Re: Robert Hicks : Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:11 pm  

And, (he said in the hope of giving birth to another legendary thread) this is of course exactly the offence Mr. Joynt should have been penalised for, not the fabled but mythical voluntary tackle.

Re: Robert Hicks : Sun Sep 07, 2014 5:37 pm  

So he's now reffed us in 10 games this year. Today he showed all his regular traits, well documented in this thread. As usual some of his decisions were completely baffling-- not only to me and the fans around me but also to the players of both sides.
A new one for me was when he waved his arm in the air seeming to signal another set of 6 and promptly raised that same arm on the very next play signalling last tackle.
He wasn't the reason we lost but he may represent a reason why people turn away from the game.

Re: Robert Hicks : Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:44 pm  

Bullnorthern wrote:

A new one for me was when he waved his arm in the air seeming to signal another set of 6 and promptly raised that same arm on the very next play signalling last tackle.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think on that occasion he had stopped play VERY briefly and was waving time on. Might be getting confused with a different point in the match though.

That said, two other strange decisions (both of which benefited us) was that bit of play where we had knocked on, Widnes lumped it down field thinking it was a free play, we collected it behind goal and played on when he should have taken it back for a Widnes scrum. Also when Widnes were nearly in for a try with about 15 mins in, but Luke Gale tackled the Widnes man without the ball - should have been a sinbin all day long as Widnes would have been in.

Re: Robert Hicks : Sun Sep 07, 2014 6:56 pm  

Hicks did ok, he wasn't conspicuous and let the game flow. What I noticed was that as the game wore on and the crowd saw we were struggling and clueless, that was when they started blaming the ref for everything, but it wasn't him. Had a good view of the second incident, Gale had to assume the player would catch the ball, so had to make contact, he did then continue it when maybe he knew the ball was loose, but it wasn't that clear cut a pen to me. Agree the 'play on' looked wrong, unless he saw something I didn't.

Re: Robert Hicks : Mon Sep 08, 2014 6:38 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Hicks did ok, he wasn't conspicuous and let the game flow. What I noticed was that as the game wore on and the crowd saw we were struggling and clueless, that was when they started blaming the ref for everything, but it wasn't him. Had a good view of the second incident, Gale had to assume the player would catch the ball, so had to make contact, he did then continue it when maybe he knew the ball was loose, but it wasn't that clear cut a pen to me. Agree the 'play on' looked wrong, unless he saw something I didn't.

Blatant pen;Hicks bottled it; but you will insist you are correct FA. As always.

[Bullseye]

Re: Robert Hicks : Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:25 am  

As far as mistakes were concerned apart from the odd “free play” incident that went in our favour I didn’t see anything that bad. The laying on at the PTB and the lack of anything like 10m at times was still as infuriating and led to a poor spectacle.

Mind you with a quicker PTB and decent 10 we’d probably have been thrashed!

[Bulliac]

Re: Robert Hicks : Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:23 am  

I remember him waving six to go and then the turnover on the next tackle, what made it seem logical was that the ball had been bouncing around loose just before, though, to be honest, I didn't see a Widnes player touch the ball but I thought Hicks must have done. Hicks' signals are ropey at the best of times though and I agree with Bullseye about the laying on and 'shallow' ten. Apparently, according to friends who see more than I do [at present!], refereeing in the championship is not as good as in SL..

Re: Robert Hicks : Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:31 pm  

tackler thommo wrote:

Blatant pen;Hicks bottled it; but you will insist you are correct FA. As always.

I see the wink, but it wasn't blatant, and none of the match officials called it as a blatant penalty (TJs are supposed to call blatant foul play that the ref has missed).

Hicks didn't "bottle it". On what basis was it a "bottling"? We lost, so it would be an odd person who accused the ref of giving us an advantage by bottling away calls.

How about this as a suggestion - Hicks saw what happened and gave us the benefit of the doubt? I realise that's too non-conspiratorial for some!

And, of course. you're right: I'm right!

Re: Robert Hicks : Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:38 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What I noticed was that as the game wore on and the crowd saw we were struggling and clueless, that was when they started blaming the ref for everything,

................Pope is Catholic, bears poo in the woods.

Re: Robert Hicks : Mon Sep 08, 2014 12:40 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

The laying on at the PTB and the lack of anything like 10m at times was still as infuriating and led to a poor spectacle.

Thought the 10 was mostly fine - only recall one occasion when Widnes seemed massively offside. I agree with the lying on, but IMHO that's RL referees instructions not Hicks personally; Widnes are by no means the worst offenders in the league at this (though Betts has got them pretty good, you can see the technique, an extra man always comes in if he possibly can without being a flop; there are 2 players lying on top of each other; they always pause at least a second before anyone makes a move: the top player then looks around, and levers himself up with hands pressing his colleague down; the last player then finally moves).

It does spoil the game. But any team that persists in this tactic from the outset seems to be largely allowed to set its own benchmark and get away with it. I see it all the time in TV games. Personally I think it's part of the unspoken edict to "keep games flowing" and cut down on penalties for non-foul play. Ironically it does anything but keep the game flowing. But most teams do it, and as I say, Widnes are by no means the worst.

Why don't we do it though? It might have served us well in the second half, and slowed them down a bit and let our defense organise. We seem obsessed with being ultra fair and jumping off the tackle, even if our opponents are doing a Widnes, or is that just me?