South Africa’s Bryan Habana, right, lines up Australia’s Nathan Sharpe during their Tri-Nations rugby union match Saturday, July 24, 2010, in Brisbane, Australia. Australia won 30-13.
SANZAR took a giant step towards improving the sub-standard Super Rugby refereeing by suspending showpony South African Jonathan Kaplan for three weeks, for incompetence.
It’s a wake-up call to all referees when the most-capped international whistler can cop a holiday.
Brilliant.
But the ARU took a big step backwards by offering tireless Wallaby lock, and Force skipper, Nathan Sharpe a second-rate contract.
Humiliating.
SANZAR couldn’t bring itself to say suspended. “Rested” was the term used. But suspended is a deserved description. Kaplan is a blight on the game they play in heaven.
His refereeing over the last two years, at least, has been hell.
But he has paid the penalty for his ridiculous decisions in the Rebels-Brumbies game three weeks ago and the Wales-Ireland Six-Nations clash last weekend.
Kaplan’s arrogance knows no bounds.
The blatant forward pass that led to the Harry Speight try late in the game, which gave the Brumbies the lead against the Rebels, was inexcusable.
Then, right on fulltime, the Kaplan penalty awarded against the Brumbies after a minor dust-up was atrocious, handing the Rebels their first win.
Both were superceded by Kaplan awarding Wales a try after a quick throw-in, the turning point in their clash with Ireland.
The ball had been kicked into the stand – Kaplan saw that. But Welsh captain Matthew Rees took another ball off the ball-boy for the restart that led to the half-back Mike Phillips’ try.
Illegal! The same ball must be used.
Kaplan covered his butt by asking Scottish touchie Peter Allan if it was the same ball. Allan confirmed that, so both Kaplan and Allan were wrong.
But there was no recourse available to the TMO, that system reserved only for making sure the try-scorer wasn’t in touch and had grounded the ball properly. All previous phases are the sole responsibility of the referee and the touchies.
That’s a loophole the IRB must correct.
Cold comfort for Ireland, but at least Kaplan can’t create any more mayhem for three weeks.
Nathan Sharpe’s in a vastly different category. He’s done nothing wrong. In fact,. he’s one of the best locks in world rugby.
Not according to the ARU, who offered Sharpe a vastly reduced contract for next year alone, contingent on the big bloke playing a minimum of six internationals in 2012.
Barring serious injury, Sharpe will do that on his ear.
But the offer shows no recognition for his standing in the world game, nor how much he has meant to Wallaby rugby and how vital he is to the World Cup campaign in September and October.
Shabby treatment for the 33 year-old with 93 caps.
If the decision-makers took his DOB as the criteria for the offer, they are barking up the wrong tree. Obviously they haven’t seen how sharp Sharpe has been for the last two seasons, playing like a spring chicken.
And if a senior player can be treated so badly, the rest of the Wallaby squad will be looking over their shoulders.
Sharpe is very popular with his peers. So this is a decision that could disrupt the squad, damaging morale with the World Cup in their sights.
Bad call ARU, well played SANZAR.
Stellenbosched
Guest
Hi JohnB, I think your arguement has merit. I can collect the general stats per year, so without knowing when Dickinson first graced our rugby fields all I can give are stats for the years in which I think he could have started: Jan 2003 to date- SA played 105, won 68. Winning ratio of 65,23% Jan 2005 to date- SA played 80, won 52. Winning ratio of 65,62%
JohnB
Guest
Do you think win/loss ratios using data back more than a century (for that matter, before say the begnning of Super rugby) may be a trifle irrelevant? If you want to try to argue based on stats, look at the period in which Dickenson has been reffing. What are the win/loss ratios with him reffing and without him? Then break it up for games against each opponent, with and without him - and for games home and away. If there's still a significant difference, maybe you've got an argument.
Fatty
Guest
....and SA refs site says Kaplan being assistant referee this weekend. Thought he was suspended/stood down/having time off?
Sam Taulelei
Roar Guru
Heard from OJ the day after the quake, he and his family were reunited after several hours and as far as I know they are ok. Haven't heard from him since then but given the circumstances that's understandable.
Stellenbosched
Guest
Hi Spencer, SA played 395. Won 250. Lost 126. Drawn 19. Winning ratio is 65,69%. This includes all tours, whether official or not (e.g. Cavaliers and Pumas). While I am on a roll here, as a South African I am seriously unhappy about the short change we get for the money we provide for SuperRugby. We pay double what NZ and Ozz give to the Sanzar coffers. In return we have a Kiwi gm who sits in Sydney. I often wonder if Peters has ever visited SA. Maybe once to check his bank balance.
Fatty
Guest
Fred SA Refs agree not a legitimate quick throw and that both Kaplan and Assistant got laws wrong
Brett McKay
Expert
PK, I think we'll see more of these types of contracts, especially for guys over 30. From memory, Mortlock might be on a similar arrangement for this season..
