Eamonn McManus on CC Final referee

[saintspete83]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I can understand that view, however the attack from McManus has turned this situation pretty unsavoury, and we have been dragged into it bu the comments about the PR stunt on social media and our CEO.

I suspect it is no coincidence it has come out today.

I fear its creating a toxic environment especially on social media like twitter (I'm not on fbook but imagine it's the same) 

Before last night I have always been a mcmanus fan but he's made some statements that should not be public and he's nosedived in my opinion. There's plenty of saints fans split. Believe it or not I left around the 65 min mark last night as the game was horrible and I wasn't happy with the grief James child's received. I have had an on off relationship with the sport as a whole since I did not renew my ST after 2014. Last night was the straw that broke the camels back I think for me. I'm not planning on returning as an attending fan (even if saints play and win the GF) until the sport makes a genuine effort to improve itself on and off the field. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Except neither were. Nobody, not even McManus has actually accused anyone of corruption. 

Actually, you are just factually wrong in saying nobody has accused anyone of corruption.

[Cheshire Setter]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Except neither were. Nobody, not even McManus has actually accused anyone of corruption. 

He’s clearly inciting a reaction from his fans by bringing up random reasons and postulating conspiracy to detract from the failure of his team to secure the trophy.

It stinks and that’s what this thread is about.

The Warrington Twitter reaction, whilst funny, was probably a little twisted and I think it would have been better on this occasion to just keep quiet and look like the more professional of the two clubs.

Anyway, this thread’s been done to death and there’s little new opinion just in-fighting.   Back to concentrating on the weekend’s rugby - if Wigan lose, Warrington miraculously stay second.   Who’d have thunk it.

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

I have no problem with what Wire have been doing. The game needs a bit of carnival barker Vince McMahon nonsense sometimes. We really struggle often to create a wider narrative around games. There should be rivalries, grudge matches etc. 

The death threat thing is just idiotic. I really have nothing to say about dickheads like that its just really cringe. 

But we really don't make things easy for referees and things like the referee being a guest of Warrington just before a CC final put them in us in a silly an unnecessary position. 

Again, I don't agree with McManus but he is right that sometimes we invite these problems on ourselves a bit. 

I havent seen anybody else comment on this at all. The enjoy the game work from a couple of weeks ago was well received and universally praised.

Only one person has linked these two things.

Now, I wonder why that could be?

[johnh1]

I don’t get his at all. If he had gone to the video ref, he would have sent it up as no try. It wasn’t conclusive, so would have stayed as no try. A bit like Saints winner against Salford in the last minute to win the game (with no chance of a comeback) when it was clearly no try, but went up to the video ref as a try. I don’t recall McManus creating a fuss about that.

[Cheshire Setter]

4 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

I don’t get his at all. If he had gone to the video ref, he would have sent it up as no try. It wasn’t conclusive, so would have stayed as no try. A bit like Saints winner against Salford in the last minute to win the game (with no chance of a comeback) when it was clearly no try, but went up to the video ref as a try. I don’t recall McManus creating a fuss about that.

In addition to that fact, I posted a screen shot of a missed Saints error in the run up to the Knowles no-try showing how a Hicks mistake got them in the position to have that try chalked off...

Mistakes happen throughout a game and they tend to even themselves out.   No one was robbed of victory at the death.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Nobody relevant to this discussion has. 

If you want to pretend that this exchange was in relation to some random person not relevant to this thread. Feel free. 

 

If I was suggesting somebody here wants Hicks banned for conspiracy, I would quote them, but I didnt because we have a reasonable lot on here and they would have been banned by now.

There is a world outside of here, the conversation goes wider than a dozen of us debating here.

I have made the assumption that you think Hicks made an error. That is the camp I am in. Anybody asking for a ban of Hicks is not suggesting an error. And that call has not been uncommon this week. Half my facebook feed is made up of Saints fans and their behaviour has been pretty appalling tbh.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Don't do it and there is nothing to be linked. 

Why put a referee in that position where those two things could be linked? Why put the referee in a position where they are refereeing the team they support? why have former players and rivals on disciplinary boards. Officiating should be impartial, and I have absolutely no doubt it is. I don't for one second subscribe to any conspiracy theories about the officiating. Im perfectly happy that whilst Hicks made a monumental error, he did so honestly. 

But it also has to be seen to be impartial, and I don't know why we put ourselves in those positions. 

There is no situation. That's why nobody else mentioned it.

It is an unsavoury point to leave the reader with the thoughts of conspiracy.

I havent seen any of the media agree with McManus on this, and they would love a scandal like is being hinted at.

[Cheshire Setter]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why put a referee in that position where those two things could be linked?

No Saints fans on here, nor McManus mentioned it before the game.   Would he have mentioned if Saints had won?    Of course not.

He’s looking to distract the masses in a style Donald Trump would be proud of.

