1. Kaplan is so widely criticised in Australia because his refereeing is, by statistical analysis of his record, biased against Australian teams. Australia in internationals and the Waratahs in Super rugby, win less than 20% of their games when he referees. Both teams have win/loss records over 50% with all other referees. Contrary to the myth, statistics don't lie. The raw data is unchallengeable. He also tends to make big errors (second ball for quick lineout throws) but often he will get small detail decisions right that most other refs don't. I'd have him at the cup, but ineligible to referee Australian games, and he certainly should be limited to pool matches.
Perhaps you'd like to nominate a referee with whom you statistically have a guaranteed winning outcome? If you're going to peddle this, you'll have to explain how the appointment of Kaplan is more than correlation, but causation.
2.Your second sentence regarding Dickenson is just assertions. No argument or reason is given. So let me provide you with a reason that at least can be discussed. Dickenson is very strict at ruck time. The way all NZ teams (International and Super) play at the ruck is to cause general mayhem, sometimes legally, sometimes not.
Assertion. Mindless, partisan nonsense. Australians commit exactly the same transgressions as New Zealanders do at the breakdown - they're penalised for the same reason. The
real point of difference for years was twofold:
When they sniff a chance of a turnover they swamp the breakdown more than most teams, and
Backs contested rucks like forwards.
Dickinson, like most refs is pedantic. I've less problem with referees applying strict interpretations of the laws as long as they do so consistently and correctly. At best, fails the second criteria and at his worst the first as well. He is myopic and consistently reward dominating teams, regardless of how the dominance is arrived.
The most glaring omission from the WC squad is Mark Lawrence. With Barnes he is in the top two tournament referees with Joubert having slipped from first to third lately.
What was that about assertions?
I've never seen the fuss about Joubert.
I don't mind him at all. While he appears to guess at scrum time (and there aren't too many refs who don't give this impression) he rewards teams that assert themselves unless they're blatantly going off their feet. Given it's a game of physical confrontation, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Barnes and Mark Lawrence are usually the best. And I can't understand why Mark Lawrence wasn't picked. I just don't get it.
I don't agree with Barnes. He is all too often decisive and incorrect, like a junior officer well out of his depth. His worst habit is carding defending players for the heinous crime of contesting for the ball in general play. He misses basic elements of the game. If you're an attacking player chasing a kick, the best thing you can do is clatter into a defending player and dive onto the ground. London to a brick Barnes will penalise the defender.
As a referee, his displays have all the marks of a manic depressive. On his day he is a very good referee. The flip side to this is how execrable he can make a game. He is vastly improved from the inept display of the Millenium Stadium in 2007, but anything is an improvement on that.
My list of the RWC refs:
* Wayne Barnes (England) - erratic pedant
* Nigel Owens (Wales) - whistle happy pedant
* Romain Poite (France) - hopeless from the little I've seen
* Dave Pearson (England) - Haven't seen enough to judge
* Alain Rolland (Ireland) - not a referee's arsehole
* Bryce Lawrence (New Zealand) - is a referee's arsehole
* Craig Joubert (South Africa) - usually competent
* Jonathan Kaplan (South Africa) - usually hopeless
* Steve Walsh (Australia) - occasionally hopeless
* George Clancy (Ireland) - just astonishing.
