KSA Shark ©

What would solve the problem?

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :Original Content on 26 Feb 2008 at 20:23
Tagged with :

What would solve the problem of referees’ mistakes causing severe player frustration?

A referee does his job on the pitch every week.
A player does his job on the pitch every week.

Yes the referee makes mistakes.
Yes the players make mistakes.

The referee is paid to judge the game, a mistake from him has MUCH more of a consequence than that of a player making a mistake.

Does the referee earn a salary in proportion to the importance of his mistake when compared to the salary of a player and the importance of a mistake by him?  NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Are some teams justified in believing that certain refs are biased against them?

Let’s use the example of the Bulls and Jonathan Kaplan, when they complained about him a season or two ago. Their complaint was based on 3 or 4 matches that he had refereed them, in that season. At the time it was then pointed out that in most cases other refs had blown them for exactly the same things that JK had, but because he had refereed them more times they felt HE was victimizing them, when in fact almost all the refs had been nailing them for the same thing.

Same with Willie Roos (and I DON’T know the figures) but how many times has he refereed the Stormers for them to behave in such a way towards him? I know of ONCE this season.

Do the Sharks throw a tantrum when Steve Walsh penalizes them? A mistake by him cost us the S14 final after all. Neither Sharks players nor supporters have abused him in any way.

A mistake by a ref is missing a knock or calling a flat pass, forward or in more extreme cases giving a card where it is not due.

A mistake by a player is knocking the ball on or passing it forward or in some cases causing himself to be sent of because of a more extreme transgression.

What Schalk Burger did on Saturday was NOT a simple mistake. He threw his toys big time. If a referee threw his toys at a player in such a way he would also be kicked off a panel quicker than you can say “Give back you whistle”.

This does not excuse the fact that a bad refereeing decision from the week before has caused some animosity between the Stormers and Willie Roos. And even then depending on WHO you speak to will determine if the animosity is justified or not. If you speak to Andre Watson then the animosity is not justified as he believes the try by the Bulls after stealing the ball at the ruck was legitimate, but if you speak to Tappe Henning you would feel it is justified as he believed that Willie Roos made a mistake.

Had the Stormers won that game they would not have been in the press complaining about Willie Roos last week.

None of this solves the problem of referees making mistakes though. What would solve the problem?

Paying the referees salaries in line with their importance in the match? And in doing this being able to hit them harder when they make mistakes?

Having the same PUBLIC announcements, similar to team announcements on a weekly basis of who is in and who is out of the top group?

Let me have your views?


  • Let’s hear your views on this guys, please?

  • Comment 1, posted at 26.02.08 20:25:29 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • KSA – nicely put. I think there needs to be some form of punishment (or maybe that is a harsh word). You can’t go back and change the result after the event so it needs to be dealt with somehow.

    What really gets my goat is the TV ref. Despite the fact that you can’t see the line, you can’t see the grounding of the ball, etc. you still award the try. That really is unacceptable. So often you hear “I can see not reason not to award the try”.

  • Comment 2, posted at 26.02.08 20:31:21 by Nessa Reply
  • “I can see no reason…” 😳

  • Comment 3, posted at 26.02.08 20:32:29 by Nessa Reply
  • How about some sort of ref ranking, based on performance evaluations in games. Ref has a bad game with obvious mistakes & he drops.

    Make this ranking available to the press & public. At the end of the season any underperformers are seperately evaluated over the course of the season to determine whther they should be removed from the core group of top refs for the next season.

    Don’t know if inflated salaries (albeit proposed as above) is the answer.

  • Comment 4, posted at 26.02.08 20:32:32 by Le Requinny Reply
  • Nessa

    I agree with that.

    Look at the Linston Manuals’ TMO decision that cost the Bulls THAT game in 2006 (?) That was through no other reason that NOT knowing the relevant law.

    That deserved punishment and he got it, but now he is back. 🙁

  • Comment 5, posted at 26.02.08 20:34:08 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Quin – now that’s a thought! Like a black star against his name on the chart! Love it. Seriously though – it’s a thought.

