ian P wrote:

For my money they where right to think it and very wrong to say it, they know the rules.

That comes back to their motivations for saying it though. Genuine outrage at an injustice, or the realisation that it was a bloody good opportunity to take some of the heat off the Head Coach?

If it's the latter then they'll probably view the fines as a more than acceptable price to pay.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:09 pm  

garry brindley wrote:

That comes back to their motivations for saying it though. Genuine outrage at an injustice, or the realisation that it was a bloody good opportunity to take some of the heat off the Head Coach?

If it's the latter then they'll probably view the fines as a more than acceptable price to pay.

It's already worked on here, with all the "lay off Rich" posts

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:17 pm  

Ian P wrote:

For my money they where right to think it and very wrong to say it, they know the rules.

For my money they were representing the fans, many of whom travel a long way and spend a lot of cash to watch the game. The fans, mostly, agree with what the club has said and as such the club is right to make known their feelings. The fans don't want to watch games refereed in that way and have no voice to challenge the RL so the club has done everyone a favour. Of course they will be fined that is what the RL do and in supporting their officials like they will do in this case it will ensure that the damage done to the game continues as and when the next debacle occurs with this referee.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:22 pm  

Staffs FC wrote:

For my money they were representing the fans, many of whom travel a long way and spend a lot of cash to watch the game. The fans, mostly, agree with what the club has said and as such the club is right to make known their feelings. The fans don't want to watch games refereed in that way and have no voice to challenge the RL so the club has done everyone a favour. Of course they will be fined that is what the RL do and in supporting their officials like they will do in this case it will ensure that the damage done to the game continues as and when the next debacle occurs with this referee.

The fact that they didn't have the gumption to realise that there are channels to be followed, rather than conducting public rants, suggests to me that they are either terminally stupid or saw an opportunity to seize on a detraction.

I tend towards the latter

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 8:24 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

The fact that they didn't have the gumption to realise that there are channels to be followed, rather than conducting public rants, suggests to me that they are either terminally stupid or saw an opportunity to seize on a detraction.

I tend towards the latter

You tend where you like mate. I'm sure they've followed the 'channels' on regular occasions. Maybe they thought an alternative channel was in order this time around. How did you feel Child went over the whole 80 mins ?