Eamonn McManus on CC Final referee

[Cheshire Setter]

[Saint Toppy]

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

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.

It is if they believe the chosen referee either isn't in the right state of mind to be officiating a final at that time or if they believe he could have been influenced by a situation involving one of the clubs taking part in the final.

[Cheshire Setter]

15 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

There was NO perception of impartiality UNTIL McManus brought it up a week later.   It was seen as a mistake (even though we have yet to see conclusive proof it WAS a try - although I feel it was myself).

Warrington met Hicks 3 weeks before he was even chosen as the referee.   I’ll bet at some point in the past there has been a referee who’s been involved with some publicity regarding Saints...   so maybe they’ve been biased in Saints favour all season? 

This is just getting silly now.   There’s fans on Redvee suggesting Warrington subliminally squeezed info about how Hicks would ref the final in their meeting.   Even though he hadn’t been chosen at that point

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

It is if they believe the chosen referee either isn't in the right state of mind to be officiating a final at that time or if they believe he could have been influenced by a situation involving one of the clubs taking part in the final.

I could get on board with the second part of your statement (although I am not sure the opposing club is the appropriate party to make that judgement) but the first part is outrageous.

[Cheshire Setter]

And whilst all this is going on, I’ve not seen many Saints fans question the tactics to try and blow Warrington away in the first 20 by pushing the ball.   It failed in the heat as Warrington didn’t crack and Saints couldn’t mentally get over being in that position.  

It happens.   Teams lose finals, even against lesser opposition.   McManus needs to get over it now.

 

[Damien]

14 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

It is if they believe the chosen referee either isn't in the right state of mind to be officiating a final at that time or if they believe he could have been influenced by a situation involving one of the clubs taking part in the final.

That's up to the RFL to decide not St Helens, or any club for that matter.

[Cheshire Setter]

8 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's up to the RFL to decide not St Helens, or any club for that matter.

...and for what possible reason wouldn’t Hicks be in the right state of mind?   It was a publicity thing a month before.   It’s not like a fish wrapped in newspaper was left on his doorstep the night before.   Jeez.

(I was adding to your argument by the way, not arguing with your post!)

[Rupert Prince]

33 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

It is if they believe the chosen referee either isn't in the right state of mind to be officiating a final at that time or if they believe he could have been influenced by a situation involving one of the clubs taking part in the final.

You are absurd.  First off you start with "if" and run downwards from there on. 

[Dave T]

50 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

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.

 

Do you have any firm evidence on this - because tbh, I'd have thought McManus would have mentioned this in his two rants on this? 

[Barry Badrinath]

50 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.

Saint toppy, absolutely the first person id go to on this forum for fair and level headed comments on an issue involving sintellins and warrington.

[Barry Badrinath]

This thread would only be half as long if scotchy stopped repeating himself. Over and over.

[Tommygilf]

I can't remember anyone on any of the comments about the Hicks death threat media articles etc saying anything about it compromising his ability to Ref the final. I think thats because it clearly didn't matter then and certainly doesn't matter now.

Calling it a "publicity stunt" also hugely demeans the seriousness of the threat and demonstrates McManus' either sheer childish sore loser trait or a severe lack of perspective and responsibility. Both are worrying for someone involved in running one of the biggest clubs in the game.

[Dave T]

31 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

There was NO perception of impartiality UNTIL McManus brought it up a week later. 

I must admit, I didn't even recall that it was Hicks who had received the death threat. But then I don't obsess over referee appointments like some do.

And tbh, this accusation wasn't knocking around (other than from sore losers) from anybody else - and let's be honest here, Warrington are not everyone's favourite team, and the RFL are not exactly popular with RL fans.

The fact that it is pretty much only Saints that see an issue with this, and pretty much everyone else sees them as being silly and sore losers means there is no perception of dodginess here. McManus can keep trying to build up this narrativ,e but it aint there. Quite the opposite, people are laughing at him and his club.

