Referee for Friday

[josie andrews]

Super 8s

WIGAN WARRIORS V WARRINGTON WOLVES
Friday 14th September
DW Stadium | KO : 19:45

Referee R. Hicks

Touch Judge 1 M. Griffiths
Touch Judge 2 A. Martin
Reserve Referee B. Pearson
Reserve Touch Judge G. Melling

Video Referee B. Thaler

M Com D. Hayes
Time Keeper F. Hawley

[Southern Softy]

Even for a dreadful ref like Hicks, this was a new low. Just some of the lowlights - a pen for a high tackle that was on the chest and never went higher - a knock-on for a ball that was probably a pass out the back and certainly went backwards and finally giving Wire a scrum for a ball they knocked into touch, a pen for Sam putting his hands on his head and saying "What?" and then compounding his weakness by giving a yellow card to Sam. And that's the same yellow card that he gave to Lineham (not normally a dirty player) who should have seen red for a very hasty head shot.
I know his touch judges were useless but that's a fact of life these days and all refs have to cope.
Bet he gets the Grand Final.

[BriH]

It's dreadful when the Refs and their helpers become the focus of attention.
Maybe I'm biased, but I think the general standard of refereeing is terrible and is killing the game - I'm including Vid Refs who don't know how to use the technology. They think if they slow it down to micro seconds they will pick up some error. They want to look at the NRL: not perfect, but a lot better than ours.
One of the key areas - in my opinion - that needs to be looked at urgently if IL et al dreams of making Super League more spectator orientated is to be achieved.

[shaunedwardsfanclub]

I always look at consistency in terms of how a referee operates and I am afraid I couldn't apply that word to Hick's performance on Friday. Sure I expect him to make mistakes but his refereeing of offside was non-existent. Where was his help from his mates in the stand?

[fozzieskem]

Truth of it is Hicks got most things right on Friday,yes he seemed a bit tetchy but otherwise he was spot on,sam being mouthy,off you go,the nasty little dig from Lineham,on reflection right.

The nonsense round the ruck has to stop,the constant looking for penalties again needs to be stopped,Wigan are masters at it and that has to be down to the coaching of the side,grant you it’ll be in the spirit of the rules and if so get it changed far too much play acting is creeping in and it needs stamping out.

Hicks and Childs are the best of them and the standard is slipping but that has to be down to Ganson since he arrived things have got worse,refs need help someone at halftime maybe to point things out,explain the reasoning I don’t know if it happens now but it should,even a well done can do wonders for confidence.

The SL has a chance to lead the game in the right direction stop the nonsense round the ruck is a good a place as any to start and give refs the help they need.

[Great grandad Harry ball]

Hicks had a general stinker, he got plenty ( and I mean plenty ) wrong but wasn't helped by the touchjudges who I thought were there to assist, particularly with offside.
If Tomkins mouthed off then yes, this is something that he was right to punish but for goodness sake, the decision that Hicks made over this was seen by every camera, the entire South stand and possibly even the West stand, but again not the touchjudge who was all of 5 yards away.
The general standard of refereeing is not helped by their lack of confidence in actually having to make a decision, without referring it for back slapping.

[AncientWarrior]

Hicks had a general stinker, he got plenty ( and I mean plenty ) wrong but wasn't helped by the touchjudges who I thought were there to assist, particularly with offside.
If Tomkins mouthed off then yes, this is something that he was right to punish but for goodness sake, the decision that Hicks made over this was seen by every camera, the entire South stand and possibly even the West stand, but again not the touchjudge who was all of 5 yards away.
The general standard of refereeing is not helped by their lack of confidence in actually having to make a decision, without referring it for back slapping.

Total agreement from another Great Grandad.

Other sporting bodies have realised that referees are not just there to make correct decisions but also to ‘manage’ games. It’s not enough just to learn the first names of players but to explain ‘contentious’ decisions whenever appropriate. Take the Tomkins incident as an example: The ball was out of play following the contact with Lineham’s shoulder and therefore there was no need for a hurried decision. If he considered that Lineham hadn’t played at the ball (a stupid rule in my opinion) then he had the opportunity to explain his decision- it happens in other sports. If Tomkins continued to complain after an explanation, he deserved to be sent off.

