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

[Muttonbird]

The trouble with bagging the ref when your team loses is that the winning fans (and everyone else) have an instant and legitimate come-back in saying that "finally your team was reffed properly for once". The ref's actual performance becomes largely irrelevant - unless it was Wayne Barnes.

 

[Shiggins]

How about the tabs and reds game. Brice let alot of completed tackles players go again. Too the point where when hynes tackled Carter and he got up and ran again hynes turned around saw that Carter went another 10 mts looked and Brice and said something when he went past him.

Too be fair the games are that fast I think it's a very hard job.

Unfortunately rugby is probably the hardest game to ref and make it fair on both teams. Thats why consistency is so important, at least you can't complain.


Go the force!!!!

 

[lincoln]

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.

Q. What is wrong with rugby? A. The complexity of the laws and the pedants who interpret them.

 

[Bruce Ross]

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.

And there is far more to rugby than a knowledge of the Laws. I suspect that none of us who have held a driving licence for decades could pass the theory section of the licence test but that doesn't mean we can't drive. Not necessarily drive well but we usually manage to get from Point A to Point B.

I agree with you, territorian, that it's a bit rich for someone who may have never actually consulted the Laws to be calling a referee incompetent or a cheat based on their own faulty understanding. You have also pointed out above how simple it is for someone to access the Laws online and check before making such pronouncements.

I don't know how much would be gained by all of us doing a refereeing course. Rugby has always been unusually afflicted by know-alls. I am not sure that having even more know-alls who actually know what they're talking about would improve the situation.

Once I decided to regard referees as RDGs - random decision generators - I found that I could relax more and enjoy the rugby.

I am not concerned about the complexity of the Laws. Probably what most attracts me to rugby is its complexity, and by extension the complexity of its Laws. I also love our sport most when it resembles trench warfare and I could watch scrums all game. That's arguably the least recognised social benefit of rugby - it keeps weird people like me off the streets.

 

[Hawko]

I am not concerned about the complexity of the Laws. Probably what most attracts me to rugby is its complexity, and by extension the complexity of its Laws. I also love our sport most when it resembles trench warfare and I could watch scrums all game. That's arguably the least recognised social benefit of rugby - it keeps weird people like me off the streets.

Love your work Bruce!

 

[lincoln]

Once I decided to regard referees as RDGs - random decision generators - I found that I could relax more and enjoy the rugby.

"A "random number generator" based solely on deterministic computation cannot be regarded as a "true" random number generator, since its output is inherently predictable." Quote from some internet source.

Bruce, I hope your "randomness" is not based on a deterministic computation otherwise Kaplan's randomness becomes entirely predictable - ie Tahs lose to non-Aust teams. Keep it coming - love your work!

 

[Set piece magic]

Who refereed the match in Wellington when Eales kicked that goal?

interesting you say this because that game wasn't without controversy... That goal was in the 86th minute of the game. That's wayyyy to much injury time

 

[Bruce Ross]

"A "random number generator" based solely on deterministic computation cannot be regarded as a "true" random number generator, since its output is inherently predictable." Quote from some internet source.

Bruce, I hope your "randomness" is not based on a deterministic computation otherwise Kaplan's randomness becomes entirely predictable - ie Tahs lose.

I think that yours is an intriguing and brilliant extension of the analysis, Lincoln. I have seen people awarded PhDs for less insight than that.

Friday night's game might at first glance appear to refute your thesis in that it wasn't the Tahs who lost. However if you hark back to the Federation of Australia in 1901, you will recall that the Victorians were determined to have Melbourne as the nation's capital which New South Wales rightly thought should be within their boundaries on the grounds of their senior status. So in a fit of pique - a geographical manifestation of the Napoleonic or little man's syndrome - the southerners insisted that if it had to be in New South Wales, it would be located in the very fundament of the state. And thus we have the ACT.

In designing the City of Canberra Walter Burley Griffin adhered to the original vision of the Victorians. His legacy lives on as most visitors are in agreement that it is an absolute fundament of a city.

My apologies for the convoluted explanation but we now arrive at the inevitable conclusion. Kaplan's randomness, being based as you correctly point out on a deterministic computation, meant that he produced a ruling from his own fundament that as he viewed it resulted in yet another loss for New South Wales, even if he was 110 years out of date.

