It always seems to me that if the official gives a decent your way, he's o'rite but if he doesn't, he's a wa.... as the appreciative chant goes.
Steve Ganson is again in the spotlight and the reason seems to centre around the implementation of the warning rule, which has shown to be quite prevalent in the televised games he has officiated.
From what I understand, the official can use this rule at his discretion and with Ganson it seems he has adopted a 'three strikes and you're out' policy, if the bradford/Castleford game is anything to go by.
The way I see it is that if the official is consistent -and I think that Ganson has been- then we can't have too much cause for concern. If he gives penalties for genuine infringements, particularly around the ruck area where it seems the majority of the penalties he awards come from, we can't really have any complaints.
For me it is a doubled-edged sword situation. We want a fast, open game with minimal official participation but for the rules to be enforced correctly. That, to me, is quite a difficult balance to find.
I was talking about this with my Dad and although he saw my point of view on this, he also felt Ganson likes to be centre of attention, doesn't have such a great rapport with the players and is generally very 'headmaster-ish'.
For what it is worth, I support the officials and applaud the job they do. I couldn't do it. I understand how difficult it is but still want to see a marked improvement in the standard as well.
I think a lot of Rugby League supporters should cut them some slack and support them to improve our sport in that area as well.
Edited by HKR AWAY DAYS, 19 February 2013 - 01:24 PM.