Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:31 am  

ChrisH wrote:

The problem is Childs and Ganson both have an arrogance about them that leads them to apply the new interpretation without any thought about what has gone before. The reason this has been brought in is presumably in response to the complaints from the clubs about certain clubs - Wigan - introducing dangerous techniques which makes it ironic. So we suffer at the hands of Wigan , complain and then suffer an over zealous interpretation after 6 minutes. That will frustrate the players and the ref should understand that bigger picture. Frustrating certainly but then again the club were told about it and being a professional outfit we should have expected it. Childs was appalling but we knew that before the game. We should have dealt with it. I thought the game was as good as we've seen at the KC for ages , actually got the crowd on their feet. Pity Childs spoilt it as it could have been a really good game. Thought probably a draw would have been fair and that Cas were tougher than we've seen for some time. Chase did what we expected him to do and we couldn't stop him but it was Cas's resiliance in defence that won them the game in the end.

A genuine good post on the matter.

I think the main thing when directing criticism for the ref, especially from friday night, is that all round he was bad. A lot of Hull fans (maybe because of the loss) are piping up saying "he was biased etc". He wasn't. Just shier incompetent and if he carries on, people will turn away from the game. Fans and players of Cas are just as p1ssed as you lot. Twice this year we've won a game with him as ref but twice this year he's been the main talking point. Surely the RFL can't be blinded by this? I'm sorry but we're not a dirty team.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:04 am  

ComeOnYouUll wrote:

Not sure if anyone has actually posted the penalty count, but it was 14-13 in Castleford's favour.

It usually gives a strange slant on things the penalty count. You can pretty much guarantee a ref will even it up at some stage during the game and I think Friday was a prime example.

It seemed to me (black and white specs possibly) we got a lot of penalties on first or second tackle, when we where camped in Cas's 20 and very few when we needed them most, ie trying to clear our line or late in the tackle count.

The worst thing about Fridays game for me was the messing about at the play the ball. It was some of the worst I've seen in many a year, by both teams, but he seemed to ignore it most of the time and then out of the blue find a reason to give a penalty.

I also think as fans, we where sat there baffled by his decisions because he didn't give a clear signal as to what the penalty was for.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:23 am  

I think the Hull staff are just peeved that the Geordie who runs a local takeaway has finally realised the Gateshead merger failed and that he's stopped doing a 10% discount on Chicken Parmo to the Hull club.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:08 pm  

GJJ 79 wrote:

It usually gives a strange slant on things the penalty count. You can pretty much guarantee a ref will even it up at some stage during the game and I think Friday was a prime example.

It seemed to me (black and white specs possibly) we got a lot of penalties on first or second tackle, when we where camped in Cas's 20 and very few when we needed them most, ie trying to clear our line or late in the tackle count.

The worst thing about Fridays game for me was the messing about at the play the ball. It was some of the worst I've seen in many a year, by both teams, but he seemed to ignore it most of the time and then out of the blue find a reason to give a penalty.

I also think as fans, we where sat there baffled by his decisions because he didn't give a clear signal as to what the penalty was for.

That unfortunately is spot on and it happens week in week out. Generally when you watch penalties back the ref is probably , mistakes accepted , right. It's the next 5 or 6 similar occurrences that he misses that frustrate the hell out of everyone. Childs though is beyond inconsistency and just has to go.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:10 pm  

Anyone heard anything on repercussions?

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:05 pm  

GJJ 79 wrote:

It usually gives a strange slant on things the penalty count. You can pretty much guarantee a ref will even it up at some stage during the game and I think Friday was a prime example.

It seemed to me (black and white specs possibly) we got a lot of penalties on first or second tackle, when we where camped in Cas's 20 and very few when we needed them most, ie trying to clear our line or late in the tackle count.

The worst thing about Fridays game for me was the messing about at the play the ball. It was some of the worst I've seen in many a year, by both teams, but he seemed to ignore it most of the time and then out of the blue find a reason to give a penalty.

I also think as fans, we where sat there baffled by his decisions because he didn't give a clear signal as to what the penalty was for.

Spot on.

