Kaplan - Can we petition to ensure he never referees an Australian side again?

[Gnostic]

Really, the sheer ignorance of people on this site as to the laws of rugby is astounding.
Kaplan was 100% correct in 'that' tackle ruling
DEFINITIONS
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is
brought to ground..

There is NO requirement for the tackled player to be continually held AFTER he has been brought to ground.15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought
to ground’.
15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(a) A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents from gaining
possession of it, and must try to make the ball available immediately so that play can continue.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up
or move away from it at once.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or

How about ypou all do a full refereeing course (in addition to the Smart Rugby) because it is clearly evident that there are not many of you who have a freekin clue as to the laws of the game.

How about before you go off and have a big girly hissy fit, you have a look at how the Laws have been reffed and the interpretation that have been in use for a long time now. Delve may have been "brought to ground" as in your definition but in every other game in the last two years the player had to be held or at least in contact with the tackler to be deemed "tackled and have to release the ball. By your definition/interpretation if a player slips over they have "brought" themselves "to ground" and must release. Your interpretation is fraught with issues and so many examples exist that can be given where numerous other referees and Kaplan himself have deemed that the player was "not held" and played on.

Kaplan was inconsistant in the game as there were quite a few other instances where players were brought to ground and did not release immediately, a key one being in the last five minutes where Cooper Vuna was tackled and indeed held but he regained his feet very quickly and offloaded all while held.

That Kaplan decided on whim to change the interpretation in this instance and then not be consistant in the game demonstrates what a shit referee his is.

 

[territorian]

How about before you go off and have a big girly hissy fit, you have a look at how the Laws have been reffed and the interpretation that have been in use for a long time now. Delve may have been "brought to ground" as in your definition but in every other game in the last two years the player had to be held or at least in contact with the tackler to be deemed "tackled and have to release the ball. By your definition/interpretation if a player slips over they have "brought" themselves "to ground" and must release. Your interpretation is fraught with issues and so many examples exist that can be given where numerous other referees and Kaplan himself have deemed that the player was "not held" and played on.

Kaplan was inconsistant in the game as there were quite a few other instances where players were brought to ground and did not release immediately, a key one being in the last five minutes where Cooper Vuna was tackled and indeed held but he regained his feet very quickly and offloaded all while held.

That Kaplan decided on whim to change the interpretation in this instance and then not be consistant in the game demonstrates what a shit referee his is.

My comment was aimed at your statement that Kaplan had made up a new law - read it - you said it. My arguement had nothing to do with him being a shit referee - IMO he is but that was another issue completely.
Is it really that hard, I give not a shit about interpretations you all use, last night Kaplan was totally correct. I am talking the tackle ruling - nothing else. Please do not attempt to sway the argument by quoting additional incidents.
Kaplan didn't make up a new law, he correctly ruled on the law as it is written.
and to answer your ludicrous query, if a player slips over he is not brought to to ground unless he was at the same time held by an opposing player.
Again, read and learn the laws. At that instance he was totally correct - and not making up a new law

 

[Shiggins]

I did say that I am not a fan of kaplin but he did rule that properly. Other refs get it wrong all the time.

The penalty at the end reminds me of tana " we are not playing tidly winks here". Terrible call. Especially when the result is affected.


Go the force!!!!

 

[Gnostic]

Is it really that hard, I give not a shit about interpretations you all use, last night Kaplan was totally correct. I am talking the tackle ruling - nothing else. Please do not attempt to sway the argument by quoting additional incidents.
and to answer your ludicrous query, if a player slips over he is not brought to to ground unless he was at the same time held by an opposing player.
Again, read and learn the laws. At that instance he was totally correct -

You must never have played or are a recent watcher of Rugby. The Laws are all about interpretations!. Take the scrum engagement sequence, the breakdown, most of the ELVs were all interpretation directives from the IRB. No real Law changes have been made, it all INTERPRETATIONS. The fact though you refuse to admit it was Kaplan altered the normal, usual INTERPRETATION, of the Law for a new one, yes if may be valid under the LAW but it is one that has not been used in any other game by anyone elese and one whichKaplan himself did not consistantly apply. So why don't you try to understand how the Laws are applied.

 

[territorian]

You must never have played or are a recent watcher of Rugby. The Laws are all about interpretations!. Take the scrum engagement sequence, the breakdown, most of the ELVs were all interpretation directives from the IRB. No real Law changes have been made, it all INTERPRETATIONS. The fact though you refuse to admit it was Kaplan altered the normal, usual INTERPRETATION, of the Law for a new one, yes if may be valid under the LAW but it is one that has not been used in any other game by anyone elese and one whichKaplan himself did not consistantly apply. So why don't you try to understand how the Laws are applied.

Do yourself and everyone else a referee course. You are so wrong. You talk as you believe but your beiefs are ill founded.
End of rant

 

[Gnostic]

Do yourself and everyone else a referee course. You are so wrong. You talk as you believe but your beiefs are ill founded.
End of rant

Alright so every time a scrum, is packed with crouch touch pause engage is that a Law? Was it actually Laws that were changed when the IRB gave the referees the altered directive last year (during the middle of the 6N) on how the breakdown was to be refereed?