    KSA – there is so much said about the ref on the field but more often than not it is a bad TMO decision that changes the course or the decision in a game. And he has the luxury of watching it over and over again. If there is any doubt – you don’t award the try.

  • Comment 6, posted at 26.02.08 20:37:16 by Nessa Reply

  • one thing is for sure… you can’t have a huge pay gulf between players and officials in a pro sport. It makes no sense.

    How much do top refs get paid, KSA? Any idea?

  • Comment 7, posted at 26.02.08 20:39:40 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • RD – I wouldn’t think it is much. Maybe that’s where the problem lies.

    Well – off to watch Prison Break. Enjoy what’s left of your evening guys.

  • Comment 8, posted at 26.02.08 20:43:19 by Nessa Reply

  • If there is any doubt – you don’t award the try.

    26.02.08 20:37:16 – Nessa Edit

    There is a catch there in some cases and the REf is to balme not the TMO.

    The TMO can ONLY answer what he has been asked and NOTHING else that is LAW.

    Now instead of the referee saying to the TMO “can you check if his leg was in touch as well as if he knocked it on when he went to ground AND I am not sure if he even got over the line, please check for me?”

    The referee takes the easy cop out and says “can you give me a reason why I cannot award the try?” Short sweet and simple and the easy cop out.

    Why more TMO’s don’t turn around to the ref and say. Yes I can’t see the grounding you can’t award the try is beyond me though.

  • Comment 9, posted at 26.02.08 20:44:52 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • RD

    When they became pro in 98 or 99 JK was one of the first 5 full time referees who were employed by SARU and at the time his annual contract was rumoured to be 350k per annum.

  • Comment 10, posted at 26.02.08 20:46:23 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Cheers Nessa

  • Comment 11, posted at 26.02.08 20:46:42 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Rob my MSN is up

  • Comment 12, posted at 26.02.08 20:47:11 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • now mine is stuffed 😉

  • Comment 13, posted at 26.02.08 20:52:25 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • 350k back then? That’s not bad money

  • Comment 14, posted at 26.02.08 20:52:48 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • seems to be a problem with it.

    You have to remember that that was the top 5 in SA.

    What do the top 5 players earn?

  • Comment 15, posted at 26.02.08 20:55:49 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • 10pm here.

    I need to get to bed.

  • Comment 16, posted at 26.02.08 20:57:36 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • i think they earn more than that…

    Night. Chat tomrrow

  • Comment 17, posted at 26.02.08 21:06:13 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Let me take this matter up further on this thread.

    Referees do not earn the same amount as players at this level? Do we know that for sure KSA? Like Rob said, R350K 10 years ago is damn good money – what did the top players earn back then?

    Also, you cannot compare the top 5 refs with the top 30 players – you only need one ref a game, you need 30 players – the top guys need to be paid good money of course, and I read somewhere that refs can earn up to R25K per test – and that is good money mate.

    In the case of certain teams or supporters of teams believing refs are biased against them, simply refer back to my post of listening to SuperRugby on Mondays…

    Jokes aside.

    It is not a case for me personally of refs being biased against teams, it is refs cocking up in a match affecting BOTH teams. If blogs are to believed the Bulls fans for instance were just as pissed at Roos as the Stormers fans for the first S14 game – he had a rank bad match – end of.

    (And BTW, I can post some comments from Voldy from some if not all Sharks supporters following the Walsh call in the final – similar to the NZ’landers after the Barnes call…)

    We also need to be very clear on one thing wrt Burger Saturday – his transgression was a simple mistake, even simple to the degree of harmless. Refs 90% of the time penalize parties joining a fracas with a simple penalty, reversed penalty and a stern talking – when last did you see a player carded for an offence like that?

    What is even more damning on this offence Schalk made, is the fact that not even the player from the opposing team, who happens to be their captain, though Schalk did anything seriously wrong – he did not come in arms waving donnering everyone in site – his defence was even that he tried to break it up! Where the pooh hit the fan was with the subsequent punishment where he lost his marbles.

    Now lets be honest here for a second. If referees are going to blow to the letter of the law (as was the case with Schalk) why not be consistent? Why did I see 3 spear tackles in two weeks, 1 swinging arm, 3 occasions where punches where thrown and not one card? Come on lets get consistent then and not use “the law states that a player joining a fracas as a third party gets a card” because the law also states that a spear tackle is an immediate red and then goes down depending on the severity.

