Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:26 am  

007 wrote:

Wrong,he only gave it after consulting the touch judge,who was in a much better position to see the incident.

Sorry mate but thats b0llocks unless he has mind powers he didn't consult anyone as he gave the decision straight away you must be thinking of a differnt incident there were that many tbf its easy to lose track.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:32 am  

All you need to look at is the first decision when we were adjudged to have carried out a player into touch. He gave a Cas SCRUM. Joke ref, not got a clue, get him out. Pathetic.
To see a player like Fiztgibbon, consistently questoning decisions says it all for me.

Best side lost. Classy cas, were dirty tonight, but got the points. They did not deserve them though.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:38 am  

cod'ead wrote:

I don't need to see the incident, all I need to do is quote what The Laws of the Game state.

You don't need to see an incident to be able to quote something from the 'The Laws of the Game'? You do realise you could be quoting completely the wrong thing?

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:54 am  

denbo63 wrote:

Sadly I can see me going down the same road as a lot of other folks I know that have got disillusioned with the sport for things like referees and general RFL fook ups and spend my damned hard earned coin on summat else....

I think that's a good point mate. At this present moment in time, I'm not all that fussed about Super League. The NRL is a much better competition and that's without even looking at the quality of the players over there. The officiating and actual rules are miles ahead of what we have over here. If an NRL game was played at the same time as a Super League game, it wouldn't even cross my mind to watch the SL game. It's a sad state of affairs that it's come to this really.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:03 am  

I didn't see the Hull v Cas game so no comment.

But when I first witnessed a Childs refereeing display I offered the opinion that the purpose of Childs was to make it seem that the other refs maybe aren't all that bad after all.

It works too. Nowadays when I look to see who is reffing a match I always think 'Anyone but Childs'.

From now on I guarantee whoever your least favourite ref has been in the past, you will welcome them with open arms, because they are not Childs.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:05 am  

ash4hullfc wrote:

You don't need to see an incident to be able to quote something from the 'The Laws of the Game'? You do realise you could be quoting completely the wrong thing?

Read what was written and you'll see I was commenting on what was described on here.

I would have no need to witness a murder, yet still be able to quote the law on the subject

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:31 am  

childs was terrible but it was our inability to deal with his ineptitude that cost us the game.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:37 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

childs was terrible but it was our inability to deal with his ineptitude that cost us the game.

I think it was probably the amount of possession that we gave them in penalties that ultimately meant we didn't get enough time near their line in the second half. From the beginning of the second half (wasn't counting the first) we were 7-1 down in penalties at one stage. I know you favour the ill discipline and ineptitude line which is fair enough - what I would say is that had penalties been given for the same offences more evenly we would have had better field position and won the game. A different opinion but that's my take on it.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:52 am  

Staffs FC wrote:

I think it was probably the amount of possession that we gave them in penalties that ultimately meant we didn't get enough time near their line in the second half. From the beginning of the second half (wasn't counting the first) we were 7-1 down in penalties at one stage. I know you favour the ill discipline and ineptitude line which is fair enough - what I would say is that had penalties been given for the same offences more evenly we would have had better field position and won the game. A different opinion but that's my take on it.

I would agree with that completely. We were unable to sustain any real pressure on their try line because we just kept getting marched back down the field. The absence of Longy for a period didn't help either.

Re: Childs : Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:55 am  

Staffs FC wrote:

I think it was probably the amount of possession that we gave them in penalties that ultimately meant we didn't get enough time near their line in the second half. From the beginning of the second half (wasn't counting the first) we were 7-1 down in penalties at one stage. I know you favour the ill discipline and ineptitude line which is fair enough - what I would say is that had penalties been given for the same offences more evenly we would have had better field position and won the game. A different opinion but that's my take on it.

We all said the same at the game last night, if we had Ganson last night we would have won, comfortably as well