Just like a coach selects his best team, the league select their best refs. Now, if a player makes repeated errors he might find himself not playing, but only if the coach has a player he thinks is better to put in instead.

This is the problem, like it or not these refs that get selected are the best of the bunch. We can't simply go dropping refs because we've got nobody to replace them with.

Not strictly true. The problem, however, was the bizarre decision to move to full-time pro refs. As soon as you do that, not only do you cost the RFL a LOT of money which it doesn't have, but you also automatically limit your pool of referees for top games. It's almost impossible from that point on to award a SL game to someone from outside the cartel of full-time refs.



As it happens, I don't think the full-time referees are bad at all. But then as someone who has played, watched and reffed the game for 30 years now, I'm a little more balanced and understanding than some other fans who only see the decisions they disagree with affecting their own team. However, I think it's a big mistake to limit your top pool to such small numbers. Refs don't need to be full-time. It's quite possible to get part-time refs who are just as capable as the full-time guys, and that way, you'd have a much bigger pool to choose from to deal with fluctuations in form/fitness.

I disagree.







Who said anything about "before a game"? I've been talking in regards to decisions made by a referee, and the impact it has had "after" the game. I've never mentioned anything about before a match.







And who has said anything about starting the game without respect from the referee? I think you've gotten lost somewhere along the line.







Ah, the old "I don't agree with what you say so that must mean you know sod all about RL" comment.



You seemed to be quite a reasonable poster, it's strange how wrong you can be sometimes.

It was an example used in a hypothetical situation.



No need to get your boxers in a twist over it. But if you are really that unhappy with what I've put, then by all means exchange Chris Irvine for Jon Sharp or Steve Ganson or Peter Brooke or Ralph Rimmer or Nigel Wood or whoever else you want.



And anyway, if said coach in the example provided is able to talk to the RFL, the head of referees and the referee himself, does this mean that he is able to vent his frustrations to any of them without fear of repercussions? Or is it if he just vents his frustrations to a journalist either in print or on live television? I don't think so. Regardless of who he speaks to, either behind closed doors or out in the open, if he questions the integrity of the referee, I am sure the coach in the example would be punished accordingly.

Well if we change Chris Irvine for Jon Sharp, Steve Ganson or any other RFL official, we don't have an issue and no one has an underpants problem, because that is allowed and encouraged. So that being the case, just what are your knickers twisted around?



Whether he's at risk of repercussions for venting his frustrations, then I'd expect the standard real life rules around how mature adults converse will apply. i.e if said coach just rants at and insults a ref or official, than he'd get the same response to that as he would ranting and insulting most people. If he were to have a grown up conversation, then he'd get a different response.

You know, "after" game 1 is also "before" game 2 ? Right ?



Unless you've developed a mindwipe device which, if used, removes all memories of coaches' criticism of referees more than 24 hours after the event.







Seriously, if you think that having a coach slagging off a referee publicly for his players and club fans to read/see/hear isn't going to reduce the respect those same players have for that referee, then you're deranged. If you turn someone into an officially-sanctioned target for public criticism and opprobrium, then of course they will be afforded less respect in the future. It would be simply mad to suggest otherwise.









To be honest, if you genuinely think that allowing coaches, or players, or any club officials, to heedlessly criticise referees publicly, is a good idea, then I'm sorry but I'll stand by that statement. Nobody who has been on a pitch, whether as referee or player, thinks the game is made better by having a ref have to deal with the game after being publicly slagged off by anyone connected to one of the clubs in question.



I am a reasonable poster. It's this suggestion which is unreasonable. That's why Richie is quite rightly pushing someone else on it. Criticism is fine, as long as it's constructive. Even at an amateur level there are ways for criticism to be made of referees' performances. But it is not done publicly, ever. Because to do so would be to poison the atmosphere between all members of a club and the referee, and to make the safe control of future games almost impossible.



If Brown, for example, has a beef with a ref - and I speak as a Saints fan here - then he has channels for airing those issues. Spouting off to a journalist is completely unacceptable. It always has been and always should be. I for one do not ever want to see in rugby league a situation in which players feel able to do what they do in football and try to physically intimidate the referee on the pitch. Yet that is indisputably where such a concept of public criticism would lead.

