Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:36 am  

Cruncher wrote:

I'm glad you say this. It shows I'm not the only paranoid one around here.

But, joking aside, while we fans only really tend to see it one way, there have been some stand-out examples of - shall we say - 'odd' refereeing, at our expense, this season. Last Friday was one. The Leeds game in the cup was another. And then there was the away Huddersfield fixture, in which the opposition coach had appeared to actually threaten violence against our players beforehand.

Note, I'm not complaining about Wigan incurring a load of penalties. That happens when you apply a strong, smothering defence. I'm talking about Wigan players being subjected to incidents of thuggery (which occurred in all these games), the culprits going unpunished, and then Wigan players being sinbinned for technicalities. There may have been other matches which I've now forgotten, but these three come quickest to mind.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we can actually do about this. Wigan's official policy seems to be to not complain - at least not in public. And this may be sensible. When you've got a controller of referees, who is apparently answerable to nobody, and who, during his own playing days, regularly showed poor judgement and was accused of having an anti-Wigan bias, I don't imagine it would take much to goad him into giving us an even harder time.

But you're right - it's definitely starting to look as if someone is out to stop us, and I don't how much longer the club will let that go on for without questioning it.

In the words of Kurt Cobain, "just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you."

Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:53 am  

Deano G wrote:

The biggest problem that we face going into the play-offs is that referees seem to be very lenient with Wigan's opposition. Whether this is merely a bad run of luck or something to do with the ridiculous bleating about Wigan's "tactics" coupled with the usual anti-Wigan bias in the RL establishment remains to be seen. At the moment though, it is worrying. Fortunately we were significantly better than Leeds in all areas on Friday and managed to win despite being much more harshly policed than Leeds on infringements. As we move into the playoffs and have to beat the likes of Stains and Wire then if this continues things are going to be difficult. William Hill have us at 6/5 to win the GF. I think those odds flatter us, particularly with the way we and our opponents seem to be being refereed at the moment.

Cruncher wrote:

I'm glad you say this. It shows I'm not the only paranoid one around here.

But, joking aside, while we fans only really tend to see it one way, there have been some stand-out examples of - shall we say - 'odd' refereeing, at our expense, this season. Last Friday was one. The Leeds game in the cup was another. And then there was the away Huddersfield fixture, in which the opposition coach had appeared to actually threaten violence against our players beforehand.

Note, I'm not complaining about Wigan incurring a load of penalties. That happens when you apply a strong, smothering defence. I'm talking about Wigan players being subjected to incidents of thuggery (which occurred in all these games), the culprits going unpunished, and then Wigan players being sinbinned for technicalities. There may have been other matches which I've now forgotten, but these three come quickest to mind.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we can actually do about this. Wigan's official policy seems to be to not complain - at least not in public. And this may be sensible. When you've got a controller of referees, who is apparently answerable to nobody, and who, during his own playing days, regularly showed poor judgement and was accused of having an anti-Wigan bias, I don't imagine it would take much to goad him into giving us an even harder time.

But you're right - it's definitely starting to look as if someone is out to stop us, and I don't how much longer the club will let that go on for without questioning it.

Well if that viewpoint constitutes being paranoid then i have to admit to being a fully paid up member of the club

Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:52 pm  

chatham warrior wrote:

Deano G wrote:

The biggest problem that we face going into the play-offs is that referees seem to be very lenient with Wigan's opposition. Whether this is merely a bad run of luck or something to do with the ridiculous bleating about Wigan's "tactics" coupled with the usual anti-Wigan bias in the RL establishment remains to be seen. At the moment though, it is worrying. Fortunately we were significantly better than Leeds in all areas on Friday and managed to win despite being much more harshly policed than Leeds on infringements. As we move into the playoffs and have to beat the likes of Stains and Wire then if this continues things are going to be difficult. William Hill have us at 6/5 to win the GF. I think those odds flatter us, particularly with the way we and our opponents seem to be being refereed at the moment.

Cruncher wrote:

I'm glad you say this. It shows I'm not the only paranoid one around here.

But, joking aside, while we fans only really tend to see it one way, there have been some stand-out examples of - shall we say - 'odd' refereeing, at our expense, this season. Last Friday was one. The Leeds game in the cup was another. And then there was the away Huddersfield fixture, in which the opposition coach had appeared to actually threaten violence against our players beforehand.

Note, I'm not complaining about Wigan incurring a load of penalties. That happens when you apply a strong, smothering defence. I'm talking about Wigan players being subjected to incidents of thuggery (which occurred in all these games), the culprits going unpunished, and then Wigan players being sinbinned for technicalities. There may have been other matches which I've now forgotten, but these three come quickest to mind.

I'm not sure what, if anything, we can actually do about this. Wigan's official policy seems to be to not complain - at least not in public. And this may be sensible. When you've got a controller of referees, who is apparently answerable to nobody, and who, during his own playing days, regularly showed poor judgement and was accused of having an anti-Wigan bias, I don't imagine it would take much to goad him into giving us an even harder time.

But you're right - it's definitely starting to look as if someone is out to stop us, and I don't how much longer the club will let that go on for without questioning it.

Well if that viewpoint constitutes being paranoid then i have to admit to being a fully paid up member of the club

Agree with all this. Saw Friday´s game in an Irish bar in Madeira, where I´m still enjoying the sun!

I have posted various comments these past few months about the inconsistency of certain referees and like others am very concerned what might happen in the Play Offs with Ganson, Bentham or Silverwood refereeing or being VR. So many decisions have gone against Wigan this season in close crucial games, it does make you wonder.

As I´ve said before, Ganson was the ref in the 2 Challenge Cup S/F defeats and 3 Play Off defeats. We have of course won games with him reffing, but....?!!