    Another thing – a referee mistake has a lot more impact on a game than a player mistake so we cannot define or justify or even compare one to the other – ref’s mistake have a bigger influence, end of.

    A player in the most severe circumstances gets a card – they still have 14 players on the field. A referee mistake cannot be covered up by ‘more referees’ it changes a game fundamentally – not just in a ‘potentially’ big way.

    Does it mean refs have more responsibility than players – of course!!!

    Does it excuse the mistakes – no.

    Let me ask this: Why do refs not undergo training with visual experts like Calder who helped two winning World Cup sides to improve visual awareness? Why do they not receive coaching from guys like Tim or Brand to help them mentally not to be intimidated by situations? Refs have different pressures from players, but there is no excuse why they should not be well prepared to handle that.

    Lastly, I think in general teams support or disagree with refs depending who they support and if their team was the one on the receiving end – but not all.

    I do not put too much stock in hissy tiffs from supporters because it is more often than not, emotional.

    I do however believe that one cannot simply accept incompetence and blame human nature for it. Professionals should act professionally, it is your job – if you fail, you get the boot.

    Don’t look at players from a team perspective and refs from an individual perspective – look at what they did, or did not do, find a system that addresses this like any KPA assessment at any company would work and then figure out whether it was good enough or not.

    Players gets judged on the here and now – referees should be too.

    In conclusion I think Mark Lawrence is phenomenal at the moment – he was kak last year but obviously this oke did some work in his off season to improve himself at his job he has to do – why has this type of thing only have to apply to one guy – if he is capable, like players who sucked last year are capable of shutting me up, why should it be different for Roos, Jonker or Joubert (Craig) who has been abysmal in my view?

    As for a solution – employ a system perhaps where if a ref gets cited by a team or coach for more than 5 transgressions or decision which were dubious (i.e. 10 in total or minimum of 5 per team) then have a hearing within 48 hours where everyone states their case – as per citings are currently conducted.

    If a ref only receives 3 from one team and 5 from another let it slide. Putting a cap on that 10 or more from one team justifies a hearing. Get both coaches and captains in a hearing stating cases (not in front of ref) then get the ref with his experts justifying those decisions and let an independent judicial committee decide whether it is good enough or not.

  • Comment 18, posted at 26.02.08 22:07:59 by MorneN Reply
  • Lastly add to that, a minimum ‘sentence’ or punishment to different offences, same as players (i.e. abusing a ref 6 weeks minimum).

    The Stormers will have to do without a star player which could have had a significant impact against the Crusaders – the refereeing fraternity should also be prepared to lose a Kaplan for a final if he cocks up – same diff’s imo

  • Comment 19, posted at 26.02.08 22:10:07 by MorneN Reply
  • I think one should be very careful
    in atributing or withholding
    monies from arbitres.
    It opens up the box
    which cannot be shut again.
    If schalk “die Bek” burger played with
    half the commitment he had when he vented his spleen,
    the result would have been diffirent.
    Grow up buddy,get a grip;

  • Comment 20, posted at 26.02.08 22:27:12 by Duiwel Reply

  • This is all anyway totally irrelevant.

    Reason for that? deaker has stated that he was anyway going to yellowcard schalk and roos wasnt to blame.

    Hate to say it because i cant stand roos.

  • Comment 21, posted at 27.02.08 01:08:29 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • ie. roos didnt give the order to send off schalk.

    hows that for irony…

  • Comment 22, posted at 27.02.08 01:09:53 by VinChainSaw Reply
  • morne you need to look at schalks card in context. the stormers alone (as far as i am aware) received the most number of penalties in this one game that has so far been given in all the games where the new rules have been played. schalk was on of the main contributors. his breaking yet another law by running into a fracas was the final straw and he deserved it. schalk has always pushed the boundaries and on saturday he pushed them too far. the elv’s have proven a success as they have dropped the numbers of penalties per game. stormers managed too ruin this record on saturday, and rassie needs to sort out his teams discipline.

