So this whole thread has been about an incorrect assumption you made?







It's an important differentiation, which was why I made the point.







So why would anyone think it's OK for a coach to publicly challenge the integrity of a referee?

Where have you got this idea that there are sanctions for complaining about a referee through the right channels?



That's the key thing here - the channels such issues are raised through.

Although most of the Younger ref's these days seem to be touchjudges-cum-ref's, when did this start ? i know they are also qualified ref's but we never used to have this - you can have a guy running the line in for example a bottom of the league clash who the next day is a ref or video ref for a top 6 game or something, just doesn't seem right to me.

It was a variation of an assumption.



And anyway, I wasn't aware I started the thread....







I'm pleased for you.







Where have I said it's okay for a coach to come out and publicly complain that a referee is biased against their team or has a conspiracy against them? I've said the coaches should be allowed to question the decisions made by a referee using constructive criticism, but I've never said it's okay for them to accuse the referee of being biased and having a conspiracy against their team.

I didn't say you had started the thread.





Happy to help, at least we have achieved some education for you on this thread if nothing else.







Do you realise other posters are posting on this thread and have suggested referees should be criticised publicly? You yourself stated "What I'm saying is that there shouldn't BE restrictions" by the way.

I don't see the problem with that. It makes sense for the younger officials to get involved to a different extent in the bigger games, rather than just being thrown in as the main referee at some point in their career. I cant remember Steve Ganson's development, but I presume at some point he went from being a lower league ref to doing a full time Super League game, without any middle ground to bring him upto speed with the top level.



It should also give them a broader vision of the game and a proper understanding of the different roles.

Totally true. By going to full time referees you are limiting the pool to a group of people who are willing to accept about £30k and work in Leeds regularly. Thus ruling out anyone who has a fruitful career in another industry, doesn't want to commute to Leeds, doesn't want to retire from their career at 40 etc....



It makes me wonder what type of people these guys are that they are willing to do it, is it because they cant get anything better / earn more elsewhere; and if so, why are we limiting ourselves to such candidates.



Assuming that the refs can hit the required fitness and competence standards, it shouldn't matter that they are an investment banker or a milkman in the week.

It was implied.







Heh heh, another one that can't debate without throwing insults around. Shame that, I was enjoying having decent debate with someone who I thought seemed to be an okay poster, well, until I seen some of your postings on other topics. You like starting a lot of conflict, don't you......









Well, that's up to them. I'm just replying to the posts that are addressed directly to me. And if they are doing that, why are you not pulling them up on it too?







Indeed I did. I believe it was in response to you saying that coaches can give constructive criticism about referees but there are restrictions on WHERE they can say it.



If you want me to back down so that you can update your excel spreadsheet with all the people you feel you have "bested" on an internet forum, why don't you just ask me mate? I probably won't, but at least you will have gone through the "correct channels"...

Then you misunderstood.







You felt insulted by that?

Looking back, your first contribution to this thread was "Oh shut up, you tart." albeit to a poster who is a bit of a cock. You later made reference to a coach discussion referees with his budgie. Would anyone think you an okay poster reading those posts?





Because it takes too long to go pull up every post, and as you'll have seen, some posters can't even answer clear questions.





Thanks for the clarification.





Why would think I think this is that important?





So, after all this, what do you feel about how and where coaches should criticise officials?

Nah, I really didn't.







Nope, I thought it was mildly amusing which surprised me as I didn't think you had any humour in you. Good on ya pal!







Well, at least we agree on something. As I'm sure hundreds of others do on here too. Though I wouldn't say "a bit".







Hypothetical scenario. I could have chosen something else, but some budgies respond to speech so I thought I would include it. Do you have pets? If you do, do you speak to them? I can imagine a lot of people do.







One of your internet forum "pet peeves" I guess. I can imagine you have a lot of them.....







It was my pleasure.







Did you miss a word out there? Question sounds a bit off. If the word was "you", then I would think that it's very important for you to best people in forum combat. If the think word was duplicated, then who really knows what you think....







After all what, Ritchie? The conflict? The budgie talk? The misunderstandings? I mean, if it's really truly that important to you, what answer would you like me to give?

Awarding a try that was clearly not a try. Therefore not doing his job correctly. If I didn't do my job correctly I would be punished.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the refs do their job for the love of the game?



[size=50(or it might be because they are a bunch of jumped-up, power -mad little Hitlers)[/size