GT1 wrote:
It's a shame we seem to spend more time discussing what the ref was doing or not instead of the actual match.
More often that not the players strengths and weaknesses speak for themselves. Of course AT did not mean to lose the ball in the tackle or Toby miss touch, or Ben get stripped of the ball, or Smith ignore a three man overlpap. And of course Geordans fielding of the high ball was superb and Bubbles line imperious, Crofts positioning on the shoulder impeccable, Waldroms drive superb and Cranes angle perfect.
With the ref it is different. He may be fallible - rumour has it they are human - but why do (some) refs fail to see blatant offences and then pick up on a minor one? Perhaps unreasonably, we expect refs to be both even handed and alert to infingements of the laws of the game.
When a ref misses five blatant instances of players diving off their feet on top of the ball at the breakdown and then pings a different player for not instantly rolling away one wonders "what is going on?" Not at all the same as a player beating five defenders and getting hit by the sixth or even getting hit five times and then breaking past on sixth attempt.
IMHO too many games are spoilt by poor refereeing. They may not change the outcome of the game. But, frankly, they would do the game a service if they sought to apply laws of the game rather than "manage" it.
I would agree with you that Poite (and most French Refs) is good. I would add that Chris White Esq., who I have often been critical of, has improved enormously IMHO to now be excellent. Pearson too. To my eyes SH refs are working to an agenda that I do not understand and Celtic refs (including Owens) have a different set of laws to that published by the IRB.
But what do I know?
