Kaplan

[Brumby Jack]

Agreed, and there is no point 'demoting' them to an assistant referee role because they are still in a position to stuff it up.
Kaplans assistants need to have something done for missing so many forward passes by both teams. O'Gara's was NFL Quarterback stuff!

 

[Scotty]

Perhaps the assistant referees could also have given Kaplan some advice on Palu's tackle.

Thommo,

I think the biggest issue with your defense of Kaplan's actions, is that you are defending a high tackle, which, clearly he did not penalise Palu for. It may or may not have been a high tackle, but that wasn't what the card was given for.

As far as your points are concerned, I think there was a timing issue with Palu's tackle, partly because Kearney seemed to step into it. If he hadn't thrown Palu off his timing, he may well be still on the ground now.

I'd like to hear your views on the non-penalising of Kearney's shoulder charge? Was it somehow not a shoulder charge?

 

[Thomond78]

It is time to introduce an independent citing commissioner to judge referees, with penalties of perhaps:

1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.

Biffo, you do know about assessors, correct...?

 

[Thomond78]

Thomo? It was - what the leaguies call - a dominant tackle. It was establishing physical dominance and making the ther player think twice, and giving our side a big lift. It was wonderful. A total CapTana specialty.

Just like Bakkies's clean-out, he only got penalised becuase it was so bloody good.

Justice #8.

No, Scarfie.

If it had been six inches lower, it would have been a dominant tackle.

It was over the line of the shoulder; which made it a high tackle.

Scotty, I'll grant you that he gave it for no arms, and he looks to have been wrong on that on the replay; I've no particular beef with Kaplan being wrong on that. However, two observations; first off, if you go high and bring the arm up and over, as Palu did, you're playing with fire and can't really complain if you get burned. Second, as others here have pointed out, in real time, high and the arm going up and over, it did look like a carding.

The question is, looking at it live and once only, did it look like a carding? And if the answer's yes, then it's reasonable. A distinction used in some areas of law is the concept of an error within jurisdiction; you're wrong, but it's not a barking mad error given the circumstances. Live, at that speed, once off, I reckon it was an error within jurisdiction.

So, on balance; Kaplan's random as buggery, but we knew that anyway. And Wyclif? Six inches lower, next time, there's a good lad, and don't give them the option of fucking up. Ask Rocky about it; he's learned that trick.

 

[Biffo]

It is time to introduce an independent citing commissioner to judge referees, with penalties of perhaps:

1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.

Biffo, you do know about assessors, correct...?

Morning Leprechaun. Top o' to you.

Yes, 'deed I do.

You may have missed a key word - I've bolded it for you.

 

[Thomond78]

It is time to introduce an independent citing commissioner to judge referees, with penalties of perhaps:

1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.

Biffo, you do know about assessors, correct...?

Morning Leprechaun. Top o' to you.

Yes, 'deed I do.

You may have missed a key word - I've bolded it for you.

Again, Biffo; you do know who the assessors for internationals are?

For the game last Saturday, it was Bob Francis. From NZ. Independent, sort of thing....

 

[Biffo]

It is time to introduce an independent citing commissioner to judge referees, with penalties of perhaps:

1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.

Biffo, you do know about assessors, correct...?

Morning Leprechaun. Top o' to you.

Yes, 'deed I do.

You may have missed a key word - I've bolded it for you.

Again, Biffo; you do know who the assessors for internationals are?

For the game last Saturday, it was Bob Francis. From NZ. Independent, sort of thing....

Unbiassed as to team, not referee.

Appointed by?

 

[Lindommer]

What's this bullshit about Palu's tackle being "too high"? It wasn't too high at all. Cliffy's tackle was fair and square on the top of Kearney's chest, just where he happened to be carrying the ball which bounced up and hit Kearney on the chin. A perfectly legitimate tackle in which arms were used.

And that's from a referee, me.

 

[Biffo]

What's this bullshit about Palu's tackle being "too high"? It wasn't too high at all. Cliffy's tackle was fair and square on the top of Kearney's chest, just where he happened to be carrying the ball which bounced up and hit Kearney on the chin. A perfectly legitimate tackle in which arms were used.

And that's from a referee, me.

Me agree. Me former referee.

Do we now have the ridiculous - that a player must grasp an opponent by hand before using his/her shoulder?

 

[Thomond78]

What's this bullshit about Palu's tackle being "too high"? It wasn't too high at all. Cliffy's tackle was fair and square on the top of Kearney's chest, just where he happened to be carrying the ball which bounced up and hit Kearney on the chin. A perfectly legitimate tackle in which arms were used.

And that's from a referee, me.

Me agree. Me former referee.

Do we now have the ridiculous - that a player must grasp an opponent by hand before using his/her shoulder?

Hold on; as you know, those are two separate issues, high and trying to use the arms. Don't confuse them.

I've already pointed out that Kaplan was wrong on not using the arms; but in real time, it was entirely understandable.

