Joel Tomkins

[Oxford]

If we were strict: fixed penalty, no appeal no grade A B or Z's we might look like it's fair.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

His media team

Yes , if he will keep taking advice from Alice the Tealady!

[LeeF]

7 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

I would accept your standpoint regarding bias of supporters, if my thoughts were purely based upon watching my own team. However, I have no love for Huddersfield, Wakefield, Hull KR or Salford, but it is amazing how often they are on the wrong end of the 50/50 calls when they are playing one of the more fancied teams.

I'm not saying it is down to referee's being biased. Personally, I believe it is more of a subconscious thing. Maybe it is down to pressure, when the crowd is screaming for a decision they are more inclined to see/interpret things in a particular way? Surely you will agree that it is human nature to do so, or are you saying referee's are never influenced in this manner? Maybe, it is just more noticeable when those clubs have been on the end of a bad decision, as it invariably ends with the opposition scoring, whereas other teams have the ability to hold out?

Do your own research, next time they are on TV, watch any of the teams mentioned above as a neutral, especially when they are playing one of the more fancied clubs, and see what you think? I reckon you will be amazed at how often they appear to get the thin end of the wedge.

Either that, or away from RL, have a look at the penalty decisions that have gone against Huddersfield Town and Burnley last season, at both ends of the field, ones they should have had that weren't given; and ones that shouldn't that were given to the opposition. I am not much of a football fan, but they were both on the end of some very poor decisions, and it happened far too frequently to be just down to mere coincidence.

The first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging but it seems you don't know that.

99% of the games I watch are as as a neutral and what you are posted is 100% wrong. The "smaller" clubs if you want to refer to them as that do not get less of the 50/50 decisions. It's a complete myth or a lie if you prefer.

I can tell you that's referees are 100% fair to all teams and there are consequences for serious mistakes or errors but it is clear that you haven't done any research on this subject

[fairfolly]

Refeees have a tremendously hard job on their hands,however they are not helped when we have the former Head of Referees Mr. Cummings ,coming up with a completely different decision several times even though he has the luxury of viewing the incident several times.This seems to me that refeees interpret the rules different ways.Is that humam nature or do they ignore the rules to suit themselves, or is that using the unwritten rule "common sense"?

[Liverpool Rover]

On 27/05/2019 at 22:07, WSRD said:

How did Roby get 10 minutes in the sin bin and Tomkins wasn’t penalised?

Inconsistency all around.

Robys was much worse so he should have had a ban as well, unless it was decided that a sin bin was sufficient which IMO it wasn't.

[DOGFATHER]

10 hours ago, LeeF said:

The first rule of being in a hole is to stop digging but it seems you don't know that.

99% of the games I watch are as as a neutral and what you are posted is 100% wrong. The "smaller" clubs if you want to refer to them as that do not get less of the 50/50 decisions. It's a complete myth or a lie if you prefer.

I can tell you that's referees are 100% fair to all teams and there are consequences for serious mistakes or errors but it is clear that you haven't done any research on this subject

Not in hole so no digging required.

Your comment of 100% of referees are fair defies human nature. It is so naive, it is laughable. How can any educated person begin to think that just because somebody has a particular role they are somehow impervious to human nature. Using your logical argument,  Harold Shipman is misunderstood rather than a murderer, because he was a doctor.

[LeeF]

33 minutes ago, DOGFATHER said:

Not in hole so no digging required.

Your comment of 100% of referees are fair defies human nature. It is so naive, it is laughable. How can any educated person begin to think that just because somebody has a particular role they are somehow impervious to human nature. Using your logical argument,  Harold Shipman is misunderstood rather than a murderer, because he was a doctor.

Yes you are in a hole. 

You also continue to make silly uninformed comments and keep doubling down. Referees at the level we are discussing are without bias. The overview system that they operate under is robust & extremely challenging. All your previous comments have been proven to be wrong and many miles from the truth so I can only think that you are either stupid or a troll

Out of interest have you ever sat a RL Match Officials exam? If so did you pass? Have you ever officiated at a RL game? If do at what level? Have you any knowledge or understanding of the training that is required?

[DOGFATHER]

12 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Yes you are in a hole. 