Hicks has IMO an unfortunate aloofness that borders on arrogance. Not good qualities in a professional referee.

[doc]

Hicks had a general stinker, he got plenty ( and I mean plenty ) wrong but wasn't helped by the touchjudges who I thought were there to assist, particularly with offside.
If Tomkins mouthed off then yes, this is something that he was right to punish but for goodness sake, the decision that Hicks made over this was seen by every camera, the entire South stand and possibly even the West stand, but again not the touchjudge who was all of 5 yards away.
The general standard of refereeing is not helped by their lack of confidence in actually having to make a decision, without referring it for back slapping.

Total agreement from another Great Grandad.

Other sporting bodies have realised that referees are not just there to make correct decisions but also to ‘manage’ games. It’s not enough just to learn the first names of players but to explain ‘contentious’ decisions whenever appropriate. Take the Tomkins incident as an example: The ball was out of play following the contact with Lineham’s shoulder and therefore there was no need for a hurried decision. If he considered that Lineham hadn’t played at the ball (a stupid rule in my opinion) then he had the opportunity to explain his decision- it happens in other sports. If Tomkins continued to complain after an explanation, he deserved to be sent off.

Hicks has IMO an unfortunate aloofness that borders on arrogance. Not good qualities in a professional referee.

Totally agree. Remove any opinion as to whether the player attempted to play the ball or not. The ref then has a black and white decision to make. I would also go back to allowing the ball to be stolen when there is more than one player in the tackle. All ref has to do then is make up his mind if any side knocked on if the ball goes to ground.

[jao 711]

Hicks had a general stinker, he got plenty ( and I mean plenty ) wrong but wasn't helped by the touchjudges who I thought were there to assist, particularly with offside.
If Tomkins mouthed off then yes, this is something that he was right to punish but for goodness sake, the decision that Hicks made over this was seen by every camera, the entire South stand and possibly even the West stand, but again not the touchjudge who was all of 5 yards away.
The general standard of refereeing is not helped by their lack of confidence in actually having to make a decision, without referring it for back slapping.

Total agreement from another Great Grandad.

Other sporting bodies have realised that referees are not just there to make correct decisions but also to ‘manage’ games. It’s not enough just to learn the first names of players but to explain ‘contentious’ decisions whenever appropriate. Take the Tomkins incident as an example: The ball was out of play following the contact with Lineham’s shoulder and therefore there was no need for a hurried decision. If he considered that Lineham hadn’t played at the ball (a stupid rule in my opinion) then he had the opportunity to explain his decision- it happens in other sports. If Tomkins continued to complain after an explanation, he deserved to be sent off.

Hicks has IMO an unfortunate aloofness that borders on arrogance. Not good qualities in a professional referee.

Totally agree. Remove any opinion as to whether the player attempted to play the ball or not. The ref then has a black and white decision to make. I would also go back to allowing the ball to be stolen when there is more than one player in the tackle. All ref has to do then is make up his mind if any side knocked on if the ball goes to ground.

. Agreed ,too many decisions are based on the refs opinion and not the written rule.Referees have enough to watch as it is.We have a book of rules we need to enforce them.For instance ,a pass has to travel backwards but now we have “line ball”which is allowed so it is no wonder we see so many forward passes.The play the ball is a shambles. Much of this is down to coaches and not all the fault of referees who have their hands full with all the “tactical injuries” we are seeing leading to endless stoppages,and the list goes on.I was pleased to see an Aussie ref penalise a man who deliberately threw the ball at an offside player which is another ruse that has appeared and there all doing it.Penalise it and the coaches will stop it.

[moto748]

Well they've tweaked the rules (or the interpretation of them) a little in the NRL on this. But it's always going to remain a bit of a grey area. There is still far too much lying in the ruck, and insufficient effort to get out of the way. In the NRL, dummy halves are having to step over prone bodies to fetch the ball all the time, slowing up the play, and this is largely permitted, and the players just get on it. I agree that throwing the ball at prone players who are not in the way of any pass at all should be penalised, but only in the clearest and most blatant of cases. The onus should remain primarily with the tackler to get out of the way.