WiganWarriorsFans.com

sorry hc but as soon has these emails are recieved scummings will just look at the headings and bin them, after all we only spend hundreds of pounds of our hard earned money a season to watch our teams only to get them spoiled, then told there is nothing wrong with the refs. as usual the fans come bottom of the pecking order again

Remember the last time Scummings was asked about a dodgy call?

Referees boss Stuart Cummings said the decision not to award Bradford Bulls a late penalty in their Super League Grand Final defeat by St Helens was correct.
Furious Bulls coach Brian Noble felt Saints captain Chris Joynt succumbed to a tackle from scrum-half Paul Deacon with 10 seconds to go.


Noble furious at decision
The game's rules state: "a player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling on the ground when not held by an opponent".

And Noble believes referee Russell Smith should have awarded a penalty.

That would have given Paul Deacon, the league's leading scorer, a kick at goal and the chance to overhaul St Helen's 19-18 lead.

But Cummings said: "Chris Joynt was clearly trying to make sure that St Helens retained possession with only 10 seconds to go.

"He had one arm wrapped securely around the ball and ran towards Paul Deacon. He was using his other arm to fend the tackle.

"He is seen to learn forward and protect the ball from any impact as he leans forward into the tackle.



Joynt ended up on the ground as a result of the Bradford player moving out of the way

Stuart Cummings
"Paul Deacon is directly in front and, as Joynt leans into the expected tackle, Paul Deacon deliberately moves out of the way, causing Joynt to fall to the ground.

"As soon as he realises that he has not been tackled, Joynt gets up and attempts to make further progress.

"Therefore, it can be seen that Joynt did not deliberately fall to the ground but he ended up on the ground as a result of the Bradford player moving out of the way.

"In my opinion, the decision by Russell Smith to allow play to proceed was the correct one."

Cummings, who was one of the game's top referees for 10 years, said he had never given a penalty for the offence and said it was very rarely seen.

Meanwhile, Noble could find himself in hot water over his comments when the League's executive discuss the match and review the tape tomorrow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 632931.stm

Good old scummins back him up as usual.

Half an apology - no review, no suspension - about shows you the standard of the organisation[/url]

I know on here that we all hate Ganson but we have to give him credit where it is due for coming out and apologising.

The first RL referee to do so I think??????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_l ... 632931.stm

Turf it is a damage limitation exercise. Note how Cummings still endorses Ganson. No reference to anything prior to the final try either. Mcnamara attacked the penalty award.

If Ganson had to explain every single on of his wrong decisions last night, he could have been still stood there now!!!!

A bit harsh cpwigan. I say well done to the guy for admitting he was wrong.

But mind you, what about Silverwood last time we went to Leeds, why didn't he come out and say "I was wrong to sin bin Fielden and I realise the penalty should have gone to Wigan".

turf posted:
If Ganson had to explain every single on of his wrong decisions last night, he could have been still stood there now!!!!

A bit harsh cpwigan. I say well done to the guy for admitting he was wrong.

But mind you, what about Silverwood last time we went to Leeds, why didn't he come out and say "I was wrong to sin bin Fielden and I realise the penalty should have gone to Wigan".

Ganson didn't have any choice - it was blatantly clear what a total mess he had made. By admitting liability to one mistake he obviously hoped the others would be forgotten.

Likewise Ganson wasn't allowed to say anything after the match - he and cummings had to get together and try and work out what they would do about it. Now because of the apology; cummings won't have to suspend him (although he should be demoted immediately).

You all make valid points and I agree Ganson had an awful match but the only bad decision try wise was Ganson not going to video for last try. Ellis try was given cos Klein can't rule on a forward pass and big V's try was disallowed because Evans knocked on before V grounded it not because it was forward.

Ganson been a st's fan plucked the penalty from out ofthin air because as a st's fan a draw was the best result for them.

As for Leeds giving Bradford the teo points I feel will open a can of worms. Can you imagine i.e next week referee decides to award a try but should have gone to video ref or disallows a try for crossing when it isn't etc. If camera's show it was wrong decision the the club would start petition to get the result revoked. Leeds shouldn't give the points back as mistakes are made each and every week which ultimately cost teams game.

Mike posted:
At least one good thing might come of this travesty - the sacking of Ganson? If he is not dropped for at least a couple of weeks it is a signal that there is no meaningful performance related evalaution of the officials from week to week.

He should be demoted to NL1 for a month for that but I suspect that isn't an option now they are full time.

Given he has apologised I doubt he will face any sanction at all. That isn't good enough in my book but I doubt when the RFL/SL went for full time refs they considered the possibility it might be necessary to demote a ref.

If they did demote one who would they get to ref instead?

So I don't think there is any risk to one of the full time refs of a poor performance resulting in them being demoted as used to happen to senior part-time refs if they had a seriously bad game.

So in terms of meaningful performance related evaluation I don't think they have the scope to do it.

I read an article by Karl Kirkpatrick saying he thought they had rushed into the refs being full time and that there were not enough at the right level to do it anyway. I was never a fan of KK as a ref but on this I think he is right.

Lets put it this way I certainly don't think the case for full time refs has been proven this season so far and Gansons latest escapade only reinforces that view.

I think we were better off with a broader pool of part timers rather than a limited pool of only six refs who are guaranteed a SL game every week.

Dave

Interestingly he only apologises for the offside. I have yet to see anybody offer a reason for the award of the penalty beforehand.