  • Comment 23, posted at 27.02.08 07:37:29 by try time Reply

  • as i suspected in week one of the tournament no game had more than 15 penalties dished out to both teams. on saturday the stormers beat this figure alone.

  • Comment 24, posted at 27.02.08 07:42:44 by try time Reply

  • TT,

    I cannot agree with that.

    The Stormers did commit repeated infringements to which Des Fountain was rightfully yellow carded.

    And this is perhaps where I have said for some time now referees, or some of them, are not mentally tough enough to referee a game – they are intimidated, they too lose it emotionally and then if as you mention, Schalk’s card was the final straw then my argument is the referee also ‘lost it’ as Schalk did.

    The incident in itself had absolutely no effect on the game which had moved on, it did not incite any further voilence or a punch-up and nothing serious actually came off it. IN fact, Deaker did not even ask Roos if he also thought it warrented a yellow, he simply lost it, got lost in the moment, and did not make a decision purely on the incident and what has occured, but being emotionally gatvol he reacted the only way he could, giving away a card.

    The incident itself is Mickey Mouse compared to some of the kak that has gone on the fields in the recent two weeks. It was also not even the second or third fight or fracas of the game, it was the first, Schalk wasn’t even on a warning nor was he involved in any similar incident during this game or even on a warning for any other incident.

    Referees need to look at incidents independently and judge each one, and players on its merit – this was not the case here, this was an emotional decision if all is considered.

    Schalk got two weeks for an emotional outburst, Deaker is justified because the law book is on his side…

  • Comment 25, posted at 27.02.08 07:48:23 by MorneN Reply
  • Vinnie

    I also don’t like Roos as a referee. And as you say the Ironic thing is that he did nothing wrong THIS week.

    I take issue with a few things about this whole incident but one in particular is the fans getting “historical” on the issue as well as hysterical.

    I once watched this American woman comedian and she cracked me up with one of her stories where she said women get historical when they argue as well as hysterical.

    In her story she relates how her husband in passing conversation once mentioned how once, one of his ex girlfriends brought him breakfast in bed and wasn’t wearing a bra for a few minutes as she had just woken up herself.

    Well years later she and her husband are arguing and he isn’t in agreement with something she is doing so eventually she retorts with a ” Well Just because I’m not a Braless slut!!!!!!………”

    The Fans are getting historical here as well as hysterical.

    The incident that caused Burger to be carded would have been pointed out by any TJ if asked by the ref. In this case it happened to be Roos. Had it not been Roos then something that the other TJ did the week before or month before would have been brought up and Willie Roos’ bad game the week before would have been a distant memory.

    I would even venture that we wouldn’t have half the hoo haa about this had it been any other TJ and again (as you say) ironically Roos did nothing wrong.

    WHY wasn’t the Hoo Haa created last week then?

  • Comment 26, posted at 27.02.08 07:51:48 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • This is also the first week any player received a penalty for repeated infringements, and of course the Des Fountain yellow – if you are trying to tell me Schalk was living on the edge, can you tell me how many of those 16 or how many ever penalties were given away because of him? Was the team on a warning I am not aware of? Also considering, Schalk was carded quite early in the game.

    Sorry but that sort of explanation does not cut it for me.

  • Comment 27, posted at 27.02.08 07:52:52 by MorneN Reply
  • For Info.

    There is another artticle up that “virtually” gives a transcript of the conversation between Kelvin Deaker and Willie Roos.

  • Comment 28, posted at 27.02.08 07:53:24 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Just to be clear:

    Deaker’s call: Harsh, but not incorrect
    Roos’ influence: Zero
    Schalk’s reaction: Should have gotten at least a month

    Read my comments in context of that.

  • Comment 29, posted at 27.02.08 07:56:36 by MorneN Reply
  • As for a solution – employ a system perhaps where if a ref gets cited by a team or coach for more than 5 transgressions or decision which were dubious (i.e. 10 in total or minimum of 5 per team) then have a hearing within 48 hours where everyone states their case – as per citings are currently conducted.


    Actually a damn good suggestion IMO.

