QF1 2012 - Reds vs Sharks

[Ruggo]

The Sharks game plan was by far better and they executed it brilliantly. They new where to hit us and they did.

 

[FiveStarStu]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-AK (Andrew Kellaway)-snc7/600074_10150930319296277_1518652977_n.jpg

was pretty funny to see.

 

[ChargerWA]

Aahhh Rubgy, the game they play in hevin.

 

[ChargerWA]

On a positive note, the Wallabies will get two more weeks to get their whole squad together than either NZ or SA.

 

[Athilnaur]

yup, little chance of more injuries either.

 

[TOCC]

Simmons was warned directly by Kaplan in the first half for loitering on the wrong side of the ruck (Kaplan actually said "you've done it twice now. Stop it or I will penalize you"). Then in the second half he warned the Reds captain about Simmons again, but didn't penalize him once.

Sharks also received 4 penalties within 5m of their own try line and managed to keep all 15 players on the field..
things go both ways

 

[qwerty51]

God forbid if it transfers over to the Wallabies. It'd be a real shame to see our Golden boys slowing down the Darkness ball.

It would be because we'd get penalised for it and they wouldn't..

 

[Braveheart81]

Sharks also received 4 penalties within 5m of their own try line and managed to keep all 15 players on the field..
things go both ways

The argument a couple of us are making is that Kaplan seems to let one thing cancel out the other.

If he hadn't been frustrated by what Simmons was doing, I think the Sharks would have lost a man earlier.

Rather than making both teams play within the laws of the game to keep the game flowing, Kaplan seems to have this habit of letting teams infringe and just not calling them on it to let the game flow.

 

[ACT Crusader]

I disagree with this statement. Yes the sharks forwards had an exceptional game but the Reds forwards seemed to evenly match them at all times. I personally believe the ref had bad calls ONLY to the reds and that the sharks were well treated at most times. There were too many mistakes in which the ref made and he should have acknowledged his poor predicament and picked up on that 10 minutes into the game. period.

So when Shark forwards were running around and through Reds forwards after multiple phase play, that was the Reds forwards evenly matching them?

Also when the likes of Daniel, Bresler etc were able to slow down Red ball because the Reds forwards were either a yard or two behind or not physical enough to move these guys off the breakdown, that was evenly matching them?

IMO the Reds forwards were the biggest problem as they were run off their feet and got lazy at the collisions to compete for the ball or secure it when it hit the deck.

 

[mark_s]

I would agree with that ACTC. I thought the Sharks forwards outplayed the Reds quite convincingly at the breakdown. It reminded me of many of the bledisloe's over the last few years. Like many others, I was calling for the ref to ping the men in black but you have really already lost the battle if you have to rely on the ref to get parity

 

[fatprop]

I agree with Mr Plumtree, it baffled me to

McKenzie's gamble baffles Plumtree


22nd July 2012 12:22

Sharks coach John Plumtree admitted he was surprised at coaching counterpart Ewen McKenzie's decision to move Will Genia to 10.

The Reds lost their Super Rugby play-off clash to the Sharks 30-17. And while the visitors were full value for their win, questions were raised why McKenzie opted to switch his scrum-half to fly-half after starting pivot Ben Lucas went down injured early in the match.

It was thought inside centre Mike Harris would be the logical replacement at 10 as he's played there for the Reds already this season, and replacement back Ben Tapuai take the Kiwi's place in midfield.

But Genia moved to the pivotal position with Nick Frisby coming on at nine and the Sharks took full advantage when centre Paul Jordaan scored a brilliant try following some superb lead-up work from JP Pietersen and Ryan Kankowksi.

However, Genia began to find his feet at fly-half and got the Reds back in the match with five minutes to go in the half when he scythed through the Sharks defence, passed out wide to number eight Scott Higginbotham before taking a return pass to score beside the posts.

Genia turned from hero to villain soon after half-time when his flat cut-out pass was intercepted by Sharks scrum-half Charl McLeod, who raced 70 metres to score under the posts for the match-clinching try.

"I was a little surprised that they didn't put (inside centre Mike) Harris at 10," said Plumtree.

"Will allowed us into the game because he was throwing a lot of skip passes and we read that."

