Kaplan is to blame for points difference in Final

Loftus, has the light problem been sorted in Pretoria now, 'cause last Sunday morning just prior to kick-off you could swear at least two of the commentators were about to deliver kittens in pitch darkness?

If you South Africans or Bulls supporters can't handle a critique of the ref, you need to grow a thicker skin. If you separate the result from the reffing performance, you'll find they're two different things.

Four more years Hemjay, four more years. *snicker*

Maybe you bunch of childish sore losers should take a look at your newly appointed All Black captain, who was very gracious in defeat and gave a brilliant speech after the game. But then again,I don t think Mils is actually a Kiwi,so he must have learned those good manners and humility at home!

What a bunch of garbage.Stop it now,please Kiwis,you re letting yourselves down again.Kaplan was brilliant for the Chiefs on Saturday.I think it s time now for the Bulls supporters to complain about the ref because at one stage the freekicks and penalty count was 10 to 1 in favour of the Chiefs,who were evidently out of their depth.Kaplan was trying to prove to you moaners that he s not biased and you still accuse him.Firstly,Lauaki should ve been given a yellow card for interfering with du Preez's pass and thus stopping a certain try.Secondly,Spies was on side for his try.The Chiefs player had the ball out of the ruck and he hesitated,giving this super athlete enough time to collect a 'fine' pass.Thirdly,they even helped your average Chiefs team by starting the game later than usual and sparing your players from fainting in the Highveld heat.Another thing,it s not 'only we South Africans' that rate Kaplan - he's actually rated number 1 by the refereeing panel of Sanzar.The Bulls would ve loved an Aussie ref,but unfortunately we can t choose which ref we want and must just play with whoever Sanzar decide should ref.Just like the previous week when a New Zealand ref was officiating the semi final between the Bulls and the Crusaders.And I m not aware of any Bulls supporters that started to cry about it before the game like you lot.Hemjay,you have a lot to say but again it s just sour grapes and jealousy.Maybe you should take time off and when you re over the shock and humiliation go and watch the game again.Then,come back and give an objective view.If Kaplan wasn t so leniant towards your Chiefs team(I'm sure he felt sorry for them,I know I did) the score would ve been even more and then we might have heard about 'Suzie' poisoning your lasagne again! 61 - 17,that s right,61 - 17

Daryl, the popcorn gets a little stale after 12 grand finals and 10 titles in 14 years.

This is great entertainment. The clearly blinkered opinions of how Kaplan favoured the Bulls, the counter accusation that SA are the real whingers, the examination of minute details of an isolated pass, tackle or loose ruck. I agree with the assessment that Kaplan initially seemed to be a bit overzealous in pinging the Bulls, as if to prove his neutrality. The Bulls adapted and committed far fewer players to the rucks. In contrast the Chiefs were constantly falling over the rucks and entangling everybody as if by accident. Kaplan was extremely patient, even formally warning the Chiefs that the next infringement would be a full arm, when clearly the infringement that had just occurred should have been a yellow. (And I'm not even a Bulls fan, I'm a Sharks fan.) So just like it was Barnes' fault you lost the World Cup, you never blame the players. I mean you do, but you don't really. You still give the ref far more attention. The players did nothing wrong. After all, NZ teams are entitled to victory, how dare anybody else think themselves worthy. But that's fine. It's fun watching. Please continue while I go get some popcorn. For the record, I agree that the semi's and finals should be reffed by neutral refs, just to eliminate this kind of distraction from the post-result discussions.

Ben J. Crusaders 3 titles in a row. If we talking strictly super 14 titles try also two titles in 3 years yes thats right done before son. While also featuring in every single S14 finals series. Like I said start boasting when you get past the blues who won two titles in a row. Two titles in three years what a lame proclamation its been done and bettered before or is it more significant because its a Yarpie team

Hemjay "The Bulls deserved to win and it would have been a huge shock had they not when everything was in their favour. However all this talk of them being great and a dynasty is about to happen is in my opinion a little premature, the Bulls have done nothing that hasn’t happened before." Here are things that did not happen before my Kiwi friend: 1. 2 title in 3 years(I know, not the 7 of the Saders but still...) 2. Home Final at Loftus 3. Biggest points difference in 14 years of Super rugby 4. 8 tries by the winning Bulls team 5. Pierre Spies outpacing New Zealand backs (sorry that happens a lot) 6. Oh and my favourite: when do New Zealand teams get 50 000 spectators to a match?..... when they play in the republic.

I agree kaplan favoured the Bulls, whether intentionally or not. They were off their feet, playing the ball on the ground regularly, sealing off and illegally bridging (you have to support your own weight), coming in from the side, taking players out, illegally blocking. The first Bulls try had a huge forward pass and I don't see how it was missed. I've missed a lot, too. I'm not a Chiefs fan and obviously the Bulls would have won anyway, but the refereeing performance was pretty much shocking. I've never liked Kaplan and it seems only the SAffas on this site rate him! Even the bloke who did the Uni v Manly club game on Saturday was miles better.