You give the appearence of knowledge but knowledge without application is useless.

 

[territorian]

1. Alright so every time a scrum, is packed with crouch touch pause engage is that a Law? YES 20.1 f and g
2. Was it actually Laws that were changed when the IRB gave the referees the altered directive last year (during the middle of the 6N) on how the breakdown was to be refereed? Answer - I must confess ignorance on that one as I had not been following the 6N however, on researching it was a directive on how to apply the laws, in other words, use of the literal meaning or clarification as to a meaning.- they didn't change the laws. Just about every week there are referee bulletins from the IRB setting out law rulings and applications. Referees get these bulletins.
3. You give the appearence of knowledge but knowledge without application is useless. Yes I am a LIII ref, LII Referee Coach and LII Coach, that is why I get so cheesed off at commentators and 'untrained experts calling the laws when they haven't had the time to actually learn them. There is far more to the laws than reading a law Book. That is why I recommend everyone to do a ref course.

 

[louie]

The problem kaplan is with bring consistent. He has one rule one minute and different one the next.

The suggestion that he was just evening up the score is bullshit. Just because you make one bad call doesn't mean you go out of your way to make another.

Our game is a joke some days. No wonder we're behind RL, AFL and football

 

[Sully]

I agree with Gnostic (huh) it was not what would be normally considered a tackle. But Territorian does have a point with the actual Law. I think if generally it has not been called a tackle it should stay that way until the Refs announce that they will be cracking down on this law.

I did my Referees course in 1986 does that count?

 

[Gnostic]

I agree with Gnostic (huh) it was not what would be normally considered a tackle. But Territorian does have a point with the actual Law. I think if generally it has not been called a tackle it should stay that way until the Refs announce that they will be cracking down on this law.

I did my Referees course in 1986 does that count?

Calling tripple 0. Heart stopped. Cholesterol congealing.

The Point I was trying all be it obviously unsuccessfully is that Kaplan's interpretation was the first time it has been seen in Super Rugby that I can recall, and perhaps in 3N Rugby also. The fact that he was also totally inconsistent within the game let alone others he has reffed exacerbates the point, along with the fact that no other referee ruled in this manner in the games so far this year. That indicates that it is not part of the breakdown directive/interpretaion from SANZAR or IRB.

Good on you for your qualifications Territorian, you can have my yay for the day. I am sure as shit happy that I will never have to play a game with you in charge if this is an example of how you would officiate.

 

[Lee Grant]

The trouble with Kaplan is that he is quixotic and often panicky.

He will also react in a snappy way against players he doesn't like during a game. He will see something a player has done and store it up to get even later in the match. Players never know where they are with him. I don't think he stores it up from game to game but some Tahs' player's may disagree.

Gregan recognised this quite early when Kaplan emerged and stayed out of his way, but it didn't always work. Even the Great Manipulator felt the wrath sometimes.

Kaplan is like a good old dog that starts biting people in his dotage. A pity. I thought he should have got the 2003 RWC final he was such a fine referee then but it seems he has lost his way - as old dogs do.

Best to put him down.

As for the penalising the tackled player for not releasing the ball but getting up with it when not held: he may have been correct in law but he can't pull that law out of the box just once in a game, and just in one game at that. If he always did it I would have no beef.

Beware next week scrummies. He may penalise you for putting your hands in the ruck and fishing the ball out of it to pass to the backs. It will be no use arguing that all scrummies do it in every game and so did their fathers (though maybe not their grandfathers) - it's against the law.

And don't fall on the ball in the vicinity of a ruck ... and don't .......

Maybe players should be warned before each match what Kaplan's law of the day is.

 

[BRIX]

I don't want to come off trivial but he doesn't look all that there when you look at him too. He sort of has this glazed stare. I would like to know more about the man off the pitch to try and get to understand him better because I'm convinced he needs to see a psychologist; he bares all the symptoms of a social sociopath/masochist.

Bottom line, is he is a terrible referee for said stated above. Most importantly perhaps is that these incidents are NOT a 1 off. Very concerned for World Cup who have him him on their match day program.


Craig Joubert = No.1 ref in Sth Africa, should be handed the important games, cool head, young, excellent communication. Cheetahs v Bulls game last night was outstanding in terms of policing.

 

[Hawko]

The trouble with Kaplan is that he is quixotic and often panicky.

He will also react in a snappy way against players he doesn't like during a game. He will see something a player has done and store it up to get even later in the match. Players never know where they are with him. I don't think he stores it up from game to game but some Tahs' player's may disagree. As for penalising the tackled player for not releasing the ball but getting up with it when not held: he may have been correct in law but he can't pull that law out of the box just once in a game, and just in one game at that. If he always did it I would have no beef.

Beware next week scrummies. He may penalise you for putting your hands in the ruck and fishing the ball out of it to pass to the backs. It will be no use arguing that all scrummies do it in every game and so did their fathers (though maybe not their grandfathers) - it's against the law.