  • Comment 30, posted at 27.02.08 07:57:28 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • PA

    My comments are not disrected at you, just to be clear on that 😉

    They are being made in general.

  • Comment 31, posted at 27.02.08 07:58:22 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • What pisses me off once again however is some referees or people saying Deaker acted within the law and the law book is quite clear in joining a fracas as a third party – but the law-book is also clear on quite a number of other issues which are never applied (to the letter of the law) – so please do not run to the law-book to defend referees every time they look for back-up or justification but blame ‘human error’ or ‘discretion’ or ‘interpretation’ when the letter of the law is not applied.

  • Comment 32, posted at 27.02.08 08:00:07 by MorneN Reply
  • KSA I know dont worry mate.

    My gripe is actually not with the Schalk vs. Roos/Deaker situation at all, it is basically in general.

    I am not a ref hater, last year I did an article mentioning refs had to look at over 500 decisions or instances in a game of 80 minutes so geeze, have a heart china’s!

    But they should not escape censure for repeated crap performances.

    The system I suggested serves two purposes imo.

    Firstly obviously for the disciplinary process but also to keep a record on refs and which areas they have problems with (taken from the ‘charges’ brought against them certain areas can easily be identified). This helps Watson and his mates to address this in general, the referee himself working on it in his off-season and in general, improving the problems which might also go a long way to help with laws and bringing in stuff like the ELV’s or adapting laws to make it easier on refs.

    I.e. if 90% of refs have problems at rucks, something needs to be done. If 90% of teams are penalised at rucks, something needs to be done.

    Also, for me if a ref receives less than 10 complaints in a full season, give him one moer of a bonus, if he receives 50, drop his ass to club level.

  • Comment 33, posted at 27.02.08 08:05:29 by MorneN Reply
  • Anycase out of here, later.

  • Comment 34, posted at 27.02.08 08:06:32 by MorneN Reply
  • PA the guys who say that are wrong.

    the law book is NOT clear on a 3rd player joining a ruck.

    Andre Watson :It is not uncommon for a player to get a yellow card when he gets involved in differences between other players. But there was one in the Six Nations that did not produce a yellow card.

    The Law by no means makes it a clear cut card infringement.

  • Comment 35, posted at 27.02.08 08:06:42 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • morne you have to remember that free kicks are the first warnings and schalk would have been responsible for many of those as he does a lot of ruck work. as the stormers weren’t continually infringing, the free kicks turned to penalties in the second half. we all know schalk pushes boundaries and in doing so opens himself up for a yellow card. his blonde locks make him discernable to referees and his past record is carried around with him, so if he decides to go and run into a fracas he deserves what is coming to him. the referees were strict with players running in during the world cup and schalk was there so he knows not to do it.

    PA i agree referees must be warned 3 times with an expiy period on each warning. if they continue not to perform, they must be dropped to a lower league and will only be allowed back into the top teir after 6-12 months. bowden of australia had something similar happen to him last year and he came over here to learn from the sa refs and reffed 2 cc games to prove himself.

  • Comment 36, posted at 27.02.08 08:08:27 by try time Reply

  • TT,

    The problem I have with that is a player is penalised on the reputation he brings to the park – that is wrong no matter how you look at it – Butch is/was a similar case which is why I say, referees need specialised coaching from mental or mind coaches to become mentally tough without any pre-conceived ideas on any player, team or situation.

    In fact Tim and Brand to me are needed more with these guys than with players.

    Anycase, really out of here now.

    Till later.

  • Comment 37, posted at 27.02.08 08:11:29 by MorneN Reply
  • Jeez i miss my pc.cellphone browsing sux.honestly cant see how people can defend schalks actions,anyone who has played knows that you want to go on like a drunk chimp if the ref is a doos,u just dont end up doing it.

  • Comment 38, posted at 27.02.08 08:18:13 by provincejoulekkading Reply
  • Whre’s your PC dude?

  • Comment 39, posted at 27.02.08 08:20:46 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Jeez i miss my pc.cellphone browsing sux.honestly cant see how people can defend schalks actions,anyone who has played knows that you want to go on like a drunk chimp if the ref is a doos,u just dont end up doing it..