Proof and detailed workings to follow.

 

[cyclopath]

I think that yours is an intriguing and brilliant extension of the analysis, Lincoln. I have seen people awarded PhDs for less insight than that.

Friday night's game might at first glance appear to refute your thesis in that it wasn't the Tahs who lost. However if you hark back to the Federation of Australia in 1901, you will recall that the Victorians were determined to have Melbourne as the nation's capital which New South Wales rightly thought should be within their boundaries on the grounds of their senior status. So in a fit of pique - a geographical manifestation of the Napoleonic or little man's syndrome - the southerners insisted that if it had to be in New South Wales, it would be located in the very fundament of the state. And thus we have the ACT.

In designing the City of Canberra Walter Burley Griffin adhered to the original vision of the Victorians. His legacy lives on as most visitors are in agreement that it is an absolute fundament of a city.

My apologies for the convoluted explanation but we now arrive at the inevitable conclusion. Kaplan's randomness, being based as you correctly point out on a deterministic computation, meant that he produced a ruling from his own fundament that as he viewed it resulted in yet another loss for New South Wales, even if he was 110 years out of date.

Proof and detailed workings to follow.

Bruce; WJ with a shift key, punctuation and life experience.
We need a new Scarfy Award this year - The Edward de Bono for extreme lateral thinking.

 

[MrMouse]

A lot of interesting and insightful opinions (particularly some Bruce gold).

I do believe Kaplan needs the sack, I really do. However.

However, my Dad taught me from a very early age something which stayed with me playing any sport, anywhere, anytime. The umpire's always right. This of course means the referee's always right. When he's wrong he's right. When he lets play continue with a ruck 5m OVER the try line after the ball's held up, he's right. When that bloke clocks you in plain sight and he calls forward pass, he's right. When the entire opposition front row's face first in the dirt and he says you collapsed it, he's right.

The ref is also always sir. I hope I won't offend anyone by noting most refs are narcissists. It pays to be nice. Always be friendly, smile ruefully and get back the 10. And play to his whistle.

That's part of why Hoiles' performances for the Brumbies last year were so offensive and ludicrous. It's simple. When has talking back ever reversed a decision? Adapt to whatever loony rules he's playing, give him lots of pats on the head, and it's amazing how often it'll work out in your favour.

 

[Hawko]

A lot of interesting and insightful opinions (particularly some Bruce gold).

I do believe Kaplan needs the sack, I really do. However.

However, my Dad taught me from a very early age something which stayed with me playing any sport, anywhere, anytime. The umpire's always right. This of course means the referee's always right. When he's wrong he's right. When he lets play continue with a ruck 5m OVER the try line after the ball's held up, he's right. When that bloke clocks you in plain sight and he calls forward pass, he's right. When the entire opposition front row's face first in the dirt and he says you collapsed it, he's right.

The ref is also always sir. I hope I won't offend anyone by noting most refs are narcissists. It pays to be nice. Always be friendly, smile ruefully and get back the 10. And play to his whistle.

That's part of why Hoiles' performances for the Brumbies last year were so offensive and ludicrous. It's simple. When has talking back ever reversed a decision? Adapt to whatever loony rules he's playing, give him lots of pats on the head, and it's amazing how often it'll work out in your favour.

Somebody who is always right, even when he's wrong got us Mubarack, Gaddafi, Hitler, Bush, Pol Pot and the wierdness that is Iran. Sometimes you have to make a stand.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Had a chat with a referee about this and he seemed to indicate that a bollocking from higher powers was given out over this.

 

[Gnostic]

Had a chat with a referee about this and he seemed to indicate that a bollocking from higher powers was given out over this.

The question is did he get razzed for being inconsistent or for introducing an interpretation not seen before.

Mind you I saw a similar ruling in the Wales V Italy 6N game.

As with most others all I'd like is consistency in the interpretation and application. The Laws are there for study and reading by anybody with Google or a bookshop, but it doesn't matter shit if the Interpretation of the man in the middle is different from your own/that provided by the IRB/SANZAR.

The IRB has been issuing their edicts for a little while now trying (in vain I think sometimes) to get consistency across all matches. This will help everybody from the grass roots to the elite.

