Eamonn McManus on CC Final referee

[Cheshire Setter]

24 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

...and all on video.

They’d still go with the original decision LD

[Cheshire Setter]

McManus has a vested interest in publicising the game of RL to grow his club.   Maybe it’s all a big conspiracy between Saints and the RFL to provide a build-up to the grand final with some controversy (the media love that don’t they?).

And at the end of the match when Saints are presented with the trophy by Jonny Vegas, Eamonn McManus will peel off a rubber face mask to reveal he has actually been Nigel Wood all along.   RL will suddenly become the Nation’s favourite sport and all will be good in the world.

Maybe.

[Dave T]

Does anybody remember the uproar and criticism when the ref called for the VR on the 3 (iirc) occasions that he did?

No?

There was no uproar.

[Padge]

8 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

I’m not sure football isn’t ahead of us now in that respect. Coaches now blame referees as a matter of course in a way that wouldn’t be tolerated in football.

I think that all coaches should be pulled in before next season and told how the game will be refereed concerning players behaviour towards referees. It should be zero tolerance of questioning decisions other than through the captain who must do it in a gentlemanly fashion, that means his opening line must always be excuse me sir. It may be very old fashioned but it bloody well works.

Next in is chairmen, they should be told that there are channels open to them to communicate with the RFL and that communications about referees, governance and all matters other than their own clubs problems should be conveyed through those channels. Failure to do so, a substantial fine, no suspensions, instant fine.

I for one am getting p'd off with how the game is drifting away from its core ideals of respect for officials.

[Man of Kent]

2 minutes ago, Padge said:

I think that all coaches should be pulled in before next season and told how the game will be refereed concerning players behaviour towards referees. It should be zero tolerance of questioning decisions other than through the captain who must do it in a gentlemanly fashion, that means his opening line must always be excuse me sir. It may be very old fashioned but it bloody well works.

Next in is chairmen, they should be told that there are channels open to them to communicate with the RFL and that communications about referees, governance and all matters other than their own clubs problems should be conveyed through those channels. Failure to do so, a substantial fine, no suspensions, instant fine.

I for one am getting p'd off with how the game is drifting away from its core ideals of respect for officials.

Coaches, chairmen and most of all fans.

We should all try and wind in our neck about refs. It’s gone a bit too far.

 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Coaches, chairmen and most of all fans.

We should all try and wind in our neck about refs. It’s gone a bit too far.

 

Sadly, the RFL did some stuff about this, including some nice media work, focusing on their Enjoy the Game project.

This is  now being thrown back in their face by a sore loser.

[Padge]

It would be really good if next weekend supporters would start a chant of "Respect the Ref" clap,clap,clap "Respect the Ref" at the start of every single game.

 

[Cheshire Setter]

17 minutes ago, Padge said:

I for one am getting p'd off with how the game is drifting away from its core ideals of respect for officials.

 

12 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Coaches, chairmen and most of all fans.

I agree.

However, we have to give credit to the players from both teams at Wembley their behaviour was impeccable with both the referee and each other.   It was a pleasant surprise.   Maybe they’d been briefed by the officials due to Harry being present.

I can only remember two occasions where they nearly let it slip.   One was when Goodwin denied Makinson a try and stood over him potentially goading  him.   Makinson didn’t react.   The other was Taia’s swinger on King, again King didn’t get up and react.

Maybe the RFL could point coaches in the right direction too.   I don’t think wealthy chairmen would even listen to be honest.   An essential ingredient in getting to that position is through not playing fair .

As for fans let us moan about decisions and then look stupid. It’s all part and parcel of talking about the game and debating stuff. Totally different to club officials writing in publications, and who would really listen to a bunch of beer-swollen terrace-dwellers and take our views seriously.   This forum would disappear without referee analysis!

[Padge]

2 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

 

I agree.

However, we have to give credit to the players from both teams at Wembley their behaviour was impeccable with both the referee and each other.   It was a pleasant surprise.   Maybe they’d been briefed by the officials due to Harry being present.