[Cheshire Setter]

Can anyone please explain to me why Hicks couldn’t show his Warrington bias with the Walmsley incorrect play-the-ball two tackles before the Knowles no-try?    I would have thought it was much easier to penalise Saints legally at that point before opening himself up to scrutiny with the no-try call.

Ive still not got a straight answer from Saints fans on this one.   So come on Toppy, Scotchy what’s your opinion on the clear decision that went in Saints favour in the run up?   It’s plain and clear on TV replays, more so than the no-try in fact.

I await a response.

[Rupert Prince]

23 minutes ago, Damien said:

That's up to the RFL to decide not St Helens, or any club for that matter.

Indeed.  Of course other clubs could (if they wanted to be absurd as St Helens) have complained  about Hicks meeting Wire and the fan over the death threat, but in those games Wire were rubbish and lost!

The absurd logic extrapolated by the hopelessly risible McManus is that Hicks should be sacked because he humanely went to meet a wire fan who made a internet death threat.

[Cheshire Setter]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

So who set down that policy that referees should ONLY refer to the VR if they are unsure?

But is this relevant bearing in mind that Walmsley should have been penalised in the run up?

Still waiting for someone to acknowledge we shouldn’t have even got as far as the apparent problem call.

Why is the focus on Hicks’ no-try call and not him missing the play-the-ball error?   Because McManus has chosen to ignore it?

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

So who set down that policy that referees should ONLY refer to the VR if they are unsure?

And why did they do that? What is the benefit of that policy

If the main ref doesn't think its a try, the assistants both concur and the player who supposedly scored it doesn't get up and celebrate even in an attempt to con the ref into thinking he has, why on earth would he go to the video referee? Its a tool to be used by the official to aid him that he didn't think he needed. 

If I really put myself into the mind of a seriously tunnel visioned saint's fan I could see why this is a big deal; but the game finished 18-4 and they were well beaten without the Knowles no try. 

[GeordieSaint]

14 hours 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.

I think he is angry. I have no way to prove what ST wrote about Saints writing to the RFL prior to the match, but it does link to McManus' comments. It absolutely is the RFL's decision on the refereeing choice but it's not great management IMO. I can see what they were seeking to do by placing faith in Hicks but I wouldn't have followed that course of action myself.

Note: Just to clarify before some jump on my comments above, I do not agree with McManus has said in public - smacks of sour grapes. I also do not agree Hicks is bent in anyway shape or form. Saints were well and truly beaten by the better side on the day, and in my opinion would still have been beaten if Knowles' try had been awarded. The way the Saints management have approached this issue in my opinion is unprofessional and could have been dealt with much better.

 

[Barry Badrinath]

14 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Can anyone please explain to me why Hicks couldn’t show his Warrington bias with the Walmsley incorrect play-the-ball two tackles before the Knowles no-try?    I would have thought it was much easier to penalise Saints legally at that point before opening himself up to scrutiny with the no-try call.

Ive still not got a straight answer from Saints fans on this one.   So come on Toppy, Scotchy what’s your opinion on the clear decision that went in Saints favour in the run up?   It’s plain and clear on TV replays, more so than the no-try in fact.

I await a response.

Im quite concerned at why saints were never square for the first 25 minutes and hicks did nothing about it. Therefore nullifying our hookers number 1 attribute of running from dummy half.

 

Not a single penalty given, advantage saints.

 

Well, they tried to nullify him.

[Cheshire Setter]

1 minute ago, GeordieSaint said:

Note: Just to clarify before some jump on my comments above, I do not agree with McManus has said in public - smacks of sour grapes. I also do not agree Hicks is bent in anyway shape or form. Saints were well and truly beaten by the better side on the day, and in my opinion would still have been beaten if Knowles' try had been awarded. The way the Saints management have approached this issue in my opinion is unprofessional and could have been dealt with much better.

Kudos for the way you’ve viewed the whole thing with impartiality (touchy word I know).

Taking a step back, if Saints had won as expected after scoring that try, Warrington would look very silly if they had claimed their loss was influenced by the incorrect play-the-ball in the run up.