I certainly agree with the overall thrust of what you say Lee, but I do disagree on some of the detail:

1. He is quixotic and panicky with some teams but not others. He seems to referee teams in SA well, you do not get the howls of complaint you get everywhere else, particularly in Australia. That may be because the different style of rugby played there doesn't push his buttons or maybe he just feels more comfortable and relaxed and doesn't get so flustered and inconsistent. Whatever the reason, if you happen to be on one of those teams with whom he is not comfortable then you are totally screwed (Tahs, Brumbie, Wallabies).

2, He clearly does store up stuff from game to game, that is the only possible explanation for his 15-1 loss/win record with the Tahs. Mercifully someone in the appointments board seems to have woken up to this and we have not had to endure him for a while. But if he ever gets appointed to another Tah game we should kick up a massive stink pre-game, because that's the only way it'll finally get resolved.

3. As for the tackled player release situation he let exactly the same thing go later in the match. If its wrong once, its wrong every time.

4. As for the game last night, he was as dire as everyone is saying. But I thought the Brumbies mostly got the rub of the green except at scrum time and that overall the Rebels had more complaint.

 

[wal]

Really, the sheer ignorance of people on this site as to the laws of rugby is astounding.
Kaplan was 100% correct in 'that' tackle ruling
DEFINITIONS
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is
brought to ground..

There is NO requirement for the tackled player to be continually held AFTER he has been brought to ground.15.3 BROUGHT TO THE GROUND DEFINED
(a) If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought
to ground’.
15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER
(a) A tackled player must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents from gaining
possession of it, and must try to make the ball available immediately so that play can continue.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up
or move away from it at once.
(b) If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or

How about ypou all do a full refereeing course (in addition to the Smart Rugby) because it is clearly evident that there are not many of you who have a freekin clue as to the laws of the game.

So according to the word of the law, Beale should not have scored last week. He clearly fell to the ground in the tackle, his arms and knees were on the ground, he then (with momentum) put the ball over the line. If what you are saying is correct he should have let go of the ball immediately and rolled away to allow access to the ball. There has to be some leniency in this law, because a person tripping over by being ankle tapped could be defined to have been brought to ground. Can i take my boot off and trip someone bringing them to ground, thus meaning they have to release the ball.

I understand that referees have to have a little space to interpret the laws and all of them apply them slighly differently, and it does make it interesting. But to award a penalty on this occasion for something that happened at least twice more during the game shows he does not have what is needed to referee at this level.

 

[Gnostic]

Amazing on two occassions in the first half a Tahs player is "taken to ground" by a Reds player and the Tahs player gets back to his feet and continues on. Bryce Lawrence is clearly heard in both instances to say "Thats OK Not held".

It occurred in the Bulls V Cheetahs game as well.

So it does appear that its is only Kaplan that whistles to the interpretation he used last night.

 

[Shiggins]

You have to place the ball. Beals try was fine. You can place the ball anywhere you want once tackled.


Go the force!!!!

 

[Blue]

Bin Ali, Mubarek, Ghaddafi... KAPLAN!

Muslim, Muslim, Muslim, Jewish.

I'm afraid I don't get it.

 

[Blue]

I don't want to come off trivial but he doesn't look all that there when you look at him too. He sort of has this glazed stare. I would like to know more about the man off the pitch to try and get to understand him better because I'm convinced he needs to see a psychologist; he bares all the symptoms of a social sociopath/masochist.

Bottom line, is he is a terrible referee for said stated above. Most importantly perhaps is that these incidents are NOT a 1 off. Very concerned for World Cup who have him him on their match day program.


Craig Joubert = No.1 ref in Sth Africa, should be handed the important games, cool head, young, excellent communication. Cheetahs v Bulls game last night was outstanding in terms of policing.

Lawrence is the best ref in SA. Joubert not far off but Lawrence is much more composed.

Kaplan's days are over. He is getting worse and worse.

 

[territorian]

So according to the word of the law, Beale should not have scored last week. He clearly fell to the ground in the tackle, his arms and knees were on the ground, he then (with momentum) put the ball over the line. If what you are saying is correct he should have let go of the ball immediately and rolled away to allow access to the ball. There has to be some leniency in this law, because a person tripping over by being ankle tapped could be defined to have been brought to ground. Can i take my boot off and trip someone bringing them to ground, thus meaning they have to release the ball.

I understand that referees have to have a little space to interpret the laws and all of them apply them slighly differently, and it does make it interesting. But to award a penalty on this occasion for something that happened at least twice more during the game shows he does not have what is needed to referee at this level.

Again people, read the laws, they are on the net for you to see.

Law 15 Tackle: Ball Carrier Brough t to Ground
(f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try or make a touch down.
(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

 

[Brumby Jack]

http://profile.AK (Andrew Kellaway).fbcdn.net/hprofile-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-snc4/173944_712862810_2624958_n.jpg

Might want to change it JK...