I can only remember two occasions where they nearly let it slip.   One was when Goodwin denied Makinson a try and stood over him potentially goading  him.   Makinson didn’t react.   The other was Taia’s swinger on King, again King didn’t get up and react.

Maybe the RFL could point coaches in the right direction too.   I don’t think wealthy chairmen would even listen to be honest.   An essential ingredient in getting to that position is through not playing fair .

The players at the cup final showed that it can be done, dissent was absolutely minimal. Had they been told that Hicks had had instructions to stamp on dissent quickly and decisively,  we don't know, but it does show that players can behave if even if certain chairmen can't.

[shaun mc]

16 minutes ago, Padge said:

I think that all coaches should be pulled in before next season and told how the game will be refereed concerning players behaviour towards referees. It should be zero tolerance of questioning decisions other than through the captain who must do it in a gentlemanly fashion, that means his opening line must always be excuse me sir. It may be very old fashioned but it bloody well works.

Next in is chairmen, they should be told that there are channels open to them to communicate with the RFL and that communications about referees, governance and all matters other than their own clubs problems should be conveyed through those channels. Failure to do so, a substantial fine, no suspensions, instant fine.

I for one am getting p'd off with how the game is drifting away from its core ideals of respect for officials.

I'd be happy with that Padge, but I really can't see it happening, as the RFL would have to grow a pair

How much of this do we point at the way Sky commentate their matches where they spend more time on refs decisions than the game itself

[Man of Kent]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Sadly, the RFL did some stuff about this, including some nice media work, focusing on their Enjoy the Game project.

This is  now being thrown back in their face by a sore loser.

Hopefully McManus has inadvertently given the Enjoy the Game project a shot in the arm.

In fact I would recommend the RFL insists  McManus is photographed wearing a pink Enjoy the Game ref jersey as, er, a publicity stunt. 

[Cheshire Setter]

6 minutes ago, shaun mc said:

How much of this do we point at the way Sky commentate their matches where they spend more time on refs decisions than the game itself

That should maybe explain more recent fans’ reactions, but a chairman shouldn’t really be influenced by modern commentating/TV coverage standards.

He’s done this with one intention only, and that’s to distract.   I bet he doesn’t even disagree with half the decisions he’s talking about.   He just wants less focus on team’s performance.   He’s achieved that with great success.   I’ll be the first to give him credit for that... in the same way I give credit to Donald Trump for getting so many Americans to believe him

[Padge]

5 minutes ago, shaun mc said:

I'd be happy with that Padge, but I really can't see it happening, as the RFL would have to grow a pair

How much of this do we point at the way Sky commentate their matches where they spend more time on refs decisions than the game itself

Sky certainly do not help, they just want to wind people up about decisions all the time rather than concentrating on the great play that occurs in every single game.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said:

That should maybe explain more recent fans’ reactions, but a chairman shouldn’t really be influenced by modern commentating/TV coverage standards.

He’s done this with one intention only, and that’s to distract.   I bet he doesn’t even disagree with half the decisions he’s talking about.   He just wants less focus on team’s performance.   He’s achieved that with great success.   I’ll be the first to give him credit for that... in the same way I give credit to Donald Trump for getting so many Americans to believe him

I'm not convinced it is as simple as distraction. I actually think he is raging, and we know he doesn't like the RFL.

To double down on his complaint shows it is more than distraction to me.

[Oxford]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not convinced it is as simple as distraction. I actually think he is raging, and we know he doesn't like the RFL.

To double down on his complaint shows it is more than distraction to me.

Based on bad reasoning it was a bad call to complain. I still think it showed in the noises the crowd made the other night. Sucking it up is the hardest thing in sport that's why to everyone it appears so excellent when it's done well.

[shaun mc]

3 minutes ago, Padge said:

Sky certainly do not help, they just want to wind people up about decisions all the time rather than concentrating on the great play that occurs in every single game.

