WiganWarriorsFans.com

robjoenz posted:

cpwigan posted:
Although if you are refereed by say Ganson far more than other teams you will get penalised more heavily for dissent. I think the only way to compare discipline is to distribute referees equally across a season.

Stop making excuses... it wasn't just Ganson that Wigan were backchatting. Discipline was shocking.

But there's an alternative that you don't seem to consider, Rob; that our backchatting gets punished more often than other club's players. Briers, for example, is notorious as one of the worst offenders, yet I only remember him being binned once this year for it.

GeoffN posted:

robjoenz posted:

cpwigan posted:
Although if you are refereed by say Ganson far more than other teams you will get penalised more heavily for dissent. I think the only way to compare discipline is to distribute referees equally across a season.

Stop making excuses... it wasn't just Ganson that Wigan were backchatting. Discipline was shocking.

But there's an alternative that you don't seem to consider, Rob; that our backchatting gets punished more often than other club's players. Briers, for example, is notorious as one of the worst offenders, yet I only remember him being binned once this year for it.

That is what I am saying Geoff, we could (theoretically) not give one single penalty away in any match, at all, next season. Nothing to do with actual discipline or otherwise interpretation of rules, just that the particular "Man in charge" decides to penalise for incidents or not!

I have seen many high shots deemed to be nothing more than "chest/shoulder", (Brett Dallas received a broken jaw from one such challenge at Bradford!). Yet others that are hard/fair (Lockers in-front of the "Sticks" at Odsal - play-offs) ARE penalised. It's the referees view/interpretation and bias/crowd influence, that decides what gets penalised or not.

Rob you missed my point

Every referee is different. Some award more penalties than others. To quote an extreme example. If Wigan had Bill Harrigan referee them 20 times in a season they would rarely conceded more than 4 penalties per match whereas if they had Steve Ganson for the same 20 matches they would concede 20 penalties per match.

Similarly certain referees favour certain types of penalties. Again an example, Ganson penalises backchat far more heavily than say Silverwood.

To compare discipline, each team needs an equal share of referees. If Wigan have 2 referees for 2/3rds of their matches all it tells us is how they fare with those 2 particular officials NOT how their discipline is overall.

cpwigan posted:
Rob you missed my point

Every referee is different. Some award more penalties than others. To quote an extreme example. If Wigan had Bill Harrigan referee them 20 times in a season they would rarely conceded more than 4 penalties per match whereas if they had Steve Ganson for the same 20 matches they would concede 20 penalties per match.

Similarly certain referees favour certain types of penalties. Again an example, Ganson penalises backchat far more heavily than say Silverwood.

To compare discipline, each team needs an equal share of referees. If Wigan have 2 referees for 2/3rds of their matches all it tells us is how they fare with those 2 particular officials NOT how their discipline is overall.

No matter who the referee is, backchat should be penalised and not stood for by any referee, no matter in what division, or whether it be in Australia or over here.

Dissent should not be stood for.

This is a thread for normal sane people

Find a hole Turf

GeoffN posted:
But there's an alternative that you don't seem to consider, Rob; that our backchatting gets punished more often than other club's players. Briers, for example, is notorious as one of the worst offenders, yet I only remember him being binned once this year for it.

Compare the manner in which Briers speaks to referees with the manner in which Hock, for example, speaks to referees.

butt monkey posted:
I once argued this point with you, teams don't concede penalties - referees award them. There IS a subtle difference. It all depends on the referees interpretation at that point in the game.

Telling a referee to F-off, pushing a player after the tackle or lying on to slow the PTB down is the player's choice though.

cpwigan posted:
Rob you missed my point

Every referee is different. Some award more penalties than others. To quote an extreme example. If Wigan had Bill Harrigan referee them 20 times in a season they would rarely conceded more than 4 penalties per match whereas if they had Steve Ganson for the same 20 matches they would concede 20 penalties per match.

Similarly certain referees favour certain types of penalties. Again an example, Ganson penalises backchat far more heavily than say Silverwood.

To compare discipline, each team needs an equal share of referees. If Wigan have 2 referees for 2/3rds of their matches all it tells us is how they fare with those 2 particular officials NOT how their discipline is overall.

Wigan's discipline was shocking regardless of who was in the middle. Fielden was sin-binned by Silverwood at Headingley for slowing things down... Ian Smith penalised Hock for backchat in Catalans and Klein penalised Hock down at 'Quins for the same... oh and Ganson put Hock on report at Headingley for stupidly throwing a player on his head.

You're never going to get an even share of referees... like players, referees are appointed on form and experience to handle different games. That's the fairest way to do it, the in-form referee gets the biggest game.

Rob it does not make sense though. Until the last few games of the season, Wigan were anything but the biggest game each week. Yet we got the No1 and No2 referees virtually week in week out. So your theory does not stand up.

Even if we accept it then I am sorry BUT sharing refereeing appointments out as equable as possible is much better. If I try to look at from the referees side, I cannot see any difference between the best and worst full time referee. Surely the difference should be negligible.

We do know that the number of penalties awarded and what they award them for differs from referee to referee. Referees are human. They all have traits.

Oh and Wigan did try to co-operate. They invited referees to coach them for example. However, how do you square that one week we got hammered for incorrect play of the balls then the week after and the rest of the season any player was allowed to play the ball however they liked. Similarly, Huddersfield got blitzed in the first game of the season as I recall for obstructions. Thereafter the ruling changed.

cpwigan posted:
Rob it does not make sense though. Until the last few games of the season, Wigan were anything but the biggest game each week. Yet we got the No1 and No2 referees virtually week in week out. So your theory does not stand up.

Prior to Saints in reverse chronological order, Wigan had... Smith, Ganson, Thaler, Klein, Smith.

How do you have a no.1 and no.2 when the differences were negligible?

Even if we accept it then I am sorry BUT sharing refereeing appointments out as equable as possible is much better. If I try to look at from the referees side, I cannot see any difference between the best and worst full time referee. Surely the difference should be negligible.

You can't see the difference between Ben Thaler and Steve Ganson then? About 10 years experience. Or the difference between Ashley Klein and Steve Ganson? Ability to get around the field.

Oh and Wigan did try to co-operate. They invited referees to coach them for example. However, how do you square that one week we got hammered for incorrect play of the balls then the week after and the rest of the season any player was allowed to play the ball however they liked. Similarly, Huddersfield got blitzed in the first game of the season as I recall for obstructions. Thereafter the ruling changed.

Hammered... with two penalties... you do like to exaggerate.

Can you come up with an example other than in the first round of the season which we both know was daft.