[Dave T]

10 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

I don’t get his at all. If he had gone to the video ref, he would have sent it up as no try. It wasn’t conclusive, so would have stayed as no try. A bit like Saints winner against Salford in the last minute to win the game (with no chance of a comeback) when it was clearly no try, but went up to the video ref as a try. I don’t recall McManus creating a fuss about that.

This is the problem. It is why I try not to focus on what the ref does. It is a negative distraction and can eat away at you for no benefit. I'm not a fan of victim mentality at all.

I can understand a heat of the moment thing, and Holbrook gets a pass for being interviewed on the wembley pitch, although he has form as a victim, but McManus takes the point much further, and this is in the days after the defeat when things should have calmed down.

It is embarrassing at the very least.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

There's a situation where a referee visited a competing club days before a major final, he then made a monumental error in favour of that side and this has been highlighted by a major clubs owner. 

 

The article was 10 days prior to the final, with the meeting happening even earlier.

I'm afraid I dont see any link with handling a death threat and a decision in a game a couple of weeks later. 

It is a massive stretch to link those two things in the slightest.

[ELBOWSEYE]

As this thread rolls on we need to look back at the reason for it ,it was not a player reacting to a defeat straight after a game, it was a chairman days later writing in a programme were he questioned the integrity of the official, the rfl and another CEO from the club taking part in a final. At best  he shows poor taste,  at worst he brings the game into disrepute. He should be as quick in issuing an apology. 

[Cheshire Setter]

I think 6 pages on this thread shows he’s got exactly the response he wanted.   Mass distraction from discussions on the real reasons they lost.

He’s won.

I’m quitting this thread now as we are just going round in circles.   Just like Trump, he’s accepted ridicule with the greater benefit of his own supporters missing what’s really going on.

[Loiner]

McManus totally out of order with this bitter drivel. Get over it didn't see him complain when Saints robbed Salford or when Fages scored a double movement try to beat Leeds. People on this forum give Hetherington a bad press but he's never come up with this ****. 

[Oxford]

6 pages about being cross a decision didn't go your way? Whatever next!

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

McManus totally out of order with this bitter drivel. Get over it didn't see him complain when Saints robbed Salford or when Fages scored a double movement try to beat Leeds. People on this forum give Hetherington a bad press but he's never come up with this ****. 

Ahem.

Leeds will make an official complaint to the Rugby Football League about the refereeing of Russell Smith in the Powergen Challenge Cup final...

[Chris22]

https://t.co/lXFtJVEXqM?amp=1 - RFL statement.

To allow myself one club centric remark on the matter...I did not see an RFL reprimand / investigation for Richard Agar when he suggested that James Child gave calls against Leeds at this year's Magic Weekend arising from a grudge due to Agar's previous comments of the same referee! 

[Loiner]

12 minutes ago, M j M said:

Ahem.

Leeds will make an official complaint to the Rugby Football League about the refereeing of Russell Smith in the Powergen Challenge Cup final...

My word you have a good memory M j M. I will detract that last paragraph. Totally forgot about that. McManus still a clown though.

[Man of Kent]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

The article was 10 days prior to the final, with the meeting happening even earlier.

I'm afraid I dont see any link with handling a death threat and a decision in a game a couple of weeks later. 

It is a massive stretch to link those two things in the slightest.

Quite. Scotchio has no evidence to show Hicks visited Warrington “days before a major final.”

It’s a shame he always allows himself to be boxed out to the fringes of sanity on this forum. There’s an intelligent person in there somewhere.

[Chris22]

My final comment on the matter...Saints fans have had a perception for years that the club is "too soft".

Our captain does not behave aggressively towards match officials. Last week after the calls in the cup final, there was little on field protest. We don't have an "enforcer", the closest is Matty Lees. Our players don't get cramp at convenient times. Well, McCarthy Scarsbrook used to but that stopped not long after Holbrook's arrival.

Our former coach Nathan Brown suggested similar in his time here. After those comments in mid 2014, our attitude changed. The team got a bit nasty or "ruthless" to use sporting speak.

When we played Wigan, we hammered the kicker for example. In the 2014 Grand Final, Soliola put a huge shot on Crosby in tackle one of the game. Masoe went in hard and high on the next tackle.

In the Ben Flower incident, he swung an arm at Hohaia and where once we would have left it, Hohaia went looking for him.

Paul Wellens referenced it at a fans forum. He told the players pre game that if it gets heated they must run in. It did on minute 2, and Wellens was the closest man, so he had to practice what he had preached just minutes earlier.

Our reaction to the incident was widely praised. We released a statement offering an olive branch to Wigan and Flower and did not criticise. We instead said how Flower should be helped to deal with it.

There was little mention of the impact on Hohaia of bring brutally attacked. The two parties split acrimonisly months later (for the sake of the forum, I'll leave it at that)!