You also continue to make silly uninformed comments and keep doubling down. Referees at the level we are discussing are without bias. The overview system that they operate under is robust & extremely challenging. All your previous comments have been proven to be wrong and many miles from the truth so I can only think that you are either stupid or a troll

Out of interest have you ever sat a RL Match Officials exam? If so did you pass? Have you ever officiated at a RL game? If do at what level? Have you any knowledge or understanding of the training that is required?

Without bias - Proven by what factual evidence? 

I am not the one that is so blinkered to think that because somebody qualifies to do a particular role, it somehow makes them impervious to the laws of human nature. 

The robust structures you highlight are stronger than those to become a doctor, as in Shipman's case? I don't think so.

You have no argument, so have resorted to insults. 

This is a battle of wits against an unarmed man so I will leave it with you to ponder.

 

[johnh1]

As the OP, I’m with Dogfather on this. For the life of me, I cannot see how Tomkins was not sin binned, or even better, sent off in that match. He did a crusher tackle, a spear tackle, hit Hastings in the head not once, but twice, and showed clear dissent to the referee. A Salford player hit a HKR player late around his back, not even his head and got sin binned, rightly so. Maybe someone from the RFL, or even better, Thaler himself can come on here and explain why Tomkins got away with his misdemeanours, considering there was a video ref to help him.

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, DOGFATHER said:

Without bias - Proven by what factual evidence? 

I am not the one that is so blinkered to think that because somebody qualifies to do a particular role, it somehow makes them impervious to the laws of human nature. 

The robust structures you highlight are stronger than those to become a doctor, as in Shipman's case? I don't think so.

You have no argument, so have resorted to insults. 

This is a battle of wits against an unarmed man so I will leave it with you to ponder.

 

Prove your lack of bias. I won't wait as I know that you can't

I''m not blinkered unlike you because I actually know and understand what goes on. You haven't a clue

It is you that started the insults but don't let facts get in the way

Bring on a battle of wits if you think that I am so blinkered and uneducated. Just remember you have dug yourself into a hole with your lack of knowledge

Interestinglay you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions I posed at the end of my earlier post. I am sure that everyone can work out the answers due to your silence

[LeeF]

43 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

As the OP, I’m with Dogfather on this. For the life of me, I cannot see how Tomkins was not sin binned, or even better, sent off in that match. He did a crusher tackle, a spear tackle, hit Hastings in the head not once, but twice, and showed clear dissent to the referee. A Salford player hit a HKR player late around his back, not even his head and got sin binned, rightly so. Maybe someone from the RFL, or even better, Thaler himself can come on here and explain why Tomkins got away with his misdemeanours, considering there was a video ref to help him.

I suggest you go back & watch the game with a lack of bias and with a full understanding of the sport. I know it's a massive ask

Also remember the fact that a referee gets one view of any incident at full speed and that the VR can only be consulted in certain specific circumstances.

[LeeF]

9 hours ago, fairfolly said:

Refeees have a tremendously hard job on their hands,however they are not helped when we have the former Head of Referees Mr. Cummings ,coming up with a completely different decision several times even though he has the luxury of viewing the incident several times.This seems to me that refeees interpret the rules different ways.Is that humam nature or do they ignore the rules to suit themselves, or is that using the unwritten rule "common sense"?

It's not interpretation but mainly one view from one angle at full speed etc . Yes there are certain directives eg feeding at the scrum and yes there is discretion to use advantage or if it is a 6 and two 3s.

Add on the fact that they are all individuals and not robots plus all the players are coached to "cheat" and it is a miracle that they do such a decent job

[redsi42]

I wouldn’t say any ref is intentionally bias.  But the current system isn’t up to the standard we the fans deserve. 

43 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I suggest you go back & watch the game with a lack of bias

I did and wasn’t happy with the decisions made.  The disciplinary  panel agreed.  If your happy that refs are missing fouls that have an undue influence on the game then good for you.  I set my standards higher and think we deserve better. 

[johnh1]

1 hour ago, LeeF said:

I suggest you go back & watch the game with a lack of bias and with a full understanding of the sport. I know it's a massive ask

Also remember the fact that a referee gets one view of any incident at full speed and that the VR can only be consulted in certain specific circumstances.

For your information, I have been watching this sport for over 50 years, so I think that I have a pretty good understanding of the sport. So do you think that Tomkins should have at least been sent to the sin bin with his various misdemeanours? Especially given the fact that the video ref can help the on field ref in certain decisions such as these.