But regardless of whether said coach rants and raves, or puts his point across constructively, he would still face sanctions because he is apparently questioning the integrity of a referee. Obviously by the way he acts, he would be spoken to in a different manner, but ultimately the outcome is the same.

What makes you think he'd face sanctions for this?



We're kind of talking about two different things by the way. Integrity, and ability....or both. I can't think why the integrity of an official would be questioned. Ability, yes.



By the way, if any RFL official publicly questioned the integrity of a coach, I'd expect repercussions for that too.

Well, that is how the numerical system works.







Yawn.







Where have I mentioned about a coach "slagging off" a referee? I'm talking about constructive criticism, gathering specific points and providing them in a respectful, professional manner. Not for instance bargining into a referee's room, pointing fingers and shouting "YOU F*****G SCREWED US OVER REF!"







So basically no matter how poor someone does their job, they are above constructive criticism? Why should that be allowed? So if a referee makes a poor decision, does that mean that his immediate boss is unable to give him constructive criticism regarding his performance? Or is it just the players and coaches that are not allowed to question him. I've not suggested anything otherwise, as you put it. I think the way you have seen my post, is that I think the coaches can come out and say absolutely anything about a referee. Maybe if I would have added the words "constructive criticism" in there, it may have been thought about differently. But, I stick by what I have said, regardless if other people seem to have read it differently.







Already explained it as above. I just don't get why people seem to think that if you give criticism of a referees performance, this automatically means that you don't respect them. I respect the hell out of my boss, but if she does something wrong, and it affects something that I do, I have to say something, albeit "con-struct-iv-ely". (see, I've added it there)







Again, where have I mentioned about referees being publicly slagged off? Again, I think you have interpreted my words incorrectly. I'm a qualified referee myself. Yes, I wouldn't enjoy someone coming over effing and blinding in my face, saying I was biased, saying that I'm a "f*****g cheat", but if someone came over and gave me feedback constructively on my performance (whether it was average or bad), then that is something that is not a problem to me.







Riiiight.







I disagree. But even though I disagree with you, I'm not going to question your integrity and say that you know nothing about Rugby League. It's all about having decorum, Roy. You'd be well trying it sometime.







But that's what I have been saying. Constructive criticism. Not shouting and swearing and making a fool of yourself.







And as I said to Ritchie, the journalist thing was part of a hypothetical situation and if the name was changed and the situation was changed, then there shouldn't be an issue. But like I said earlier, if a coach gives constructive criticism regardless or not if it's behind closed doors at Red Hall, or on a radio station, there will still be sanctions against him.

Actually, that is about as bad an example as you can give. There are plenty of people, slef included, who are very happy with that decision, as I am convinced that it was a try,, and moreover, have explaiend why, and interestingly enough, nobody has challenged the reasoning. Which i didn't think anyone who thought about it could fairly do.



The only issue with that try is if the ball hit the corner flag first, but to put it neutrally, there is no evidence at all that it did, so it would be wrong to disallow on some hunch.



Anyway, given that there is (at least) a large body of opinion, backed up by the laws of physics, that strongly suggest it was a valid try, it would be ludicrous to ask how you can respect a VR who amkes that decision. It was a decision he was entitled to make, and I personally am sure it was right. Even if somehow the decision was wrong, it certainly isn't a "respect" issue whatsoever.







This. The only people it suits are the loudmouthed bigots who dominate radio phone-ins. Anyone who can't see why a sport needs to give respect to its officials is a very stupid person indeed. Mercifully we have not only TGG, but also perhaps the game in the world which shows the most respect for officials, which given the intense nature of the sport is astonishing. Long may it continue, and a plague on the houses of the misfits who want officials regularly castigated in public by biased people, who are invariably wrong anyway.

Because he's questioning the decisions of the referee? So if he was to visit Red Hall, speak to a RFL official on the quiet and discuss how a referee's decision cost his team the game, he wouldn't face sanctions, but if the coach was to do it in an interview on Sky Sports, he would?



I would have assumed that just questioning the decision of a referee would mean a possible fine, or in football, a touchline ban.







Integrity would only be questioned if someone really believed that there was a conspiracy against them and that the referee was part of that. Hull KR fans maybe? I think I've seen both linked in together, hence why when I stated integrity in the past if I did (can't recall), didn't necessarily mean that someone thought the ref was biased, just that his decision making was being brought into question. Guess that could fall in either integrity or ability.







Well, of course. That would be a given.