Is it worth mentioning that all evidence points to the fact that it doesn't matter who the referee is, or what nationality he is... GB or England still usually lose against Australia.
...
No, in this context, it isn't. The sole question is whether a referee should be independent, or from either of the competing teams. Very clearly a ref who is from the same place as one team cannot be seen to be independent, and that's the point. However impartially he might ref the game, it is the appearance of possible bias that is the problem, and the principle is very basic.
Once you grasp that, you can hardly suggest they then say "Yes, obviously we should have a neutral ref, but in this case England is so shh?t, it doesn't matter".
The whole point is to eliminate the perception of potential bias. Most sensible observers would agree that a non-neutral ref would not be likely to show deliberate bias but that's completely beside the point.
And that's ignoring the obvious elephant in the room namely the only reason the ref is NOT neutral is because one team (Australia) has pulled the strings to make it so. Which should have been unthinkable, except it's pretty normal.
Those of us who have been around remember that we did have a meaningfull international games every year with good support & lots of interest. With the French team touring down under & beating the Aussies. What killed the game at that level was the total lack of interest (or self interest if you like) by the Sydney clubs. On the last proper Lions tour they showed total disrespect for the tourists by putting sencond & third string teams against GB in the club games, even this tour you have Mal Maninga saying it is a waste of time, money & pointless. That attitude may change as the number of South sea islanders flooding into the NRL clubs junior set up, once the numbers reach a critical mass & they choose Samoa, Fiji, Tonga & PNG over Australia/NZ they will be able to compete on an even footing. In the Super League era we are slowly getting our heads around the fully professional game & the need to find credible young players. We can see clubs signing Welsh & Scot's youngsters (though not in as big numbers as we would like) but to get the Celtic nations up to speed we must play as GB not England. Someone has said on here that it will take 50 years! so what? I think it will take longer but it should still be our aim, it is like planting oak trees it is a leap of faith for future genorations as you wont see the end result in your life time but the result in the long run is well worth the effort.
Those of us who have been around remember that we did have a meaningfull international games every year with good support & lots of interest. With the French team touring down under & beating the Aussies. What killed the game at that level was the total lack of interest (or self interest if you like) by the Sydney clubs. On the last proper Lions tour they showed total disrespect for the tourists by putting sencond & third string teams against GB in the club games, even this tour you have Mal Maninga saying it is a waste of time, money & pointless. That attitude may change as the number of South sea islanders flooding into the NRL clubs junior set up, once the numbers reach a critical mass & they choose Samoa, Fiji, Tonga & PNG over Australia/NZ they will be able to compete on an even footing. In the Super League era we are slowly getting our heads around the fully professional game & the need to find credible young players. We can see clubs signing Welsh & Scot's youngsters (though not in as big numbers as we would like) but to get the Celtic nations up to speed we must play as GB not England. Someone has said on here that it will take 50 years! so what? I think it will take longer but it should still be our aim, it is like planting oak trees it is a leap of faith for future genorations as you wont see the end result in your life time but the result in the long run is well worth the effort.
That latter part of your comment contains elements that compare with the argument in favour of positive discrimination.
I cannot ever go with that. The idea of G/B being the only way to bring on Celtic players to an S/L or international standard is risible. I guess that you favour G/B being reinstated in order that Welsh Scots or Irish players will gain G/B places. Well how many can you name that presently would have better claims for G/B than the players who are elegible for England alone? The only way, apart from them proving to be superior players, is to chose ones lesser ability at the expense of players that get selected on merit. Finally, please remember that the whole stupidity that came about with devolution is the reason that the G/B moniker disappeared in the first place and was supported more, especially from the Scots, by those, er, Celtic nations than the people, fans or players from England.
G/B thanks to that kind of rubbish is as dead as the Dodo,so learn to accept it, as you will just have to live with it, until those 'Other Nationality' lads come up to scratch at least.
Sorry but I cannot understand this constant lamenting over G/B, it's England now and you should be as fervent over them as you ever were for G/B.
was watching an nfl doco. on one of their teams and they used the term bomb to describe those long high passes from quaterback to running back and i think gibson took that idea, realized you cant throw the ball forward in RL and adapted it to a "bomb" kick we have
eels fan wrote:
You poor poor obsessed fat ex vichyballin potato thieving stoaway.
What I find laughable is that the NRL/Australian fans blame us for the decline of the international game because we are not competitive enough and have to shoulder the blame. This coming from a nation that arrogantly says it coyld field 4 teams that would beat us, if this is the case why do they feel the need to steal (maybe a tad strong) players from PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and even NZ to bolster their team? They have Origin criteria meaning you have to be eligible for Aus selection if you want to play in their showpiece event (not to mention the big bucks). They refuse to play internationals if it doesn't suit them. They (even though they can beat us blindfolded) insist on an Aussie ref.
Australia are just happy to be the big fish in the small pond, no SL player is any good until they play in the NRL, the WCC is a warm up game that doesn't matter if they lose and as big as the champions league if they win. We are on a hiding to nothing and with the financial clout they have could have grown the game (at least down under) so much more by investing in the Polynesian Isles, instead they just rape those islands talent, fast track them an Aussie passport and leave the rest to rot.
From watching the World Cup and i can't remember if it was Silverwood or Bentham that was so one sided and far too pally with the Australians it seemed as if they were extorting him somehow. He bent over for them and opened the gates. He refereed their game EXACTLY how they wanted it AND let them get away with stuff that on any given SL w/e he wouldn't. It was excruciating to watch especially his slimey overtly friendliness with the Australian players.
Conversely, we have Australian refs whom just play it down the line according to their interpretation no matter if England are playing so any team with NRL based players are going to have a distinct advantage. As for the kiwi ref, he's worse than ours & is just garbage, his first outing at Wembley in 2011 was a disgrace and nothing short of corrupt.
They said they wanted the best referee, well on the first weekends performance that was actually Bentham, even the most narrowest minded of Australian's should admit he did a very good job last week. That Cummings has come out in a direct attack on the procedure speaks volumes. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/o ... s-cummings
From watching the World Cup and i can't remember if it was Silverwood or Bentham that was so one sided and far too pally with the Australians it seemed as if they were extorting him somehow. He bent over for them and opened the gates. He refereed their game EXACTLY how they wanted it AND let them get away with stuff that on any given SL w/e he wouldn't. It was excruciating to watch especially his slimey overtly friendliness with the Australian players.
Conversely, we have Australian refs whom just play it down the line according to their interpretation no matter if England are playing so any team with NRL based players are going to have a distinct advantage. As for the kiwi ref, he's worse than ours & is just garbage, his first outing at Wembley in 2011 was a disgrace and nothing short of corrupt.
They said they wanted the best referee, well on the first weekends performance that was actually Bentham, even the most narrowest minded of Australian's should admit he did a very good job last week. That Cummings has come out in a direct attack on the procedure speaks volumes. http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/o ... s-cummings
“You are playing a game of football this afternoon but more than that you are playing for England, and more even than that, you are playing for right versus wrong. You will win because you have to win. Don’t forget that message from home. England expects every one of you to do his duty.”
Australia are commemorating the Rorke's Drift test by following a long tradition of making sure they have every advantage possible, hopefully England will also commemorate said test by bucking a long held tradition of losing.
With Tony Archer in charge of match officials and appointments for this tournament, nothing surprises me at all about these appointments. The guy was a grade a to$$er when he was a ref, and he's still a grade A to$$er when he's the referee's chief!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...