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:11 pm  

GJJ 79 wrote:

It usually gives a strange slant on things the penalty count.

Which is why quoting stats is as meaningless as suggesting that a ref will consciously think of giving one team an advantage over another by penalising at the end of a tackle count or in a "better" area of the field. There is simply far to much going on to be able to give such fanciful theories any credence

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:29 pm  

My view as a Cas fan is he was inept. His pedantic yet inconsistent application of the rules was ridiculous and was the main contributory factor to 2 teams becoming very frustrated.

The writing was on the wall after 10 minutes. He had sin binned someone, according to new rules, for a tackle that would normally just warrant a penalty. He penalised you guys for blocking on a kick return. This happens in every game of rugby league and goes unpunished. There was another incident if I was a Hull fan I would have been furious about I can't remember but it was again an inconsistent application of a rule very other referee ignores. We went 6-0 up then you controlled the game for 20 minutes. He levelled the penalty count on our line and warned Orr. You scored luckily or we would have definitely been down to 12. I would have been happy at 6-4 after how dominant you were in the first half and knowing child wasn't going to have to level the penalty count in the second half. We got some pressure and we were all happy to go in ahead still with 13 men.

The second half started badly as you got on top again and went ahead. We controlled the game from then on and did get penalties and at 20-12 with 20 to go you guys had to start chasing the game. We kept you in your end and defended well. You got back into it with a soft try and probably should have scored again in the 3 sets on our line before long walked. After that we just scrambled and were grateful to hold on.

As well as the first 10 minutes and the blatant levelling of the penalty count there were 4 other key incidents from what I saw.

1. In the first half Brett Ferres was warned after a head shot then the very next tackle he was bounced off the tackle and went swinging from behind the ball carrier. Only the fact the referee saw Isa as the culprit and warned him too kept Ferres on the field in my opinion. I was sure he was going to walk and I'm sure he will be in front of the disciplinary.

2. The fight in the second half in back play. This was dealt with by way of 2 yellows and a penalty to FC. I didn't see how it started as I was watching the play but did see it end. I'm pretty sure none of the officials or your fans did too as Long would have seen red. It was 3 on 1 and Aspinwall was helpless. I'm sure he will be banned for this too if they have the footage of it.

3. The long supposed head shot. I didn't see it but I think normally players reactions tell the story. From the reaction I guess Long was on the end of a bad one but it has to be remembered he was ducking ready to dive for the line. I'm guessing this should of been a penalty but it is never any more than that because Long was ducking. As I say I just saw him flattened and was happy tbh. He shouldn't have been on the pitch.

4. The red card. Correct decision - He will get a hefty ban as the punishment on the night was insignificant with 4 minutes to go. With the other incident I can't see him being available for a while.

I would expect Long to be the only man to receive a ban although Ferres' stupidity could have cost us the game. He needs a lesson so I wouldn't mind him missing a match

I think everyone agrees the guy worthy of the biggest suspension is James Child

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:32 pm  

littlekemp wrote:

My view as a Cas fan is he was inept. His pedantic yet inconsistent application of the rules was ridiculous and was the main contributory factor to 2 teams becoming very frustrated.

The writing was on the wall after 10 minutes. He had sin binned someone, according to new rules, for a tackle that would normally just warrant a penalty. He penalised you guys for blocking on a kick return. This happens in every game of rugby league and goes unpunished. There was another incident if I was a Hull fan I would have been furious about I can't remember but it was again an inconsistent application of a rule very other referee ignores. We went 6-0 up then you controlled the game for 20 minutes. He levelled the penalty count on our line and warned Orr. You scored luckily or we would have definitely been down to 12. I would have been happy at 6-4 after how dominant you were in the first half and knowing child wasn't going to have to level the penalty count in the second half. We got some pressure and we were all happy to go in ahead still with 13 men.

The second half started badly as you got on top again and went ahead. We controlled the game from then on and did get penalties and at 20-12 with 20 to go you guys had to start chasing the game. We kept you in your end and defended well. You got back into it with a soft try and probably should have scored again in the 3 sets on our line before long walked. After that we just scrambled and were grateful to hold on.

