That's spot on. Surely as well paid officials the referees and the linesmen should be open to scrutiny. I actually think that they would improve if they had to do this and ironically would probably get more understanding from spectators. Why not have interviews with the ref after a game? Just like a player he could tell it from his point of view and on occasions admit to a mistake. It's a major facet of the game and the RFL need to get more respect for the current officials to have any chance of improving the standard or getting new ones in.

You'd think more ex players would take it up, they spend their playing days being abused by crowds. Didn't Bloem take it up?

I'd suggest that's the last comment anyone makes about Bloem for the time being.

give over, its reference to players becoming refs



name others then

There has long been a scheme for fast-tracking ex-players through the referee training programme. The fact that only Jamie Bloem has bothered to get close is evidence itself of the problem. Speak to any ex-player and ask if he'd want to take up the whistle, the answer will invariably be NO!

That’s the only one that has been settled irreparably by the officials, yes.







This is where I strongly disagree with the stance you usually seem to hold on the subject of officials. Yes, they will always have an influence on the game in the fact that they are there to enforce the rules, and therefore every decision made by them has an influence on the game. Where I think you are wrong is to suggest that in all but the single above case, the officials have not affected any other result in SL, to whatever varying degrees.



Any single decision can affect the momentum of the game and potentially swing it from one team to the other, so if that decision is wrong, they have had an effect on the outcome of the game. This is just as true when it is an accumulation of poor decisions putting one team at an advantage/disadvantage, as it often enables one of the teams to gain momentum/hang on with a greater share of possession than they should be having. This does not mean that sole responsibility lies with the officials, but it does mean that they do bear some of the responsibility, and it is simply unacceptable IMO how often this is happening. I don’t expect the officials to be perfect, it’s an impossible ask, but they are simply becoming an additional obstacle to overcome for one side more than the other in too many matches now, and I don’t only feel this way when watching Hull games.

Please re-read what you have written because in one sentence you are stating you don't expect them to be perfect and in another you appear to be expecting them to be perfect. I have already said they can have an effect but that effect is no more than any other element of the game. Would anyone berate a groundsman if a kicked ball deflected the wrong way off a divot and cost a team a try?



What many forget is the refs have one view and a split second to make a decision. 30 years ago we rarely had much controversy over referees decision because we didn't have multiple camera angles, slo-mo and multiple replays. There was also no t'interweb, so apart from a couple of people moaning on the terrace or in the pub, the only discussion and dissemination of an incident was conducted through the letters page of League Express or The Rugby Leaguer.

hicks was garbage . but so are most refs in super league

it was not that good

dont bite he is a retard

dont bite he is retarded

Which sentences, as I don't think I did? I'm not saying that I expect referees to never influence a result, or even that they ever could avoid affecting it in a slight way, what I am saying is that I think it is now happening too often to be acceptable. To expand upon your groundsman analogy, the occasional divot is acceptable, a quarter of the pitch looking like it's just been ploughed is not.



At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, IMO there are certain facets of the game where the way they are dealt with appears to be influenced by the team they play for, or simply how good they are at hiding an element of cheating. Key examples are the severity/likelihood of punishment, forward passes, ball stripping, and interference at the ruck. Teams seem to be inconsistently treated in these areas, and the last 2 in particular lead to teams having possession/position they should not have.

Then the teams that are crap at those aspects of the game should get better at it. Or would you rather the ref blow up for everything he sees? Any player will cheat, if he thinks he can get away with it, some players and clubs are better at it than others. For years we've been crap at controlling the ruck, especially against teams like Wire, Wigan, Saints & Leeds. We can bleat but it won't do a blind bit of good, we need to get better, that's all.



I think far too many people place far too much emphasis on the degree of influence a referee can have on a game, while happily overlooking the players' shortcomings.

Dave, I know you are an ex ref and I do think its a difficult job but its the inconsistency thats so frustrating. I also think that the big teams get a lot of the 50/50 calls, in addition Hicks and Child have had to be promoted and they are just not ready, players like Sinfield and Tomkins can quite easily influence them.



The biggest frustrations for me are offside and the play the ball, I have seen a lot of games this season where laying on penalties are just random, the second half at wakey Hull were almost playing touch as they kept getting penalised for it. Hull had a lot of penalties earlier in the game (for different infractions) and it seemed like it was an evening up of the count. Offside could be managed better by two referees but we just dont have the quality available, maybe we could just use a junior ref to only police offsides and get them used to the environment.



Its not getting any better but there seems to be no accountability and no indication that the RFL are looking to improve the situation.