Referee For Saturday Is.....

[cpwigan]

Rob there is no consistency. Week by week the focus changes. You rightly point out to the mania about touching the ball with the foot. It lasted what? a fortnight? Now nobody does, we are back to where we started. So what was the point?

All referees are different and that produces inconsistency because as analysis shows some award penalties for X whilst another referee awards lots of penalties for Y. I would also suggest that the arrogance of Ganson was in part why he missed the offside at Cardiff. Similarly, Ganson reacts and treats players differently to say Russel Smith or Silverwood. He is unable to accept any challenge to his supposed authority and goes after players who do so.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Rob there is no consistency. Week by week the focus changes. You rightly point out to the mania about touching the ball with the foot. It lasted what? a fortnight? Now nobody does, we are back to where we started. So what was the point?

That lasted one game. Pretty much the same as the over penalised obstructions. The onus is on having a smooth flowing, event free game. If you look at penalty counts for the last few weeks some are under double figures, some low teens.

The focus changes dependent on how the game is being played, the time in the game and how both sides are playing. I define consistency as punishing the stonewall fouls and technical offences and giving chances to players with the borderline offences. If an incident hasn't irregularly affected play then is there any reason to stop the game. Similarly, if the incident goes within punishment will something flare up as a result? These aspects are all more consistently judged in my opinion.

Where inconsistency creeps in is how a referee views the borderline offences. Did a tacklers forearm contact a players chin because it was careless or because of the position the ball carrier put himself in? Was the ball stolen in a two on one tackle or was it the carrier offloading that meant he was carrying it loosly? There will NEVER be consistency with in these grey areas and it will always come down to how the referee feels it happened.

I would also suggest that the arrogance of Ganson was in part why he missed the offside at Cardiff.

I think it was more to do with the fact that the Bradford players were attempting to put off the kicker. Also, had Ganson gone to the VR, would he have asked to check the onside/offside? Weren't the Bulls players asking him to check the grounding, for which he was confident was done correctly?!

[cpwigan]

As long as I have been watching referees have been idiosyncratic. Indeed, many coaches highlight those very traits in their tip sheet. I think the stats prove it to. Nothing is more fundamental than the play of the ball and there is a huge variation in how that is policed. Some referees go 12 yards back, some go 8 yards back. Some call held early, some call it late. Hell they all use different phrases.

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:
I define consistency as punishing the stonewall fouls and technical offences and giving chances to players with the borderline offences.

Agreed on the definition, Rob, our point is that the "interpretations" differ, both from match to match (with the same ref) and from referee to referee.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Some referees go 12 yards back, some go 8 yards back. Some call held early, some call it late. Hell they all use different phrases.

No... all go back the 10 metres. Sometimes they don't get it quite right and more often than not the pitch markings aren't 10 metres apart making it even more difficult.

They all call held when the tackle has not reached full completion but when there is no longer any defensive or attacking advantage to be gained. An exception may be if a player is lifted, a referee may call held to avoid penalising a side for inadvertently carrying a player back.

Phrases are pretty much the same, they are all short and concise so that the players and other officials understand.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:

robjoenz posted:
I define consistency as punishing the stonewall fouls and technical offences and giving chances to players with the borderline offences.

Agreed on the definition, Rob, our point is that the "interpretations" differ, both from match to match (with the same ref) and from referee to referee.

Or...

is their interpretation consistent but your interpretation is not? hehe

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:

GeoffN posted:

robjoenz posted:
I define consistency as punishing the stonewall fouls and technical offences and giving chances to players with the borderline offences.

Agreed on the definition, Rob, our point is that the "interpretations" differ, both from match to match (with the same ref) and from referee to referee.

Or...

is their interpretation consistent but your interpretation is not? hehe

OK, let me give some more examples, then. cpwigan has already mentioned the incorrect PTB's - some refs penalise them; others don't. There were, quite literally, dozens in the Hull game, from both sides, yet all were ignored. Quite rightly ignored, IMO, yet earlier in the season we were seeing several being penalised. In the HKR game, we saw several penalties for "markers not square" - both sides were equally guilty of this in the Hull game, yet none were penalised.
You mention the "held" call; twice in the Hull game we "got away with" carrying a player some distance over the line, when we've seen refs in the past call held and penalise us for doing exactly the same thing.
Another old topic; again in the Hull game Calderwood, yet again, tried for a quick 20m restart, which he took from the proper spot, yet Bentham pulled him back. Some do; some don't: they're inconsistent.

I could go on. And on! And on! But I won't.

I was tempted to mention the offside at the kick-off that Ganson penalised us for last year, but I won't...although it's still just about the only time ever that that has been penalised!

[turf]

There are two types of consistancy:

Ben Thaler - Consistantly Good. :

The other Five - Consistantly cr*p. :sly: :sly:

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
OK, let me give some more examples, then. cpwigan has already mentioned the incorrect PTB's - some refs penalise them; others don't. There were, quite literally, dozens in the Hull game, from both sides, yet all were ignored. Quite rightly ignored, IMO, yet earlier in the season we were seeing several being penalised. In the HKR game, we saw several penalties for "markers not square" - both sides were equally guilty of this in the Hull game, yet none were penalised.
You mention the "held" call; twice in the Hull game we "got away with" carrying a player some distance over the line, when we've seen refs in the past call held and penalise us for doing exactly the same thing.
Another old topic; again in the Hull game Calderwood, yet again, tried for a quick 20m restart, which he took from the proper spot, yet Bentham pulled him back. Some do; some don't: they're inconsistent.

I could go on. And on! And on! But I won't.

There are reasons though...

Firstly the start of the season saw penalties given for anything and everything in an attempt to get players to do everything properly, it failed to work so now the game is being allowed to flow. Therefore, we can discount the first few rounds of this season.

Players not being square is not as simple as where they are stood, if they interfere they get penalised if they don't then what's the point? Similarly with offsides, and it's not a case of 'that player moved his back foot half a second before the ball was played.' Has that made a significant impact on play? Doubtful.

You can't compare current situations with ones in the past when it comes to pushing players back in the tackle because there was a change at the beginning of the season. So long as the player has not stopped the tackle is not complete. Unless, they are lifted of course, then it should stop.

The quick tap was stopped on Saturday because another ball was thrown on to the pitch for Calderwood whilst another Wigan player was retrieving the ball that went out of play. There were two balls on the pitch.

If you consider the last 10 rounds of SL you will see consistency has significantly improved. If you start comparing what happened last season when different interpretations were used you won't see a fair picture.

I was tempted to mention the offside at the kick-off that Ganson penalised us for last year, but I won't...although it's still just about the only time ever that that has been penalised!

The referee at Workington -v- Hunslet penalised one just on Sunday, players were about 6 yards off at the kick.

[stevocod]

You can criticise the refs all you want, but the responsibility of the consistency should be with Cummings. He points out the rules and how they should be interpreted to the refs (or supposed to!!), but it obviously is not working.

I agree with refs are inconsistent with varying decisions across the board, but you have to point the blame at the top and the so called professionalism of refs this year and so far there is no evidence to see that they sit down and discuss which the main indiscretions that should and should not occur with Cummings and the fellow referees.

Always there is going to be some differing interpretations by referees of any sport, but the variance of decisions needs to be narrowed across the board.

Its one thing at the end of season playing for GB with the differing interpretations of rules down under for internationals, but another when a player has to put up with it week in week out.

Normally (in most sports) the rules that are being clamped down on are told to teams by the governing body before the beginning of the season, but based on the first match of the season with that farce of a match, does any rule get extra attention or do clubs have to judge by themselves as it seems to me.