As well as the first 10 minutes and the blatant levelling of the penalty count there were 4 other key incidents from what I saw.

1. In the first half Brett Ferres was warned after a head shot then the very next tackle he was bounced off the tackle and went swinging from behind the ball carrier. Only the fact the referee saw Isa as the culprit and warned him too kept Ferres on the field in my opinion. I was sure he was going to walk and I'm sure he will be in front of the disciplinary.

2. The fight in the second half in back play. This was dealt with by way of 2 yellows and a penalty to FC. I didn't see how it started as I was watching the play but did see it end. I'm pretty sure none of the officials or your fans did too as Long would have seen red. It was 3 on 1 and Aspinwall was helpless. I'm sure he will be banned for this too if they have the footage of it.

3. The long supposed head shot. I didn't see it but I think normally players reactions tell the story. From the reaction I guess Long was on the end of a bad one but it has to be remembered he was ducking ready to dive for the line. I'm guessing this should of been a penalty but it is never any more than that because Long was ducking. As I say I just saw him flattened and was happy tbh. He shouldn't have been on the pitch.

4. The red card. Correct decision - He will get a hefty ban as the punishment on the night was insignificant with 4 minutes to go. With the other incident I can't see him being available for a while.

I would expect Long to be the only man to receive a ban although Ferres' stupidity could have cost us the game. He needs a lesson so I wouldn't mind him missing a match

I think everyone agrees the guy worthy of the biggest suspension is James Child

Can't disgree with any of that

Re: Childs : Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:06 pm  

littlekemp wrote:

My view as a Cas fan is he was inept. His pedantic yet inconsistent application of the rules was ridiculous and was the main contributory factor to 2 teams becoming very frustrated.

The writing was on the wall after 10 minutes. He had sin binned someone, according to new rules, for a tackle that would normally just warrant a penalty. He penalised you guys for blocking on a kick return. This happens in every game of rugby league and goes unpunished. There was another incident if I was a Hull fan I would have been furious about I can't remember but it was again an inconsistent application of a rule very other referee ignores. We went 6-0 up then you controlled the game for 20 minutes. He levelled the penalty count on our line and warned Orr. You scored luckily or we would have definitely been down to 12. I would have been happy at 6-4 after how dominant you were in the first half and knowing child wasn't going to have to level the penalty count in the second half. We got some pressure and we were all happy to go in ahead still with 13 men.

The second half started badly as you got on top again and went ahead. We controlled the game from then on and did get penalties and at 20-12 with 20 to go you guys had to start chasing the game. We kept you in your end and defended well. You got back into it with a soft try and probably should have scored again in the 3 sets on our line before long walked. After that we just scrambled and were grateful to hold on.

As well as the first 10 minutes and the blatant levelling of the penalty count there were 4 other key incidents from what I saw.

1. In the first half Brett Ferres was warned after a head shot then the very next tackle he was bounced off the tackle and went swinging from behind the ball carrier. Only the fact the referee saw Isa as the culprit and warned him too kept Ferres on the field in my opinion. I was sure he was going to walk and I'm sure he will be in front of the disciplinary.

2. The fight in the second half in back play. This was dealt with by way of 2 yellows and a penalty to FC. I didn't see how it started as I was watching the play but did see it end. I'm pretty sure none of the officials or your fans did too as Long would have seen red. It was 3 on 1 and Aspinwall was helpless. I'm sure he will be banned for this too if they have the footage of it.

3. The long supposed head shot. I didn't see it but I think normally players reactions tell the story. From the reaction I guess Long was on the end of a bad one but it has to be remembered he was ducking ready to dive for the line. I'm guessing this should of been a penalty but it is never any more than that because Long was ducking. As I say I just saw him flattened and was happy tbh. He shouldn't have been on the pitch.

4. The red card. Correct decision - He will get a hefty ban as the punishment on the night was insignificant with 4 minutes to go. With the other incident I can't see him being available for a while.

I would expect Long to be the only man to receive a ban although Ferres' stupidity could have cost us the game. He needs a lesson so I wouldn't mind him missing a match

I think everyone agrees the guy worthy of the biggest suspension is James Child

Excellent post and very measured.