We should not let the debate on this one little incident blind us to the continuous displays of poor officiating that Oz teams are subjected to from Kaplan. 16 Losses from 17 starts should have sparked some investigation and prevention of him taking part in Waratahs games at least.

I agree that the Ref/Umpire etc is always right on the field, and that system will work whilst ever the official has the respect of the players and coaches for that matter. It is my feeling that some referee's have lost that respect and hence they get questioned continuously to the point of insubordination simply because would you accept what somebody tells you is the truth and accept their direction if you feel he is an incompetent F&^%^&wit, and they have demonstrated this to you?

Maybe Australian culture to only respect the individual and not the position is a factor here as well. The subject of this thread doesn't seem to have the same level of issue with any other nationality, perhaps because those nationalities demonstrate respect for the position, even if the person occupying it is incompetent at best?

 

[Eyes and Ears]

The question is did he get razzed for being inconsistent or for introducing an interpretation not seen before.

The South African referees tend to have very strong law knowledge. My gut feeling is that he din't make a law mistake or create a new interpretation - he just saw it wrong and and I suspect would admit to that upon review. I think he then did a very poor job in explaining his decision which added to the mistake.

The criticism of his performance would have been primarily focused on the last 10 minutes and 2 game changing errors.

 

[HKTiger]

Clancy in the England - France game gave one held ruling (Tindall) which denied a Try and missed one which Moore (commentator and qualified ref) rightly pointed out as a mistake. Note: It appeared that a touchie highlighted to Clancy that he missed the held ruling.

Note: I'm with Territorian here. If the onus is on the tackler to release, then the tackled player, once knees and elbow have hit the ground with the tackler still having hold of the tackled player, however minimal that hold is, loses all rights to continue playing the ball except to lay it backwards or pop a pass provided that is "one" movement. And this is not hard to adjudicate, yet too many refs get this wrong, which bewilders me. And yes I am a qualified ref.

 

[Gnostic]

Clancy in the England - France game gave one held ruling (Tindall) which denied a Try and missed one which Moore (commentator and qualified ref) rightly pointed out as a mistake. Note: It appeared that a touchie highlighted to Clancy that he missed the held ruling.

Note: I'm with Territorian here. If the onus is on the tackler to release, then the tackled player, once knees and elbow have hit the ground with the tackler still having hold of the tackled player, however minimal that hold is, loses all rights to continue playing the ball except to lay it backwards or pop a pass provided that is "one" movement. And this is not hard to adjudicate, yet too many refs get this wrong, which bewilders me. And yes I am a qualified ref.

This is the crux of the argument. Read what Territorian has rightly quoted of the Law. The argument arises because of the application of that Law and the interpretation that has been in common use which was not applied in this game and a couple of others. As said before consistency is the key to preventing the backlash.


That and not letting Kaplan in the country on Rugby business.

 

[HKTiger]

Gn,

My next phrase,"however minimal that hold may be" is the key. It can be as little as just a hand in contact on the player (that's actually the IRB directive).

But yes, back on topic, Kaplan should not be allowed into Australia or NZ after July.

 

[Gnostic]

Gn,

My next phrase,"however minimal that hold may be" is the key. It can be as little as just a hand in contact on the player (that's actually the IRB directive).

But yes, back on topic, Kaplan should not be allowed into Australia or NZ after July.

I agree fully with you.

In the case of Delve in the Rebels game all contact was lost between the tackler and tacklee as they hit the ground. This would then not fall under your interpretation, which is the one I have most often seen applied, and part of the reason (but only part) for this thread.

 

[I like to watch]

I am not bothered about minimal holds etc, refs can make these calls & like it or not, that's how it goes.
the problem i have with this c**t is perspective.
There are penalties & there are penalties.
He made a bullshit call on the last play of the day that changed the result of the match.
He knew when he awarded the penalty that it was game changing.
How he can change the winner of that game, for that infringement but not send off Bakkies at the coin toss every week?
If we have to let the prick in the country, surely someone can organise the rubber glove treatment for him each time. At least then he will know how the Tahs feel.

 

[MrMouse]

Somebody who is always right, even when he's wrong got us Mubarack, Gaddafi, Hitler, Bush, Pol Pot and the wierdness that is Iran. Sometimes you have to make a stand.

Uh, there were no referees or umpires involved there, only superpowers and/or notional democracy...TOTALLY different thing!