[LeeF]

10 hours ago, redsi42 said:

I wouldn’t say any ref is intentionally bias.  But the current system isn’t up to the standard we the fans deserve. 

I did and wasn’t happy with the decisions made.  The disciplinary  panel agreed.  If your happy that refs are missing fouls that have an undue influence on the game then good for you.  I set my standards higher and think we deserve better. 

What standard di you think you deserve that the current system isn't delivering?

Which fouls were missed? If you mean that the ref's view of an incident differs from that shown on a TV replay then admit that was the case

Clearly you think you can do better so get in touch with the RFL and I look forward to watching your first match

[LeeF]

8 hours ago, johnh1 said:

For your information, I have been watching this sport for over 50 years, so I think that I have a pretty good understanding of the sport. So do you think that Tomkins should have at least been sent to the sin bin with his various misdemeanours? Especially given the fact that the video ref can help the on field ref in certain decisions such as these.

Please re-read my post in full. The last paragraph in particular.

Despite your 50 years of watching (I've only got 47 including over a dozen refereeing & touch judging) your comments are very one sided and expecting perfection from nobody except the referee when in reality they are the most accurate &  unbiased of all the people involved

[johnh1]

2 hours ago, LeeF said:

Please re-read my post in full. The last paragraph in particular.

Despite your 50 years of watching (I've only got 47 including over a dozen refereeing & touch judging) your comments are very one sided and expecting perfection from nobody except the referee when in reality they are the most accurate &  unbiased of all the people involved

So you won’t answer the basic question that I asked, ie, do you (especially as you were a referee and touch judge (all credit to you for that, by the way)) think that Tomkins’ misdemeanours deserved at least a sin binning. So, let’s just agree to disagree.

[LeeF]

3 hours ago, johnh1 said:

So you won’t answer the basic question that I asked, ie, do you (especially as you were a referee and touch judge (all credit to you for that, by the way)) think that Tomkins’ misdemeanours deserved at least a sin binning. So, let’s just agree to disagree.

There isn't as such a totting up procedure as such for those types of offences so in real time without the benefit of hindsight then probably not.

The "crusher" if it had been picked up (& they are exceptionally difficult to see in real time) should have been a sin bin imo although Hudgell disagrees 

My comments about a lack of bias and one view in real time still remain key to this discussion

[Dave T]

Referee bashing is an odd thing. I get it in the heat of the match, but this thread is odd.

What do people actually want? I can only read it as perfection - people won't accept any mistakes, especially those deemed to be against their team. Well, guess what? That is impossible. 

Mistakes are part of sport, we will see scores of errors on the pitch every match, from players, officials, everybody. But that is life, we don't have robots, we have human beings watching one of the fastest sports in the world looking for about 10 things at once. In a high pressure situation. 

SO I ask again, what do fans want? Because if we dropped refs every time one of us deemed they had made a mistake, we would have no game. Some of you need to grow up and stop stropping every time you decide that the ref is unfair to your team. Because if we listened to the fans, then apparently refs are biased against all 12 SL clubs - how does that work?

The sooner you accept that mistakes happen and people are doing the best they can, the more you will enjoy the game.

[Swansea Jack]

Well said sir.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

I've seen referees make mistakes, I've seen them make some real clangers, I've seen referees get caught up in the heat of the moment, I've seen them lose control of games. I've seen the rub of the green go to one side.

I've seen the way a referee referees a game benefit one side. 

I've never watched a game and thought the referee was biased towards one side. 

Yup. If you get in the mindset that refs are biased, you are never gonna enjoy the game.

[Sports Prophet]

On 28/05/2019 at 17:50, Manx RL said:

It’s part of the conspiracy to ensure Leeds stay in SL.

No conspiracy required when you have Broncos in the SL

[Sports Prophet]

No match official wakes up in the morning and says to them self “game day, excellent. I can’t wait to get out there and make some bad decisions and potentially influence a result outside the players control.”

 

[Davo5]

I don't believe any referees go out to be biased,it's just in Hicks & Child's case,they are incredibly inept.

[Oxford]

8 hours ago, Davo5 said:

I don't believe any referees go out to be biased,it's just in Hicks & Child's case,they are incredibly inept.

So they can't win?

Maybe a moratorium for talking about refs might be the way forward.