But Palu was high. His shoulder was over the line of Kearney's shoulders. And that's high. It's strict liability; there is no exception for it, you have to tackle below the line of the shoulders. Doesn't matter if it's a second row tackling a ducking Shane Williams, you have to tackle below the line of the shouders. And Palu didn't; his left shoulder is above Kearney's shoulders. High.

Edit; Law 10 (4) (e), second paragraph. Emphasis added.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. Penalty: Penalty Kick

So, if you go above the line of the shoulders, it's a high tackle. End of.

 

[Thomond78]

It is time to introduce an independent citing commissioner to judge referees, with penalties of perhaps:

1. Avoidable mistake which clearly cost a team a win - 4 weeks suspension
2. Avoidable mistake which may have cost a team a win - 2 weeks suspension
3. More than five avoidable mistakes which did not influence the result - 2 weeks suspension.

Biffo, you do know about assessors, correct...?

Morning Leprechaun. Top o' to you.

Yes, 'deed I do.

You may have missed a key word - I've bolded it for you.

Again, Biffo; you do know who the assessors for internationals are?

For the game last Saturday, it was Bob Francis. From NZ. Independent, sort of thing....

Unbiassed as to team, not referee.

Well, you have a bit of a problem there, then, Biffo.

As it happens, Wayne Barnes was suspended for a while, and the Changalangs were dropped from the international panel. It works up here, don't ask me why it doesn't down there.

Appointed by?

Paddy O'Brien. You know, from the AWESOME!!!! SH where the refs are, we're always assured, never pedantic and always soooooo much better than anything in the NH... :fishing

 

[Biffo]

Appointed by?

Paddy O'Brien. You know, from the AWESOME!!!! SH where the refs are, we're always assured, never pedantic and always soooooo much better than anything in the NH... :fishing

Thank you for confirming the prejudice of assessors. Referee, assistant referees, TMO and assessor all appointed (and re-appointed or not re-appointed) and paid by one man. Independent indeed!

 

[Thomond78]

Appointed by?

Paddy O'Brien. You know, from the AWESOME!!!! SH where the refs are, we're always assured, never pedantic and always soooooo much better than anything in the NH... :fishing

Thank you for confirming the prejudice of assessors. Referee, assistant referees, TMO and assessor all appointed (and re-appointed or not re-appointed) and paid by one man. Independent indeed!

On which basis, since they're all ultimately paid by the head of the IRB, no-one's independent;in fact, you can't have anyone involved with the game at any level who's independent by that rationale, because we're all part of organisations that are part of the IRB. Basically, you're just being silly, Biffo.

 

[Biffo]

Edit; Law 10 (4) (e), second paragraph. Emphasis added.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. Penalty: Penalty Kick

So, if you go above the line of the shoulders, it's a high tackle. End of.

We are discussing Kaplan and Sunday night's match here. What has Law 10 (4) (e) got to do with that? Whom did Mr Kaplan do under that Law?

Ahhhhh, I get it now!! You are referring to the repeated high tackles by Irish players that Mr Kaplan missed.

 

[Thomond78]

What's this bullshit about Palu's tackle being "too high"? It wasn't too high at all. Cliffy's tackle was fair and square on the top of Kearney's chest, just where he happened to be carrying the ball which bounced up and hit Kearney on the chin. A perfectly legitimate tackle in which arms were used.

And that's from a referee, me.

See the law quoted above. Ends up above the line of the shoulders, high tackle.

Refs, eh...? :

Edit; And that includes retired refs... :

 

[chief]

I don't get why people are saying why its high either. His head is next to Kearney's head. Its not making contact.

 

[Cutter]

Thought Palu's hit was at the very worst a penalty for a high tackle. IMO it was just a great hit, and I think Kaplan overreacted massively upon hearing the crowd and seeing Kearney crumple limply to the floor.

like i said diving

Quite apart from the punctuation, that's utter balls, Louie. There was no diving, and claiming there was just demeans the whole exercise.

Does it demean the whole exercise any more than your complete lack of credibility when discussing Irish injustice?

Kaplan didnt think it was high, he sent him for not using his arms, which he clearly did.

I agree with your other point about Heaslip though. As someone else said, they went both ways.

 

[Thomond78]

Irish injustice...? What, he's not a Capetonian, he's Sean Ua Ceapaillin of Corca Dorcha...?

Quare geography ye have round your way, boyQs...

 

[Biffo]

Irish injustice...? What, he's not a Capetonian, he's Sean Ua Ceapaillin of Corca Dorcha...?

Quare geography ye have round your way, boyQs...

A man who wants rugby to be played under the rules of GAA should STFU. Simple enough for you?

 

[chief]

Had the shoulder charge of happened to someone wearing a wearing a reds jersey, waratahs jersey, brumbies, force or wallabies jersey, kaplan would have yellow carded that player. I want an apology from Paddy now