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

[MrMouse]

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.

I'm guessing you'd like to watch?

Kaplan made a number of errors in both direction throughout the game, each of which could be deemed on its own to be 'game changing'. The try, for instance. You could just as easily blame Giteau's ever-wayward boot. He also allowed play to restart after the siren, which gave the Brumbies a chance to win illegally. It was a bullshit game from a bullshit ref, but lets not get carried away.

Also, that's bullshit. There are not "penalties and there are penalties". If we won OR lost the world cup because a ref didn't award a 'game changing' penalty I'd be disgusted (I'd totally live with it if we won but hey, noone's perfect). Kurtley Beale's last gasp penalty in South Africa, one of the moments of 2010, came about because of a 'game changing' penalty.

The onus IS on your team to retain discipline. It was a totally BS soft call, but if Ma'afood didn't shove a bloke, they reset with Brumbies ball and they win the game. Just a thought.

Now can we get JK to the proctologist?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

I've spent most of my time here defending Kaplan & looked on GAGR views of JK as nothing more than sour grapes.

I think its time to perhaps soften my stance and move with the masses.

It really was lottery out there on Friday night & the last penalty to give the Rebel's a win, if somebody can show me what that was for, would be appreciated. A bit of a joke.

Not that I begrudge the Rebels the result - they were good enough on the night to win, even if they didn't deserve the penalty which gave them the win. Shouldn't take anything away from that.

 

[Gagger]

MR, if all G&GR has done is this, it's been 4 years of my life well spent

My work here is done

 

[Lee Grant]

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.

Exactly right.

Referees have been following their own conventions rather than the laws themselves for decades and when someone does something different it excites comment.


This particular law was observed rigidly until about 1958 when the Tackled Ball law was changed significantly. Then a tackled player had to place the ball before getting to his feet and then he had to touch it with his foot before he could pick it up. Incidentally, any other player from either side, including the tackler, also had to touch the loose ball with his foot before picking it up.

There usually wasn't enough time to do all this. Instead, arriving players met (or more accurately collided) on their feet and closed around the ball on the appropriate side of it in what was called a ruck in NZ and what Danie Craven and the SAffers called a lose scrummage. Naturally, getting to the ruck with go forward on the opponent's side of the advantage line gave a benefit which is still relevant at the tackle today.

Woe betide any tackled player who was in the vicinity of good rucking opponents if they had the go forward. Tacklers got short shift also, often from their own side as he could interfere with their rucking to counter the other team.

The big difference then was that the ball was on the ground and the players were on their feet. Teams that were adept at "rucking" like the great Kavanagh Otago teams of the 1940's and 50's would travel up the park, ball at their feet, like good mauling teams do today with the ball off the ground. You could see why Craven called it a "loose scrummage".

Rucking, to give it's original meaning, started to die once arriving players were allowed to pick up the ball without touching it with a foot first. Why form around the ball when you could pick it up and run with it and - as was soon realised - when you could dive on the ball a split second before somebody from the other team could.

This was the genesis of the leaving feet virus. The first arriving players could be dealt with but then things got lax and the 2nd arriving player off feet added to the severity of the disease which only now is being given some weak medicines.

Where was I? Have I perchance digressed?



What happened to the tackled player after the Tackled Ball law was changed and there was time to pick up the ball himself? For a long, long time he observed the law and placed the pill before getting to his feet and playing on. Then, during the Dark Ages of whistle blowing, this law got ignored too. This was the Age of Speeding Up the Game when referees allowed players to breach laws that were written for a purpose.

Eventually this law that requires a tackled player to place the ball before getting up got ingored too. Now it is noticed in the observation of it rather than in the breach.


I have no particular beef that players be allowed to get up with the ball if they are not held, which is the league rule, but I do have complaint that some referees observe the rugby law as written, and some not. It's a fairly easy law to change if that's what the IRB want - or if they want the law to stand they should order a crackdown. And when they do they could crackdown on crawling on the ground after a tackle also.

Compared to the crackdown requiring the tackled player to be released this will be a piece of cake.

 

[BRIX]

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

Might want to change it JK...

Haha old man Kaps. Pivotal in Andy Friend being out of work this week.
By the way we shouldn't blame him for the Speight try, as far as I'm concerned that falls on the Assistant Ref. Someone mentioned he let the Brumbies kick off after the penalty that cost them the match. But the hooter had already gone, to my knowledge there should have been no restart. Typical Knee-jerk reaction.

The man is a narcissist. Nice photo by the way

 

[Spewn]

Can someone answer the question who refereed the match where Eales kicked that winning goal in NZ?

 

[Spewn]

Yes. I can. Andrew Cole. Irrelevant to this thread. Thank you.

 

[Lee Grant]

Kaplan.

