KARL KIRKPATRICK!!!!!!!

[highland convert]

Realised my mistake after I wrote it. Ganson took his instructions well from lee briers, pity he didn't do the same from sykes. hc

[robjoenz]

highland convert posted:
KK gives in to the appeals of the players. Catalan v Wakefield. He blew the first penalty 45secs or there about before they players hit the deck. He was waiting for it. He trashed the game before it began

Surely this should have sent a message out to the players that he was not going to tolerate any ill-discipline and wanted a clean game puting the onus on the players to sort their act out.

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:

highland convert posted:
KK gives in to the appeals of the players. Catalan v Wakefield. He blew the first penalty 45secs or there about before they players hit the deck. He was waiting for it. He trashed the game before it began

Surely this should have sent a message out to the players that he was not going to tolerate any ill-discipline and wanted a clean game puting the onus on the players to sort their act out.

Absolutely Rob...so, in the interests of CONSISTENCY, why didn't KK do it last night? Talking to some Bulls fans earlier today, and apparently Cas were doing the same against them, and Silverwood let them get away with it too.
It's not often (never before, in fact) that I praise Ganson, but he was right in that game.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
Absolutely Rob...so, in the interests of CONSISTENCY, why didn't KK do it last night? Talking to some Bulls fans earlier today, and apparently Cas were doing the same against them, and Silverwood let them get away with it too.
It's not often (never before, in fact) that I praise Ganson, but he was right in that game.

There were people sat near me, Geoff, complaining Kirkpatrick had given too many penalties and spoilt the game. Still the players didn't learn.

Kirkpatrick last night seemed to try and let the game flow by allowing the players a bit of leeway, however, once he'd started in this vein he had to be consistent for the rest of the game.

It depends how the referee sees things going at the beginning of a game. Each game is different and the referee will control it how he feels best. He doesn't always get it right though.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

There were people sat near me, Geoff, complaining Kirkpatrick had given too many penalties and spoilt the game. Still the players didn't learn.

Which is why he should have sin binned one of them. If they don't learn when he penalises them then he has to take stronger action.

Kirkpatrick last night seemed to try and let the game flow by allowing the players a bit of leeway,

I realy do not understand that at all. He blew up far too often for that but had he not blown up then the game would have "flowed" even less due to the lying on, interferance at the PTB and offsides.

They only thing that looked remotely like flowing last night wa the rain. Hudds were definately not looking to be part of a flowing game of RL.

however, once he'd started in this vein he had to be consistent for the rest of the game.

No he didn't. He warned one player after three penalites for interfering at the PTB. Insteado f just penalising the repeated infringments he could (and should) have used the yellow card. Then maybe the players would have taken notice and we might have had a different game with fewer penalties.

It depends how the referee sees things going at the beginning of a game. Each game is different and the referee will control it how he feels best. He doesn't always get it right though.

What has how it goes at the beginning of the game get to do with it? If the game degenerates as it progresses it is up to the ref to take control and sort it out. Not stick his head in the sand and keep refereeing the game the same way.

Dave

[cpwigan]

I think once the plaers ignore the penalty warnings you have to use the sin bin. In my experience players will try it on as much as they think they can get away with.

[robjoenz]

DaveO posted:
...lots...

I am in agreement about the use of the sin-bin (as per my first post of the topic). I think he should have got the captains over, had a word and then used to sin bin if still required.

What has how it goes at the beginning of the game got to do with it?

The first 5-10 minutes of the game gives the referee an idea of how the game is going to be played. Whether it's going to be a fired up affair or a sloppy affair, for example.

If there are high tackles galore you'd clamp down hard on the high tackles and punish them all, even the marginal ones. If the game is a clean game you may allow play to continue for the marginal decisions (i.e. two similar incidents handled differently). This is why you can't compare refereeing very easily between more than one game.

If the game degenerates as it progresses it is up to the ref to take control and sort it out. Not stick his head in the sand and keep refereeing the game the same way.

What you have suggested is that referee not be consistent throughout the game Dave. Many would disagree with you (Flash comes to mind ). However, I do think you have a point.