It’s really a non-event.

[GeordieSaint]

2 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

Kudos for the way you’ve viewed the whole thing with impartiality (touchy word I know).

Taking a step back, if Saints had won as expected after scoring that try, Warrington would look very silly if they had claimed their loss was influenced by the incorrect play-the-ball in the run up.

It’s really a non-event.

Bit in bold... lol!

I think Saints' gripe is slightly broader than just the Knowles incident. Incorrect calls happen if every game (the incorrect Grace knock-on call etc) though; so I agree. But since Saints 'allegedly' wrote to the RFL beforehand, McManus has completely blown a gasket.

I personally have an issue with the RFL's management of the sport and the Hicks situation itself but it still doesn't detract we played poorly and beaten by the better team on the day.

[Angelic Cynic]

I am at a loss to understand why this website has the poll whereby only a fine is suggested,to either the chairman himself,or the club.

Should a player or coach behave disgracefully,in the heat of the moment,then a ban is given.

McManus should be banned for attending games - and the other elite owners should fund his attendance at a State of Mind lesson,and learning the Respect campaign.

St Helens send their academy youngsters to Australia biannually,with the next one commencing next month.What kind of example is this to youngsters,their parents,sponsors,and all of those in Australia,including the referees?

He should also be kept away from the 'sewer' he has created of matchday programmes and websites.

Super League clubs should now fund the referees and the RFL can take care of those who wish to referee the 'plebs' in The Championship and League 1.

Will McManus be wanting everything to go to the VR next year,if there are 2 referees on the pitch? 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-league/2018/12/31/super-league-will-introduce-two-referees-matches-2020/

The Super League can fund this,as well - Not The RFL!

[Cheshire Setter]

5 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

But since Saints 'allegedly' wrote to the RFL beforehand

Yeah, I guess we’ll have to see if that was true.   I would have expected that to be in his follow-up press statement.   As it stands I’ve only heard it once from a fan.

Time will tell, but it would be nice to draw a line under it all since he acknowledges it made no difference to the result (he does also say that I think?).

[Saint Toppy]

7 minutes ago, Angelic Cynic said:

McManus should be banned for attending games -

Not sure the RFL has any legal ability to do this. The land and the stadium is owned by Saints and McManus is the Chairman and a substantial share holder (so part owner) of the club. I seriously doubt the RFL has the legal ability to prevent someone from entering a property they own.

[Dave T]

19 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I think he is angry. I have no way to prove what ST wrote about Saints writing to the RFL prior to the match, but it does link to McManus' comments. It absolutely is the RFL's decision on the refereeing choice but it's not great management IMO. I can see what they were seeking to do by placing faith in Hicks but I wouldn't have followed that course of action myself.

Note: Just to clarify before some jump on my comments above, I do not agree with McManus has said in public - smacks of sour grapes. I also do not agree Hicks is bent in anyway shape or form. Saints were well and truly beaten by the better side on the day, and in my opinion would still have been beaten if Knowles' try had been awarded. The way the Saints management have approached this issue in my opinion is unprofessional and could have been dealt with much better.

 

I respect your opinion mate, but to my question, McManus' rant now just looks like being a sore loser, if he has evidence that he had raised this as an issue in advance, I'm stunned that he hasn't raised this in his rants - i.e. "I told them this could be an issue" - as that would make it harder to dimiss his claims as a sore loser.

Without that evidence, and he hasn't publicly claimed it - it will continue to be dismissed as being a sore loser.

And on the actual point, Hicks has been refereeing ever since the threat, the issue has been dealt with weeks earlier, he is at work doing his job. Now, slowly but surely, even reasonable fans are coming round to maybe this wasn't the best appointment. That is exactly what McManus is trying to do. Hicks wasn't given this game as a bit of a confidence boost, he was the ref for Wire v Hull in the semi final (after the death threat), and he was ref for the Challenge Cup final in 2018.

The only people raising perception as an issue is the losing club and some of their fans. That can't be allowed to influence future ref decisions.