 

[BRIX]

If you want a response you should probably start a new thread titled what happened 11 years ago, and what bearing it has today. If you remember, the infringement he pinged in Bledisloe 2000 was for coming in at the ruck from the side, not for Kindergarten pushies in a scrum.

Yawn

 

[Lee Grant]

Spewn was just being mischievous again.

 

[BRIX]

Haha, I bit the bait without him even trying!

 

[twenty seven]

Rule is "any player that makes contact with the ground, whilst in control of the ball, must release it before regaining their feet. The only place that rule is policed regularly is in sevens. Thats why you are not allowed to crawl along the ground with the ball in hand, which many do and is not policed.

 

[PaarlBok]

Kaplan maybe need some help? He'll get it

SARugby

SA ref helpers
Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:30

The South African Referees' Association has announced the new panels of selectors, match reviewers (assessors) and coaches for 2011 after a meeting of the exetutive committee on Thursday to consider all the nominees it had received for the panels.

South Africa's referees' boss, Andre Watson, said afterwards: "I want to thank the Executive for presenting me with a very strong team in all three categories/ departments (Selectors/ MR's /coaching). I look forward to working with each and every person appointed and thank them for being available for this very important task.

"To those that did not make the panel they were hoping for, I would like to say that like any other team, the numbers are limited. For this reason we have put into place up-skilling courses throughout as we would like to see more persons pushing for the 'team' positions.

"Lastly, the most work is in the regions and provinces and you are a valued cog in the machinery without which we will struggle at SARU level."

The panels are as follows:

National Selectors: Arrie Schoonwinkel (convener), Banks Yantolo, Dennis Immelman, Eugene Daniels, Willie Roos

Note:
* Balie Swart will provide the teams input at selection and grading
* Staff were not considered for above as they are involved every day.
* The above selectors are appointed till 2015 but performance and standards will be reviewed annually.
* Selectors will do MR's throughout the season as and when appointed.

National Match Reviewers Panel: Pierre Oelofse (convener), Keith Hendricks, Gerrit Coetzer, Lusanda Menze, Thuso Mngqibisa, Allan O'Connel, Jacques Hugo, Richard Nash

Note:
* Above MRs will be deployed to watch the Panel and Contenders Squad Referees (along with the selectors) and attend National weeks as appointed.
* Above MRs are appointed till 2015 but performance and standards will be reviewed annually.
* Other persons have been identified to do MR duties in regions and provinces and will be trained and upskilled to contend for National Duties.

National Coaches (9): Tappe Henning, Theuns Naude, eville Heilbron, Johann Meuwesen, Marius Franken, Shaun Veldsman, Philip du Toit, JC Fortuin, Balie Swart (scrum coach).

Note:
* These coaches will do exclusive coaching on Panel and Contenders Squad referees allocation to be sent out next week.
* Hendrik Greyvenstein as Referee Academy coach.
* Other persons have been identified to do coaching duties in regions and provinces and will be trained and upskilled to contend for National Duties. Specialised courses will be held for this purpose.
* These coaches are listed below under "Regional/Provincial Coaches"

Academy Squad Coaches (5): Eugene Daniels (convener) , Louis Mzomba (WP), Mandla Dakuse (Border), Yamile Fumakile (EP), Ndobego Ndayi (EP)

Women referees coaches (3): Eugene de Villiers (convener) (and MR), Theuns Janse van Vuuren (and MR), Dana Eitzen

Peer Coaches (mentors) (4): Craig Joubert (SARRA), Marius Jonker (SARRA), Mark Lawrence (SARRA), Jonathan Kaplan (SARRA)

Note: Panel referees will be allocated a Peer Coach (mentor) to work with in addition to the allocated National Coach.

Regional/Provincial Coaches (to be confoirmed) (tbc) (26) : Abe Steenberg (South Western Districts), André Lourens (Sharks), Andrew Nicolson (Sharks), Andy Turner (Blue Bulls), Anton Nel (Boland), Attie Buitendag (Blue Bulls), Ben Theron (Western Province), Burton Hufkie (Sharks), Christie du Preez (Eastern Province), Cobus Wessels (South Western Districts), Dean Quin (Sharks), Deon van Blommestein (Western Province), Dries Engelbrecht (Pumas), Eksteen Botes (Pumas), Frikkie Norman (Griquas), Hulet Billett (South Western Districts), Jan Pienaar (Griffons), Johan Greeff (Blue Bulls), Johan Zurich (Blue Bulls), Kat Swanepoel (Griquas), Mtheleli Msileni (Eastern Province), Phillip Bosch (Eastern Province), Pieter de Bruin (Valke), Roderick Barry (Western Province), Sieg van Staden (Valke), Skillie le Roux (Cheetahs).