Geez Allan,what childish trash.Kaplan gets the big games cause he is the best referee.I think he was under more pressure than you think.I wouldnt want the responsibility of being a ref in such a big final with the knowledge that I was at home with a home side playing and knowing the world of rugby was watching.You were obviously at the game--those forward passes--what nonsense.

I thought the pass was forward in real time, but on the replay it looked OK. The most annoying thing was how Kaplan let the Bulls fall all over the ruck and play the ball on the ground. Then you had guys like Steenkamp entering from the side over and over and over again. I don't think the Bulls would've got away with that outside of Loftus, but the Chiefs should've adjusted to the Bulls tactics and how the game was being reffed and changed the way they were forming rucks. The All Blacks did this extremely well last year, but unfortunately for the Chiefs there's no next week. There wasn't even really a second half.

The Bulls deserved to win although I have to agree there is a few dubious decisions but thats rugby and this season it definately has swung in the Bulls favour. I must say its funny that Safas of all people are accussing Kiwis of whining. I'd nominate the Safas for being the ultimate whingers of any nation in the world I would say that they would rival the Pomes for top billing. I guess we Kiwis have learnt a few things or two from our Safa partners on how to whinge and play the poor me card, after all as I said above the Safas are pretty good at it after all in 14years I'm sure we Kiwis can take the sookie card for a year. The Bulls deserved to win and it would have been a huge shock had they not when everything was in their favour. However all this talk of them being great and a dynasty is about to happen is in my opinion a little premature, the Bulls have done nothing that hasn't happened before. Enjoy your momment lads and congratulations, Only another 8 titles to equal NZs 10 There are 3 other teams who have won two titles, one team has won 7 and three in a row. The other has two in a row with a total of three wins. Drawing level with the Brumbies at the back of the field has to be moral boosting for the Bulls but over confidence can lead to your downfall. Look at the Blues and Brumbies. Only another 8 titles to equal NZ lads

Nash - I believe it's been modified so that the defender must stay behind the last foot until the ball is clear of the ruck. Previously they were allowed to advance as soon as the halfback put his hands on the ball.

James Mortimer, Regarding the Pierre Spies intercept, it looked like he was behind the offside line (the hindmost foot of his teamate in the ruck)when the Chiefs played the ball at the ruck. Is the defender not free to cross the offside line once the ball is played by the attacking team? Or do the defenders have to wait until the ball is advanced past the gain line? On the broadcast Joel Stransky was questioning whether or not Spies was offside as well, I would appreciate any comments explaining the law as to why Spies was offside. Thanks

Kaplan may have added to the score blow out but the final result was set in stone when the Chiefs lost 3 key players out injured against the Brumbies and Hurricanes. Very hard to put that aside, especially when they lost so many lineouts on their own throw. I've never been a fan of Kaplan and he continued to referee one team only - as usual - and allowed Bulls to be offside and off their feet at rucks and mauls and chasers to be in front of the kickers and offside players to remain in an offside position and converge on catcher without making an attempt to retire outside 10metres. This adds to pressure and level of mistakes. The whole Bulls game plan revolves around this tactic and I'm puzzled how they continue to get away with it. Neutral referees should have been used in the final but it wouln't have changed the result - but the blow out may not have been as great. Overall the Bulls definitely deserved to win the 2009 Super 14 Final.

I mean handling the ball.

For the record, I do believe the Bulls were the better team and deserved to win, but a healthy margin. But I did wince at some of the Kaplans decisions. It is hard to watch a game (especially if you are inclined towards one team) and see missed infringements. What the **** are you supposed to say. Do what Allan has bravely done here, and voice his opinion, and you will be accussed of sour grapes. I watched the final again yesterday, and there were a couple of blatent forward passes that led to Bulls tries. Pierre Spies intercept was taken about four metres from the gain line. But I don't think I've ever seen so many players off their feet and still handling the Bull as I had in this match. SANZAR should have done themselves a huge favour, and selected an Australian ref. Far be it for me to say Kaplan was biased, but it just gives certain parties less ammunition. I will end this point by saying again, the Bulls did deserve their win.

Dont think Kaplan was alll that bad but did miss a few things. !st try was definately a forward pass and his policing the ruck went against the chiefs.

I love the bit about blaming Du Preez for Lauaki's knock down. In any other game that would have been yellow card. WTF was Lauaki doing getting pinned on the wrongside anyway. This last point has been source of great frustration for me all season, player intentionally getting themselved on the wrongside and one of the rules reffed very differently by SA'can refs than their Aussie and Kiwi counterparts.