Meanwhile, Genia couldn't hide his frustration following his team's play-off defeat that saw the defending champions' title defence come to an end - snapping their six-game winning run in the process.

The Reds dominated possession in the second half and seemed to get their reward when flanker Liam Gill barged over, only for the television match official to rule no try despite replays showing otherwise.

"I thought we scored a try off Gill's pick and go, but I don't understand how it was wasn't conclusive," Genia said.

"I felt if we got that try we were back in the game - it's very disappointing to finish on a sad note like that."

 

[Linebacker_41]

What a frustrating weekend!!
Yes another shocker from the 2nd worst referee in international rugby Kaplan.
Yes Quade should have been playing.
Yes the tactical move of Genia to 5/8th was a shocker too.

BUT

Damn the Sharks were good. There intensity was amazing, they hit every tackle like they were desperate. The Reds on the otherhand were timid.
Defensively they were never in it. Their linespeed was poor, they never even put pressure on Kaplan to make an offside penalty call the whole night (apart from Simmons loitering) and the low-chop tackles were few and far between.

Regardless of a different Ref and having Quade in the side the Reds wouldnt have one this game.

The Sharks were in a feeding frenzy and were never going to be denied.

 

[wamberal]

It's the old story, never changes, one team really wanted to win. It wasn't the Reds.

 

[PaarlBok]

Great win by the Sharks but not unexpected. Played exactly like I thought they would.

 

[TOCC]

The argument a couple of us are making is that Kaplan seems to let one thing cancel out the other.

If he hadn't been frustrated by what Simmons was doing, I think the Sharks would have lost a man earlier.

Rather than making both teams play within the laws of the game to keep the game flowing, Kaplan seems to have this habit of letting teams infringe and just not calling them on it to let the game flow.

I'm not completely against this form of refereeing, much prefer it over a ref who is going to blow up every minor infringement... Technically a ref could find a penalty in almost every single ruck that occurs, that makes for boring rugby..

 

[Braveheart81]

I think some referees have a muck better knack at letting a game flow but also keeping the teams playing within the rules (or close to).

Other referees like Bryce Lawrence and Jonathan Kaplan seem to either have a penaltyfest or don't penalise everything to allow the game to flow.

Maybe the players subconciously don't like them and try and cheat when they are refereeing.

 

[armatt]

I agree with Mr Plumtree, it baffled me to

Harris copped a head knock early and was talking rubbish at half time. No way he could have run a backline.

 

[No4918]

Do people really think that is what Kaplan was doing? Still leaves things up to the ref and who the hell is Kaplan to say that loitering offside is sufficient to cancel out a penalty in the 5m line. Give me a break. Sure the Reds aren't angels but that just sounds like a crock to me.

And why should it be justified to "let the game flow"? Give me a ref who knows what he wants from the players and any team at this level should have the ability to quickly adapt. The game should then flow and player may follow the law. Will prevent the game turning into shit fight we saw on saturday which i'd suggest is bad for the game in the long run.

Very poor justification for very poor reffing.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Give me a ref who knows what he wants from the players and any team at this level should have the ability to quickly adapt. The game should then flow and player may follow the law. Will prevent the game turning into shit fight we saw on saturday which i'd suggest is bad for the game in the long run.

.

And that ref is......

All the Super rugby refs have shown that they can get both whistle happy or go extended periods of no whistle. Even the ones that people seem to rate - Lawrence: Mark that is Jonkers, Joubert, Peyper, White, Walsh, Jackson play it that way.

 

[PaarlBok]

Do people really think that is what Kaplan was doing? Still leaves things up to the ref and who the hell is Kaplan to say that loitering offside is sufficient to cancel out a penalty in the 5m line. Give me a break. Sure the Reds aren't angels but that just sounds like a crock to me.

And why should it be justified to "let the game flow"? Give me a ref who knows what he wants from the players and any team at this level should have the ability to quickly adapt. The game should then flow and player may follow the law. Will prevent the game turning into shit fight we saw on saturday which i'd suggest is bad for the game in the long run.

Very poor justification for very poor reffing.

Cant be easy for you. Look at it this way, even if Father Xmast was the ref on saturday, there is no way the Reds would have won this match. The Sharks outplayed them in every possible way on the day.

Refs are only humans and make mistakes, the players are professional and should adobt to the refs ruling on the day in the best possible way.