Imagine all the trophies we'd win if every single referee wasn't biased against Leeds.....

One thing that has always irked me a bit on the reffing side is why when going to the VR for try/no try it isn't automatically checked that the defending team are onside, because if they're not then that's always the first offence. I'd bet that every try disallowed by VR's from within the ten should have resulted in a penalty to the attacking team because of offside, but that none of them have. It's a small thing, but what's the point in having a ref shout 'on the line' if when every player ignores it it has no consequences?

Especially if you're going to disallow tries for an attacking player being offside at the play the ball.

Rugby League supporters are and always have been obsessed by referees. I think it blights their enjoyment of the game.

Silverwood made some errors (should have waited before blowing up for Farrell's professional foul and it ought to have been a penalty try, IMO). However, I bet if you count his errors they are dwarfed by the errors that the players make.

I don't think anyone expects referees to be perfect. What they expect them to be is competent and consistent, within reasonable parameters.



Certainly within a game, if you're going to be loose/tight on a particular offence then do it for the full 80. It's things like giving team warnings for a sequence of similar offences, then basically turning a blind eye to it that annoys fans. After Wigan were put on the team warning for high tackles, there were a couple of shots that came up off the chest/shoulder into the neck area that went unpenalised. These weren't any different to some of the offences that had brought about the team warning in the first place. That's the kind of thing that irritates fans, and it happens too often to be a coincidence.



Still, at least we've not reached the standards of football referees and started sending off the wrong players.

I don't have any expectations. They're simply not my focus. Occasionally at the game I might get agitated and wound up by a decision but usually I'm the one who is wrong. For example, at the game I was baffled and annoyed that they chalked off Moon's try. Watching back, it was obviously the right call.

Stuff like that is understandable though. No way the spectator in the stand is going to spot that, because you're not focused on where everyone is at the moment the ball is played. At the game, you're not getting the audio so you don't know exactly what it is the VR has been told to look for. 100% the right call by the officials working well together.



Nobody goes to the game to watch the officials, but that doesn't mean you can't look back after the game and comment on whether they did well, poorly or otherwise with any justification in the same way people analyse the performance of players.

You're talking like an idiot. Seems because you are a referee you think that your opinion carries more clout than a non referee, sorry to pee on your bonfire, but it doesn't, it's just another opinion. Let me ask you a couple of questions,

A; how often in a game do you see an offence being committed and choose to ignore it? Are you not cheating the fairer players by allowing law breakers to continually break the laws of the game, while the fairer players play at a disadvantage.

B; is your job as a referee to enforce the rules of the game without question ?

C; as a longstanding ref, have you changed your style of reffing because you are not brave enough to apply the rules as written in the rule book, simply because you want to fit the image of a modern ref that seeks a faster game.

I'll be interested to see your answers, but would class you as a weak person if you have changed your reffing style or enforcement of the laws just to fit in with the RFL's modern stereotype. How many governing bodies would order their referees to ignore offences such as a forward pass when everybody has clearly seen it? Absolutely unbelievable.

Any ref that says "speed it up in the ruck Sean, I've let four or five go", or as Thaler said a handful of times on Thursday when players lurched forward off the mark trying to win a penalty, "no,no, you're moving forward," is a cheat, simple as that. See an offence, penalise it. If you don't you are cheating the fairer players who play by the book.

Great, games with 100 penalties awarded throughout......I'd love to watch that.



Refs have to find the right balance between penalising stuff and trying to let the game flow.



You make it sound so very black and white. A ref warns a player about something "clearly then if he's done something wrong it's a penalty and he's cheated by not giving it!".......reffing a game isn't as simplistic as that and if the game was reffed how you're suggesting it should be it'd be an awful spectacle.

first of all, I simply pointed out refs in RL are poor in applying advantage.



secondly would you like a game where every single infringement is penalised? if so it would be a bloody awful game whatever the sport.



thirdly, I referee football. I have reffed league and premiership clubs. in football the laws are a guide. lots start " if in the referee's opinion". I wouldn't know how the RL ones are written but I suspect neither do you.



I would also argue no referee would ignore something as blatant as a forward pass. anyone who thinks they do is deluded.silverwood had a decent game on Friday. the two points I would take issue with is issueing a team warning the not following it up after a few high tackles.

also he could, and should, have waited to see where the ball ended up after Watkins flick. chelsea scored a great first goal today after a great advantage from the referee.



lastly this is a board for debate, if you have to resort to having pops and calling people idiots because you don't agree with them I suggest you grow up and get to bed. it's school tomorrow

Spot on Tad. I also think Silverwood had a decent game but not allowing Leeds advantage was very very poor as it could easily have changed the game (and in my opinion it probably did). He also needed to be a bit more contrite when explaining it to leeds players. Just saying "I'd blown the whistle" with a smile isn't good enough.



The Union refs are much better at that kind of thing in my opinion.