james child

[own brain]

not my favourite ref.... but massive call in the last seconds, and the correct one.

when did rugby league allow people to charge at the goal kickers tho? yorkshire twixes.

[rayvon]

Diskin claiming there was nothing in it..... 
I agree Lynch clearly ran at the lad who kicked through, absolutely unnecessarily too! (who was suggesting we should sign Lynch...?)
What about Saints disallowed tries? The second one particularly, disallowed for obstruction, since when did running past your own player constitute obstruction, the runner didnt go behind him, or change direction at all, defenders fault, IMO

[rayvon]

And what was with Graham feeding a short ball to Dixon to get pasted by Elima....? 

[own brain]

Diskin claiming there was nothing in it..... 
I agree Lynch clearly ran at the lad who kicked through, absolutely unnecessarily too! (who was suggesting we should sign Lynch...?)
What about Saints disallowed tries? The second one particularly, disallowed for obstruction, since when did running past your own player constitute obstruction, the runner didnt go behind him, or change direction at all, defenders fault, IMO

the alleged obstructed player made the tackle

[rugbyfan]

He's had a load of stick lately for being poor and making shocking decisions / high pen counts.  To be fair, he made a massive call & the right call tonight......wonder how many change their letters to League Express and praise him tomorrow

[halton viking]

when did rugby league allow people to charge at the goal kickers tho? yorkshire twixes.

I'd of give another kick to foster from the same postition for an extra 2.
Surley it should be penalised?
somebody did it a few weeks back, Ali Lauititi? from leeds did it im sure? The commentators just laughed and said it was in th spirit of the game.

[Rickp]

I'd of give another kick to foster from the same postition for an extra 2.
Surley it should be penalised?
somebody did it a few weeks back, Ali Lauititi? from leeds did it im sure? The commentators just laughed and said it was in th spirit of the game.

I totally agree it should've been another penalty under the posts for me. Watching the replay of the goal it brushed the post as it went over, a couple of inches to the right & it would probably have hit the post & came back out. surely the players rushing at him where all offside & did put him off. In RU the defensive players are allowed to run out during conversion attempts but not for penalties. So allthough Mr Childs got the original penalty decision right, he slipped up by not giving a second penalty against Bradford.

[rayvon]

He's had a load of stick lately for being poor and making shocking decisions / high pen counts.  To be fair, he made a massive call & the right call tonight......wonder how many change their letters to League Express and praise him tomorrow

I think that is his main "fault" that he enforces the rules too strictly, which would not be an issue if the players obeyed the rules in the first place

[RB]

I think that is his main "fault" that he enforces the rules too strictly, which would not be an issue if the players obeyed the rules in the first place

He appears not to have the respect of the players.
The players should just get on with it but they do seem to question James Childs Decisions more than they do for example the decisions of Richard Silverwood or Steve Gansen.
Everyone knows where they stand with Steve Gansen they appear not to with James Child.
The players are professional they will always try to work the ref.
Holding people on in the tackle to milk the holding down penalties seems to be becoming more prevalent.
One of the Saints Players was holding a Bradford Player on by his ear during one tackle yesterday must have hurt.

[Waldorf]

I'd agree that he got the decision correct at the end of the game, but I thought he dropped a few plums for the other 79 mins. Thought it was harsh to disallow Eastmonds try (even though I can't stand him) but thought it was correct to disallow the second for obstruction. Whether you thought it was the defenders fault or not, Lomax clearly ran at the gap the obstruction created.

[rayvon]

I'd agree that he got the decision correct at the end of the game, but I thought he dropped a few plums for the other 79 mins. Thought it was harsh to disallow Eastmonds try (even though I can't stand him) but thought it was correct to disallow the second for obstruction. Whether you thought it was the defenders fault or not, Lomax clearly ran at the gap the obstruction created.

This all depends on the definition of obstruction, or the interpretation of :

From the RFL Laws

It is permissible for player 4, after passing the ball, to slow down in order to position himself for a return pass from player 5. He must give ‘right of way’ to opponents who are running across in front of him to tackle player 5 but is not guilty of obstructing opponents who are coming from behind him

Technically the Bradford player was coming from behind the Saints player who caused the obstruction, and according to the above is not guilty?
Lomax didnt run behind his own player, but past him

[Waldorf]

I'm with that Ray, but IMO I didn't think he came from behind him. I'd watch it back for another look, but I've wiped it off the hard drive now.

[Torn Sock]

That was the video refs call anyway wasn't it? Well done Mr Child for finally getting something right.

I think lots of players/fans dislike him because he seems to love the attention. It sometimes feels like he actually gets a buzz from blowing his whistle so often. that and the fact that he is the biggest brown noser ever. The RFL bring out a new rule at the start of the season about the play the ball, the other refs blow for the first 10mins n realise it just won't work. Child does it for the 80mins with about 40 penalties.
Reminds me a lot of Uriah Rennie in that he just seems like a smug twix

[widnes.vikings]

Hes been dropped to TJing 2 games this week instead

[rayvon]

Apparently one of bradfords tries was scored on the 7th tackle as well