  • Comment 40, posted at 27.02.08 08:25:18 by provincejoulekkading Reply
  • Okay you told us already 😆

  • Comment 41, posted at 27.02.08 08:35:55 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Hehe,im at home sick and bored out of my nut ksa.watching chuck norris mia 2!how sad is that.

  • Comment 42, posted at 27.02.08 08:42:02 by provincejoulekkading Reply
  • 😆

    MIA Man i had forgotten those movies existed. 🙂

    Maybe you can get a whole new range of Chuck Jokes lined up.

    Hope you are not seriously ill BTW.

  • Comment 43, posted at 27.02.08 08:51:35 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Hey ya’all!

    Where are you pjld?

    Reffing is a tough job, but there is a need for an evaluation panel.

    However, in every sport the adjudicating officials come in for stick, cos humans will stuff up. They key is just to ensure that they dont stuff up too much.

    Look at cricket – Bucknor seems to lift his finger every time he gets bored, while ignoring valid appeals at other times – he has to go; but not in the manner attempted by the Indian team.

    Its like with judges in the legal system – they might be nincompoops, but the very efficaciousness of the system depends on the “illusion” that they are specially ordained to sit in judgement over their fellow men.

    They aren’t – many of them are complete twits; they get caught driving drunk, they have affairs with advocates etc. But its not the person who is hallowed, its the position.

    So, censure refs by all means, but not in a populist manner that will detract from their on-field authority – and Schalk’s outburst did just that, and that why, despite my great respect and affection for him, I think he deserved a longer suspension.

  • Comment 44, posted at 27.02.08 08:56:51 by Big Fish Reply
    Big Fish
  • Deaker is justified because the law book is on his side…

    Ummm, sorry to be obtuse, Morne, but what greater arbiter is there? I mean, laws is laws, right? Does Burger not know them?

  • Comment 45, posted at 27.02.08 09:41:58 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Point with that statement Rob is they use it when it suits them, but run away from it when they made a mistake like not carding a spear tackle – then they blame human error.

    You cannot have it both ways, or have an escape both sides for mistakes and justify it.

    If someone says he blew to the letter of the law and was thus correct, I will take instances out of that game, and other game, where the letter of the law was not applied.

    Does that make him incorrect?

    No, it only makes them human…

  • Comment 46, posted at 27.02.08 09:48:24 by MorneN Reply
  • must be off – later.

  • Comment 47, posted at 27.02.08 09:49:17 by MorneN Reply
  • got you…

  • Comment 48, posted at 27.02.08 09:58:45 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
  • Yes this article is old but the post answers a question here. 🙂

    This is how referees are judged/appointed/checked at S14 level.

    Name: John Fourie

    Question: In an answer in Duty Ref 151 you said the following in answer to Allan about the Burger incident: “It will not be the first or last time a player gets a rough call but there are channels to follow!”

    What are these channels and do players and coaches have an input. We had a discussion about it on the SA Rugby message board and we are all curious.

    Must say I agree in full with your answer.

    Mark Lawrence: Hello John

    Thanks for the question and for allowing me to clarify the issue. After every Super 14 match, the captain, the coach and the team manager fill in a form where they evaluate the referee. This is done by each team. They assess the referee in various categories and mark him from good to poor. This form is submitted to SANZAR within 48 hours of completion of the match.

    Simultaneously, performance reviews of the referees and assistant referees are submitted to a SANZAR panel of selectors. They are also given the teams report on the referee. They have a conference call every week and these forms are discussed in detail and then their recommendations are passed back to the referee managers of each country for action.

    Furthermore, the team may lodge an official complaint to their country’s referee manager so that this can be discussed by the SANZAR selectors in detail and with specifics.

    Referees are graded and ranked using these forms and referees not up to standard are removed from games and their unions instructed to institute remedial training.

    The process is very invasive and is not the view of one individual but that of all three countries, and therefore subjectivity is eliminated to a large extent. The decision they reach is therefore final and based on the view of all three countries, not just the view of one franchise/team whose views can at times to be very subjective.

    Keep well

    Regards – Mark

  • Comment 49, posted at 10.03.08 11:26:39 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.