In 2016, we lost a play off semi final to Warrington by 8 points. Warrington had 1 try incorrectly awarded and we had a contentious one chalked off. Again, we didn't criticise and Cunningham instead looked at our own performance. Again, our dignity was praised.

Several semi final and 1 final defeat later, it looks like we have had our 2014 moment again.

We have adopted a more aggressive ("ruthless") attitude and appear keen not to take misfortunes lying down any longer. Perhaps that is to placate the fans? Perhaps it is seeing Shaun Wane win trophies at Wigan with an attitude where nothing else matters but winning?

I can't say for certain but we have seen quite the shift in our public manner and I don't believe it to be coincidence.

[Just Browny]

Just for the record, the articles about Hicks and the death threat fan appeared on 14th August: he was named referee for the final on 20th August. 

[Angelic Cynic]

10 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

My final comment on the matter...Saints fans have had a perception for years that the club is "too soft".

Our captain does not behave aggressively towards match officials. Last week after the calls in the cup final, there was little on field protest. We don't have an "enforcer", the closest is Matty Lees. Our players don't get cramp at convenient times. Well, McCarthy Scarsbrook used to but that stopped not long after Holbrook's arrival.

Our former coach Nathan Brown suggested similar in his time here. After those comments in mid 2014, our attitude changed. The team got a bit nasty or "ruthless" to use sporting speak.

When we played Wigan, we hammered the kicker for example. In the 2014 Grand Final, Soliola put a huge shot on Crosby in tackle one of the game. Masoe went in hard and high on the next tackle.

In the Ben Flower incident, he swung an arm at Hohaia and where once we would have left it, Hohaia went looking for him.

Paul Wellens referenced it at a fans forum. He told the players pre game that if it gets heated they must run in. It did on minute 2, and Wellens was the closest man, so he had to practice what he had preached just minutes earlier.

Our reaction to the incident was widely praised. We released a statement offering an olive branch to Wigan and Flower and did not criticise. We instead said how Flower should be helped to deal with it.

There was little mention of the impact on Hohaia of bring brutally attacked. The two parties split acrimonisly months later (for the sake of the forum, I'll leave it at that)!

In 2016, we lost a play off semi final to Warrington by 8 points. Warrington had 1 try incorrectly awarded and we had a contentious one chalked off. Again, we didn't criticise and Cunningham instead looked at our own performance. Again, our dignity was praised.

Several semi final and 1 final defeat later, it looks like we have had our 2014 moment again.

We have adopted a more aggressive ("ruthless") attitude and appear keen not to take misfortunes lying down any longer. Perhaps that is to placate the fans? Perhaps it is seeing Shaun Wane win trophies at Wigan with an attitude where nothing else matters but winning?

I can't say for certain but we have seen quite the shift in our public manner and I don't believe it to be coincidence.

    Certainly a change from accepting a 'mistake' from one individual,to another - If that is how he perceives it -

   https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/st-helens-chairman-mcmanus-requests-support-for-ben-flower/

[Cheshire Setter]

31 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Our captain does not behave aggressively towards match officials. Last week after the calls in the cup final, there was little on field protest.

If you watch the match again the behaviour of both teams with the referee was exemplary.   I don’t know whether this was because they had been briefed by the RFL because it was a showpiece, or whether it was the coaches wanting no indiscipline, or whether it was the heat.

Either way, aggression from the other side didn’t win the game.   I stated on the match thread how impressed I was with both teams not baiting each other and sledging or winding up opponents’ after errors.    It was a pleasant surprise.   The only bit of biff was an intentional swinger from Taia at the end but even King didn’t get up and react.

The one thing that did stand out in Hicks favour about the Knowles ‘try’ was the fact that Knowles didn’t leap up punching the air as if he had scored (which I personally think he did).   That probably confirmed in Hicks mind that his assessment of a bounce was correct.   The lesson is - always act like you’ve scored even if there’s doubt!

[GeordieSaint]

18 minutes ago, Cheshire Setter said:

The one thing that did stand out in Hicks favour about the Knowles ‘try’ was the fact that Knowles didn’t leap up punching the air as if he had scored (which I personally think he did).   That probably confirmed in Hicks mind that his assessment of a bounce was correct.   The lesson is - always act like you’ve scored even if there’s doubt!

Didn't Knowles stick his arms out and say "what?" when he realised Hicks had said no try? If I remember correctly, Hicks immediately said 20m restart; no consultation...

[Cheshire Setter]

Just now, GeordieSaint said:

Didn't Knowles stick his arms out and say "what?" when he realised Hicks had said no try? If I remember correctly, Hicks immediately said 20m restart; no consultation...

Yes that’s right but I mean immediately after he’d got to his feet.   I’m not saying Hicks would have changed his mind but myself and most fans I know didn’t think it was a try until the replay, and Knowles didn’t leap up claiming it.   Whether that would have made a difference who knows but I thought I’d mention it.