TIM MANDER - A JOKE OF A REFEREE!

[superleague]

cpwigan i'm not disagreeing with him about the ref i'm saying that about other things he said like deacon and harris played well and had a good partenership because they r simply just not good enough, too slow i could go on.

[cpwigan]

Fair play

I believe in those conditions we had an opportunity to win. Horne and Cooke would have gone far better and I would put Pryce at fullback. Noble made some fundamental mstakes. Not having two prop forward substitutes in those conditions is amateurish whilst he was either afraid or inept in not balancing his pack. As a result he had to ask Johnson to play on the left when both he and peacock are right sided runners. He should have bitten the bullet and dropped one. He even compounded that decision by selecting two right sided second rowers as his subs whereas he could have put the ex Wakefield / Leeds second rower who is left sided as one of his subs.

The impression I get with Noble is that he is afraid to give players opportunities and that his attacking strategies are very limited. He's leaving a very difficult legacy at the Bulls and I fear he'll do the same with GB.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Sorry folks but on this occasion I agree with Pie Eaters. Tim Mander had a reasonable game and is the number 1 referee in the world IMO

Tries from forward passes, penalising GB when Mason offloaded on the deck, penalising Deacon for offloading when he hadn't touched the ground with his ball carrying arm, allowing players to stand in front of him at the play-the-ball, allowing defenders not stood square to interfere with play. These are not examples of good refereeing IMO.

[cpwigan]

robjoenz posted:

cpwigan posted:
Sorry folks but on this occasion I agree with Pie Eaters. Tim Mander had a reasonable game and is the number 1 referee in the world IMO

Tries from forward passes, penalising GB when Mason offloaded on the deck, penalising Deacon for offloading when he hadn't touched the ground with his ball carrying arm, allowing players to stand in front of him at the play-the-ball, allowing defenders not stood square to interfere with play. These are not examples of good refereeing IMO.

Which tries came from forward passes? one was an intercept, the other two looked okay. Do not forget you can look at passes from one angle and see it totally different from another. The disallowed aussie try looks perfectly good from one camera angle and forward from another.

You are allowed to stand in front of the referee. Only your back foot has to be in line with him, Likewise when defending on your own try line, you can stand in play as long as your back foot is on the line.

I believe he penalised defenders for not standing square.

He made a mistake with the deacon pass off the floor but isn't he human like the rest of us.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Which tries came from forward passes? one was an intercept, the other two looked okay. Do not forget you can look at passes from one angle and see it totally different from another. The disallowed aussie try looks perfectly good from one camera angle and forward from another.

You are allowed to stand in front of the referee. Only your back foot has to be in line with him, Likewise when defending on your own try line, you can stand in play as long as your back foot is on the line.

I believe he penalised defenders for not standing square.

He made a mistake with the deacon pass off the floor but isn't he human like the rest of us.

I forget which try involved a forward pass, I haven't rewatched the game. I just remember it looking forward from where I sat and other people shared my thoughts when we discussed it on the way home.

How can you stand in front of the referee and be in line with him without standing on his feet?

He did penalise a couple of times for not standing square but it was happening a lot and just looked really messy.

With regard to your defence of him allowing the defending side more time to get up the rules say that the tackled player must be immediately released, lying on top of the tackled player breaks this rule?

You forgot the Mason mistake too.

[cpwigan]

I cannot remember the Mason pass so I cannot comment.

Herein, lies a paradox. Your like many rightly say that the player can offload the ball if his elbow has not been grounded. If that is the case then the tackle can only be called complete when the elbow is grounded. Equally, the NRL rightly recognised that players were using gamesmanship by surrendering in the tackle or actually diving straight to the ground in order to get a very quick play of the ball in the next play. Vila Matuatia was an exponent of this in SL. Hence, the NRl introduced dominant and surrender concepts as regards the time allowed to get off the tackled player. To some degree SL is now adopting these policies albeit slowly.

There are also numerous ploys which can be called gamesmanship but are very hard to penalise such as holding the attacker up and 'dancing' with him before completing the tackle and 'turtling'

You also reach a situation whereby the referee can award umpteen penalties and ruin the game. He may also take account of conditions. Many top referees will also walk an extra yard or two further than 10 if the defence is trying to move in quickly/offside. So you take them back 11 or 12 to get 10.

Sorry to disagree but i really rate Mander as a referee. I think he is very polite to players, applies common sense and generally makes the right decisions.

What I cannot work out is hy people think the referee was so important. We lose time after time and with different referees each time - British, French, Aussies and Kiwis.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
What I cannot work out is hy people think the referee was so important. We lose time after time and with different referees each time - British, French, Aussies and Kiwis.

I am not one of those that think the referee was important although I do feel he contributed into making a bad spectacle even worse. At the end of the day the game was of poor standard, mainly from the lacklustre GB side.

In reply to your comment about referees giving away too many penalties and ruining the game; if the referee allows things to slip then the game gets sloppy. The referee is there to inforce the rules not inforce some of them. If you penalise every time a player isn't stood square (for example) then they soon make sure they stand square, if you let it go then it happens again and again and again.

[robjoenz]

pie eaters posted:
Would we be complaining if Britain scored from a forward pass and the refere missed it??? He had a reasonable game and no other ef could of done it better. He is the best ref in the world no doubt. Whoever said that it doesnt bother me that they were lying on , your fin ones to talk. If it would of been the other way around then im sure that we would not be complaining

What was the point to this message because I didn't get it.

I said before that he missed both sides not standing square. The Aussies were the only one that were taking their time getting up after the tackle was complete so he would have been wrong to penalise Great Britain.

Had GB been the ones committing all the offences and he'd let them all go then he would still have been poor!

[DaveO]

cpwigan posted:
the NRl introduced dominant and surrender concepts as regards the time allowed to get off the tackled player. To some degree SL is now adopting these policies albeit slowly.

And what a completely stupid idea the dominant tackle rule is. It is a recipe for lying on.

Taking a voluntary tackle has always been illegal so it simply isn't needed. It is also a matter for interpretation by the referee and therefore bound to cause controversy.

One of the good things about RL has always been the way the rules are clear to all concerned, players, refs and fans.

These days we have things like "momentum" rules and now "dominant" tackles that just leave fans yelling at the ref more than normal!

I am not making these coments in light of the GB result but out of a genuine frustration that the rules are being tinkered with to the detriment of the game.

Not everything that originates in the NRL is a good thing and this idea of "dominance" is, IMO, definately not a good one.

Dave

[robjoenz]

pie eaters posted:
I wrote it becuase i wanted to do pal

Sound justification!