How many games have Saints lost with him reffing and how many Warrington games have they lost when Bentham has been ref?

Notice that Ganson awarded a dubious try to Saints on Saturday as VR. Didn´t see it - just read the report.

Bottom line, though, is Cummins is to blame for appointing them to those games!!

Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:38 pm  

I concur with the conspiracy theory and remain convinced that Bentham is being saved up for the crunch match. Be that a knock out semi final or the final itself. Cummings' and his little bitch still have unfinished business with us.

Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:21 pm  

I am absolutely convinced we wil not win the playoffs due to a shocking refereeing decision.

I kept trying to balance it out by thinking well surely summat has got to go our way, and hoepfully its the big night when it happens.

Was it in the playoffs last year, Joel against Saints, on halfway, the ref shouted play on then we he did he pulled him back and give a penalty to Saints?? I just couldn't believe it.

Wilkin holding Lockers down for an eternity when he made the break after winning the scrum against the head at KR on GF. Should defo have been sin binned. The ref couldn't get the yellow out quick enough when Roberts patted the ball out of a Saints hand.

The shocking decision at Leeds in the cup when Lee Smith kncoked on, Sam tried to ground the ball, was held up, and the ref decided it was the last tackle and gave the ball back to Leeds!

Farrell at Headingley in the cup, sinbinned for brushing McGuires shoulder. Peacocks shocking head high on Sam - did he even give a penalty?

Saints at home, Roby never grounded the ball from any angle yet try given. 50/50 try from Meli which was fair enough but almost exactly same situation happened with Richards at home to Wire and they deemed he didn't have downward pressure. Bar that 50/50, Wire did beat us fair and square.

Ablett staying on pitch after almost decapitating Sam, Coley sin binned ridiculously. I can't tell you how surprised I was that they didn't allow Hall's try even though it touched Sam. I was convinced that they could have got away with another 'blunder'

Must note that away at Wire we got a 50/50 decision with Roberts try when it could be argued Gleeson was impeding King.

Paranoia over(phewwwww)

Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:15 pm  

The inconsistency from the referees during our games this year has been there for anyone to see - even non-Wigan supporters (not the ones who come on here obviously). Silverwood's display at Huddersfield was a particular low point for me: 2 sin binnings and the Giants gifted attacking field position for a series of technical offenses.

So what's going on? Personally I don't buy the 'it's because we're Wigan' argument. I think it's more likely that Cummings and co think we're getting away with something, probably with respect to our defensive tactics that several coaches and even one chairman have moaned about in the press. We're not breaking any rules so they try to 'even' things up by going easy on the opposition and hitting us with major penalties, like the sin bin, at any opportunity.

I have a strong feeling that Cummings will adjust the rules in the close season to legislate against our style of defensive play.

In the meantime, in a close game we're always going to have to handle the referee as well as our opposition. Whilst we're six points clear in the league, we can't be under any illusions about the ability of Leeds, Warrington or Saints to beat us - and with the exception of Friday's win, they've been fairly close games - so I can't help being as paranoid as the other posters on here.

One problem is that the refs (or the head of referees) doesn't seem to care enough about being seen to be neutral. Bentham's one sided display in the semi was broadcast live on the BBC. His boss predictably backed him 100% - which shouldn't surprise anyone who saw Cummings as a referee. This guy wasn't just unreliable, he even had an agenda against certain players (Graham Bradley from Bradford springs to mind) and never tried to hide it when reffing those games.

It does make you despair as a paying fan. The fierce rivalry between clubs is born from passionate loyalty, it's part of what makes our sport great. But the officials should be capable of rising above their personal feelings as fans - otherwise they're hardly serving their function are they?

Re: ganson : Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm  

Deano G wrote:

In the words of Kurt Cobain, "just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you."

in the same song I believe he also said something along the lines of "never met a wise man, it's always a woman", suggesting he clearly was nuts so we can disregard everything he said in the same song at the very least

Re: ganson : Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:21 am  

Ian Roberts Closet wrote:

Did you see Ganson take Sinfield to one side explain your run on pens explain next one was in the bin! Then 5 mins later you give a pen away and low and behold no binning!!!

No, I didn't and neither did you.

I see that Shaun Wane, speaking in the dressing room after the game, believes that Ablett's "thuggery", as you lot call it, was "clumsy" and "probably not malicious".

I'd guess that he realises that "thuggery" has never been part of Ablett's game.

Re: ganson : Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:29 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

No, I didn't and neither did you.

I see that Shaun Wane, speaking in the dressing room after the game, believes that Ablett's "thuggery", as you lot call it, was "clumsy" and "probably not malicious".

I'd guess that he realises that "thuggery" has never been part of Ablett's game.

Anyone who attempts to defend or excuse Ablett's action of last Friday, in any shape or form, is not a genuine sports fan, but a self-interested phoney. Welcome to the ever expanding colony of such who appear to follow Leeds Rhinos.

Re: ganson : Tue Aug 03, 2010 8:26 am  

For me, there was only 1 simple question to come out of that "tackle" on Friday:

How much damage do you have to inflict in order to be sent off?

Honest answers please? If that wasn't a straight red, then how much damage (or potential damage) needs to be inflicted before it becomes one?

And as for using Wane's words as a defence for that assault, it smacks of desperation by the Rhino's management.

On that subject, El Barbudo, unlike your coach who whines about wrestling and condones physical assault, our coaching staff have a touch of class.

Wane could easily have screamed for a 6-week ban (ala Nathan Brown), or started bitching about the blatant attack to the head.
Instead, he said what was necessary to sweep it under the carpet, as it's already out there for the world to review and pass judgement, and he got back to the important stuff, like the fact that we won anyway.

If Ablett receives less than the full 3 matches, I'll be worried about the state of our game. There seems to be zero protection for players from premeditated acts of violence on the field.