Brett McKay
Expert
Moa, I was wondering the same earlier today.. OJ, if you're out there, we hope you're safe and well............
JohnB
Guest
You're right, apart from the 4th reason. That the 2 sides have "started to form" a lineout is irrelevant - there is no reference to "started to form" in the Laws, or to that having any effect on anything. There is also no definition of what is "starting to form" - if you move towards the line of touch you could be said to be starting to form a lineout, meaning that there would very rarely if ever be a valid quick throw if starting to form did prevent them. Under the Laws, what is relevant is whether the lineout is formed. To me if you are starting to form you have not yet formed. The Laws say you can take a quick throw before a lineout is formed (in fact, you can only take it then). Law 19.2(a) says " A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a lineout to form" and 19.2(c) says "A player must not take a quick throw-in after the lineout has formed". 19.8 deals with forming a lineout in (a) "At least two players from each team must form a lineout". To me, that means until there are at least 2 players from each side standing along the line of touch, the linout is not formed. Note that (g) says you can't voluntarily fail to form a lineout. Which is all well and good but even if I'm right it remains the case that having 3 reasons to invalidate the quick throw here (if the facts were as indicated, and no-one seems to be disputing them) should be enough to be going along with!
Ben S
Roar Guru
Terry, we're fans, and this theory about Sharpe is no more than speculation. We can't possibly ever know whether he is a weak scrummager. Anyway, the England scrum improved with Lawes and Palmer, two of the lithest locks currently playing Test rugby, all because of the front row. Obviously the locking partnership has a huge impact, but if the front row is technically good then things shouldn't be that bad. I'll also disagree about 08, as you might expect. Australia definitely had the nudge, but, a lot of the penalties doled out that day were totally arbitrary. There you have it ;-0
JohnB
Guest
So any improvement wasn't down to him but any worsening at any time was? And (leaving aside pointing out that a common denominator is not necessarily the cause of a problem) not having props who are as good as the opponents is not a common denominator?
Moaman
Guest
Speaking of Japan-has anyone heard from OJ and other Japan-based roarers? Hope they came through ok.....
Richo
Guest
I'm no fan of kaplans people skills but they were simply bad calls, we all make them, we'd like him to make less but I actually like the human side to our game. Sharpie, well take the personalities out of it and the call on a business one may have it's merit. But I ask you, have the ARU thought about the potential knock on - why would I as a wallaby consider loyalty after the WC when they show no loyalty to it's players. Their is many a good player still running around in their mid to late 30's - Simon Shaw as one example. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
IronAwe
Guest
Also that statistic is going to be skewed because the majority of South African matches reffed by Dickenson will be against the All Blacks, as he is the nuetral ref for those two countries.
ToddH
Roar Rookie
Money is very tight at the ARU these days.....
IronAwe
Guest
I'm sorry but whether or not it was the same ball was irrelavent as the ballboy handed the ball to the welshman who threw it in, which means a quick throw in can not be taken. Both Kaplan and the assistant ref saw this. Kaplan didn't even need to ask about the ball and the fact that he did shows he doesn't know the rules. Likewise both of them would have seen the ball get kicked into the grandstand so again, no quick throw in possible, irrespective of same ball or not. Both refs completely at fault for not knowing the rules.
PeterK
Roar Guru
I agree with what has been done with Sahrpe. The basis of all palyers contracts should be performance based. So if ypou perform you get the bucks. Not guaranteed money regardless if you make the Wallabies or play well. The ARU is in real trouble financially and they are reducing player payments and using this method is fine. Hwoever I would like to see administrators and exuctives of the ARU take a similar pay cut but that wont happen.
IronAwe
Guest
The ball is allowed to be passed backwards in a quick lineout. The ballboy also handled the ball and gave it to the welshman who threw it in and both referees saw this so it is amazing that it was allowed to go ahead. Absolute blunder.
Fred
Guest
For all you misinformed puzzlers http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2704361.htm . Stop for one second and read the actual rules of the game before passing judgment. Or stick to League! Very disappointing article!
Fatty
Guest
I am not a Kaplan fan but he made some basic errors here, as did his touch judge. Yes ball touched by someone apart from thrower, so could not be used for quick throw in. Ball quite obviously changed as given to thrower by ball boy, so quick throw in not legitimate. Also, for a quick throw in to occur, player making the quick throw must be between where ball went in to touch and own goal line. Here the ball was kicked in to touch on the full and the lineout was taken back to where the Irish player kicked the ball, ie not between where the ball went in to touch and the player making the quick throw in's goal line. Both sides have started to form a lineout. So on four counts this is not a legitimate quick throw. Assuming that it is thus not a quick throw in, the ball was not thrown straight along the line of touch, as it is meant to be. Hence, another lineout or scrum, Ireland option. In each situation, quick throw in or not, Kaplan and TJ/Assistant have got it wrong.