Thats one of the reasons I haven't gone back to Sky after giving it up about 5 years ago

I remember talking to Stevo in a pub in Edinburgh after a CC Final and he said he was under orders to be 'controversial' (I'm sure more than me have had that conversation) but now its definitely getting a bit bearing with Cummings now in there.  I've even turned off the  Sky Sports Mix games with their 'ref analysis'. I think they totally undermine the ref now.

I was fine with the decision at full speed as we were sat almost on the try line, but I can see why some are miffed. I'm glad Hicks made a decision at full speed and got on with it - our game is about continuity.

[JohnM]

3 hours ago, Padge said:

Jack Dearden's mate. 

Ah!  You heard! 

[Padge]

Just now, JohnM said:

Ah!  You heard! 

He ignored my two  comments, the b@st@rd

[Clogiron]

And what sort of punishment do you think the RFL would dare to dish out to one of SLs 'big 5' or for that matter do you honestly think SL will be issuing admonishment?

These are the people who believe they run the game and as such belive they are above questioning or censure.

Welcome to the murky waters of the game's future

[Just Browny]

I really hope Karl Fitzpatrick invites Hicks and McManus round to the HJ for a brew and a make-up session.

[Dave T]

Rod Studd is often a wind-up merchant on twitter, but his thread here is perfectly put...

 

 

[Oxford]

What a complete waste of time!

The comments were wrong not the decision at the game.

Asking a silly question 9,897,562 times doesn't make it any less illogical.

Get over it ... if only they still used newspaper for wrapping fish and chips!

 

[Cheshire Setter]

42 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why dont referees go to the video referee for every possible try/no try decision?

I think the bigger problem here is that the VR in our game was introduced not out of necessity, but as a gimmick from Sky with the advent of super league.

Ideally, we should have a fair playing field. That means VRs at every match with equal numbers of camera angles, with ALL decisions going to a VR.

We know that’s never going to happen due to financial restraints, and also it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s subjective and each referee would see things differently. Maybe it’s time we got rid of it as a gimmick and have NO VR at any game, to make things more even.   In which case the try at the final would still be disallowed and nothing would have changed here on the thread with McManus’ preposterous outbursts.

[Saint Toppy]

I don't agree with McManus making his feelings public in this way but I do understand why - born out of total frustration with the RFL.

Before the final Saints wrote to the RFL to question Hick's appointment given everything that was happening. The RFL said no their decision was final and Hicks would be the referee for Wembley. This decision by the RFL was the whole crux of the problem.

I don't believe Hicks was intentionally biased, just incompetent (I don't think any Ref is intentionally biased) but anybody would have been unsettled by a death threat, and to then have it all brought up again in the media just before a major final would almost certainly have been on his mind for the game. Any public perception of his impartiality disappeared when it was made public how close Hicks was with the Warrington club just before a major final. Consciously or unconsciously he was too close to one of the clubs he was due to officiate at that time.

The RFL should never have appointed Hicks to the CC Final under these circumstances. Refs make mistakes but Hicks should never have been put in that situation in the first place.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

I don't agree with McManus making his feelings public in this way but I do understand why - born out of total frustration with the RFL.

Before the final Saints wrote to the RFL to question Hick's appointment given everything that was happening. The RFL said no their decision was final and Hicks would be the referee for Wembley. This decision by the RFL was the whole crux of the problem.

I don't believe Hicks was intentionally biased, just incompetent (I don't think any Ref is intentionally biased) but anybody would have been unsettled by a death threat, and to then have it all brought up again in the media just before a major final would almost certainly have been on his mind for the game. Any public perception of his impartiality disappeared when it was made public how close Hicks was with the Warrington club just before a major final. Consciously or unconsciously he was too close to one of the clubs he was due to officiate at that time.

The RFL should never have appointed Hicks to the CC Final under these circumstances. Refs make mistakes but Hicks should never have been put in that situation in the first place.

It is certainly not up to St Helens to choose a referee or influence the choice of referee. The RFL are completely correct in that it is entirely their decision.