 

[Eyes and Ears]

Referees have been following their own conventions rather than the laws themselves for decades and when someone does something different it excites comment.

LG, Referees apply the laws and interpretations that have been set by rugby's authorities - the IRB, SANZAR and the ARU. Generally these laws and interpretations have been agreed by administrators, coaches and referees as they try to find the best balance of law application for a complex game. While everyone will disagree with some of the interpretations, they are not conventions that have been created by referees.

 

[Lee Grant]

Maybe convention is the wrong word for some but it's one I use for the situation. I use it in the sense of the practice or habit that referees follow: meanings you would get in most dictionaries as one of the groups of meanings of the word. Referees follow the practice or habits of other referees in some situations instead of the law. I didn't mean that they didn't observe most of the laws - that would be ludicrous - only some.


For example: over the years there has been a practice or habit of referees in allowing scrummies to put the ball into the scrum skew when the law expressly prescribes that the ball be thrown "straight into the middle line". Why do they allow scrummies to put the ball into the scrum skew? Because other refs started doing it years and years before and they followed the practice of it.


Who knows why this started? I think it was in the period when referees seemed to want to speed up the game. It was one of the laws that they corrupted by not observing it. When the power hit came along and the feet of front rowers moved to get balance and the tunnel disappeared, it was ignored by most referees around the world and especially in professional games.


Every now and then there is a blitz on putting the ball in straight but the tolerance of crooked feeds prevails. The convention of allowing skewness is followed and not the law. I rest my case.


We can all think of other examples of conventions that are followed by referees and not the law as written, and some of them are actually good for the game - but let's not go there just now.

 

[Eyes and Ears]

I will give you scrum feeds as referees have thwarted the attempts of the IRB to fix this issue. However I think the referees would do it if the elite players and coaches wanted them to do it. My point is that the game is referee-ed according to current interpretations or game management guidelines which are supplemental to the Law Book or in some respects a practical approach to playing and refereeing the game and that these are not determined by the referees on their own or by referee convention. The current scrum engagement is much more to do with a balance between what players and coaches want and the safety aspects that the IRB want. It has nothing to do with referee convention.
I understand your point about the defintion of convention but my point is that the referees are not following each other but, in the most part, doing what they are told to do.

 

[Lee Grant]

My point is that the game is referee-ed according to current interpretations ....

In a way it is my point also. When referees started allowing the skew put into the scrum (the most egregious example of what I call a convention) that interpretation of the law, in other words its non-observance, was tested by the folks and processes you mentioned.

The coaches etc etc that you mention did not ask referees to allow the skew put in to be ignored. Referees initiated it, mainly through not wanting to slow down the game with a free kick, (or a penalty in earlier days before penalties for technical infringements were downgraded). When I saw this kind of thing in the 60s and 70s I thought it was laziness.

There were other things they initiated such as: letting the attacking scrummie, or the defending scrummie if the ruck had been won, put his hands into ruck and fish the ball out. This was, and is, a breach of the law, but it is a good thing for rugby. But it was the refs that were the innovators not the other folks you mention who ticked it or, more likely, did nothing about it.

I am aware that those "other folks" allowed the non-observance of laws to prevail, or as you say: wanted them to do it, else the referees would have changed their ways - just as they started doing last year when they were instructed (my word) to crack down on the releasing the tackled player and staying on feet laws.

My point is that the referees initiated these non-observance of the laws matters and they became conventions until they were quashed by "other folks", as was the non-observance of the releasing of the tackled player law.

Your point is probably that some of the the laws, as written, would not be ignored by the referees presently unless those other folks allowed non-observance to prevail.

I agree.

It is chicken and the egg stuff and I have nothing else to say on the matter.

 

[Thomond78]

Question; in this incident with Delve, did the "tackler" hold him so that he had to release Delve? Because if not, there was no tackle; the tackler has to release his hold, so, no need to release, no hold, no hold, no tackle and Law 14 applies and Delve could get up with the ball. An open hand in contact is not enough.

 

[WESTCOMBE RANGER]

All very interesting points made by most people. The world cup is upon us soon and lets hope for its sake all referees are consistent with one another but I fear that's a Utopian view I have. If we can't have that let's have refs who are themselves consistent. At least then the teams will know where they stand. For what its worth I reckon Wayne Barnes is one of the best - Any views on him ?

 

[Bullrush]

All very interesting points made by most people. The world cup is upon us soon and lets hope for its sake all referees are consistent with one another but I fear that's a Utopian view I have. If we can't have that let's have refs who are themselves consistent. At least then the teams will know where they stand. For what its worth I reckon Wayne Barnes is one of the best - Any views on him ?

No matter how good Wayne Barnes ever may become, I think that I will still punch him in the mouth if I ever meet him in person.

Oh no.....that old wound is starting to bleed again.....lol