Obviously if the game starts off clean then degenerates into an all out fist fight after each tackle you'd clamp down on things. Though you may end up with the referee penalising what appears to be a lesser offence in the 70th minute than one that occured in the 10th minute purely because the style of the game has changed. This tends to anger a lot of fans.

In the game we've been talking about though I don't think the game, from the referees point of view, changed that much. There was lying on, markers not square, offsides and a lot of dropped ball.

[DaveO]

robjoenz posted:

If the game degenerates as it progresses it is up to the ref to take control and sort it out. Not stick his head in the sand and keep refereeing the game the same way.

What you have suggested is that referee not be consistent throughout the game Dave. Many would disagree with you (Flash comes to mind ). However, I do think you have a point.

If a referee penalises certain offences and then later on decides to sin bin a player for the same offence provided he has made it clear that is what he will do if tings continue, then I don't see how this can be considered inconsistant.

I think the inconsistancy charge arises when a ref goes out whistle happy for the first 10 mins and then stops blowing for the same penalites. I know the argument is they are stamping their authority on the game but they just look silly if they give up on policing the game having come out like that.

With KK he was consistent but to the detriment of the game. It was crying out for a player to be sin binned. I don't really think he can be defended in his actions by saying he was being consistent.

Obviously if the game starts off clean then degenerates into an all out fist fight after each tackle you'd clamp down on things. Though you may end up with the referee penalising what appears to be a lesser offence in the 70th minute than one that occured in the 10th minute purely because the style of the game has changed. This tends to anger a lot of fans.

Again if the referee warns the players often enough and they over stept te mark again I don't see why fans see this as inconsistant. If the ref issue penalties seemingly at random penalising lying on one minute and not the next then that is what I think gets fans wound up.

In the game we've been talking about though I don't think the game, from the referees point of view, changed that much. There was lying on, markers not square, offsides and a lot of dropped ball.

If the game didn't change in that there was lying on, markers not square and offsides thorughout the game then he failed to deal with it properly.

Dave

[Martin Taylor]

turf posted:
You say a decent referee - you mean anyone else other than Berkpatrick. It's Noble that should be saying that Wigan were playing against 14 people, not Sharp.

Turf, the truth is this! All the referees are terrible! I have said it before and i will say it again! We have a prefessional game, being refereed by amatuers! There is no one worse than Klien, i watched the highlights of the Catalan and Saints game, and he missed what must have been the most obvious knock-on i have ever seen! PratPatrick is not just alone. They onle one i have seen which i thought was okay was Phil bentham for the Leeds v Wackey game on Friday!

[robjoenz]

Dave, I said I agreed with you about sin-binnings (and speaking to the captains). We can't have an argument if we both agree

Again if the referee warns the players often enough and they over stept te mark again I don't see why fans see this as inconsistant. If the ref issue penalties seemingly at random penalising lying on one minute and not the next then that is what I think gets fans wound up.

Fans do see this as inconsistent as they don't usually realise that the referee may have warned players previously.

Fans have no idea that the referee is having a quiet word with the number 10 about his marginally high tackles as he walks over to form the scrum. Number 10's next tackle is marginally high, a penalty is given and the fans call it penalising at random.

In addition, most fans see many incidents in black and white when they aren't... e.g. the winger on the opposite side of the field to play is stood 3 yards offside. The fans call for a penalty, the referee is actually waiting for that player to interfere with play before he gives the penalty. If there's no interference there's no penalty, the majority of fans don't see that though.

I think the inconsistancy charge arises when a ref goes out whistle happy for the first 10 mins and then stops blowing for the same penalites. I know the argument is they are stamping their authority on the game but they just look silly if they give up on policing the game having come out like that.

...but in your previous post you said that the referee ought to change his style to suit the changing style of the game. So if there are loads of high shots early on he clamps down on them including all the 50-50s. Then as the players remove the high shots from their game the referee may allow the marginal ones to go because he sees it as allowing the game to flow.

If the game didn't change in that there was lying on, markers not square and offsides thorughout the game then he failed to deal with it properly.

Again, Dave, go back to my original post where I said I thought he could have handled it better!