SANZAR has stupidly threatened the integrity of the qualifying finals this weekend between the Crusaders and Bulls and the Reds and Sharks by appointing two South African referees to officiate in matches involving two South African sides.
This stupidity runs against all the history and protocols of most major international sports where neutral referees are required for the big finals.
Brett McKay: Brumbies take the gas in one last weekend of Super Rugby drama
It is unthinkable, for instance, that a New Zealand referee, say, would have been appointed to referee the final of the 2011 RWC tournament when New Zealand played France.
Heineken Cup finals, too, are refereed by neutral referees. This system of neutral referees is long-standing (aside from Super Rugby) and is fair and is seen to be fair.
On Monday, though, SANZAR’s game manager, Lyndon Bray (an excellent referee in his day) announced that the South African, Paco Peyper, will be the referee for the Crusaders – Bulls match, with assistants New Zealanders Keith Brown, Glen Jackson and TMO Garratt Williamson: and that South African Jonathan Kaplan will be the referee for the Reds – Sharks match, with the South African Craig Joubert an assistant and the Australians James Leckie (assistant) and Matt Goddard as TMO.
The justification for these appointments, according to Bray, is that the two referees fulfilled three key criteria – overall performance, accuracy of the big calls and the ‘right fit for the game.’
Pardon my french but this is codswallop.
To begin with the last criterion first: Kaplan is well past his prime as a referee. How he can be regarded as the ‘right fit’ for a match between two sides that like to run the ball and play at a high pace is beyond my understanding.
Peyper being a ‘right fit’ for the Crusaders – Bulls match is even more objectionable. Peyper refereed the Bulls – Crusaders match at Pretoria earlier in the year. This match is infamous for the fact that the Crusaders were leading comfortably around the half-way mark when the Bulls forwards Flip van der Merwe and then Chiliboy Ralepelle claimed they were eye-gouged.
No evidence of the eye-gouging was produced, either to Peyper on the field and to the citing commissioner, who confirmed there was no case for the Crusaders to answer as the Bulls had not offered any evidence to support the on-field claims of Bulls players.
It is history now that on the back of eight successful penalties out of 10 shots at goal, Morne Steyne kicked the Bulls to a 32-30 victory.
Crusaders were unhappy with Peyper’s refereeing performance and demanded an apology from the Bulls for their offensive claims
We need some history to understand the implications behind the ditching of the neutral referee protocol.
In 2007 the South African officials were in control of the SANZAR refereeing appointments. They listed 10 front line referees, six of them South African. They also said that the practice of neutral referees would be dropped for pool round matches. They implied that for the finals the neutral referees system would be used.
In fact, local referees were used for some of the finals with Jonathan Kaplan refereeing the Bulls versus Chiefs final at Pretoria.
As someone has pointed out, how would the Bulls react if Bryce Lawrence had been appointed to referee the Crusaders versus Bulls qualifying finals match?
Now the referees appointments are controlled by the New Zealander Lyndon Bray out of Auckland. Unfortunately, he has continued with the practice of ignoring the well-established and long-standing practice of having neutral referees for the finals matches.
I have consistently argued that this is unfair to the referees themselves. They should never be exposed to unfair accusations from parochial and biased supporters. This, in turn, disturbs the notion that justice must not only be done but should be seen to be done.
This is an unacceptable stuff up on the part of SANZAR.
Mukiwa
Guest
Don't ever mention Keo and "informed quality rugby opinion" in the same breath again. The man is ignorant even though he may be popular. His comments on games suggests that the game he saw wasn't the game the rest of us watched.
SandBox
Roar Guru
Reds lost to a better team, but looks like your call was right Spiro Kaplan can trade his whistle in for a zimmer frame. Maybe future teams can take a quick tap with a fit and mobile ref TMO: Seriously? Grow some balls
Sage
Guest
Calm down Ryan. Show me were I lectured you on respect! or even mentioned the word and I'll show you another "undeserving Reds" moan.Your SANZAR match fixing claim is my personal favourite though.
Geo
Guest
There was another saffa ref the week before that disllowed a crusaders try against the bulle for obstruction. Lol the ball carrier was in front of the support player...only for some dooofus to rule obstruction. Two bad decisions meant the bulls won two games.
IvanN
Roar Guru
Jonathan Kaplan has often said that he has no allegiance to any team, but he does have favorite pllayers - McCaw being one of them.
IvanN
Roar Guru
I agree thats exactly what he is trying.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Who sees your Performance Review, HH? I don't know but I would bet whoever pays your salary does. Guess who pays the referees salary, even if it is indirectly! Perhaps Handles should have said 'Why are the paying public not given access to the referee reviews'?
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Must admit, FIH got you there, X :)
Dan
Guest
Well written mate. I could never be a ref as I know no matter how hard I tried the hardwiring in me would always favour the Wallabies... But at least I have identified this fact and am not considering going for a refs position. hehe
Happy Hooker
Roar Rookie
Just like your performance review at work is published for all to see. Get real!
mikeylives
Guest
Totally missed my point re: 7 and 6.
Baa Baa
Guest
Why all the controversial stink over Referee's anyway. If the stupid rules were clear cut instead of having "interpretations" by Ref’s, Ass Refs and TMO’s it wouldn’t matter who the Ref was. Start by solving this problem and it all goes away! As to manipulation of playoffs, it goes back several games long before playoffs as we have all seen!
Holly Farr-Carnelle from Mosman
Guest
She performs a sweet curtsy: Thank you biltongbek!
mikeylives
Guest
Sorry stillmatic1, didn't take into account that some people reading this thread may be from another planet. Bias is a part of human nature. Scientific studies on the most innocuous subjects are rendered useless unless they are blinded because those conducting the study will exert bias on the outcome. What's more, a ref will try and counter that perceived bias with conscious corrections and may actually favour the opposing nations team. Whether refs are paid or amateur does not magically make them absolutely neutral. See xiedazhou's post for a simple explanation. If the Ref's income was entirely paid by the Reds and (like a professional player) his performance ensuring that the Reds win were an important part of him regaining a paid contract, one would expect him to be biased towards the Reds. So no, your player analogy does not make sense with respect to Refs.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Again, factually incorrect! You're not having too many wins, OJ... :)
Ryan
Guest
Sage if you don't like what I have to say please come up with a mature response. You have added absolutely nothing to this thread except immaturity, and you have the gall to lecture me on respect!
Steve.H
Guest
Brumbies Cheetahs match or Bulls Blues matches were other examples of a Refs decision effecting the out of the game. Lydon Bray is on recorded stating in both cases the Refs got it horribly wrong. Every team has to go through its share of bad calls, don't give into Spiro's conspiracy theories.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
The Crusaders were 4th heading into the final weekend. All they did was secure their playoff spot. The Reds were 8th heading into the final weekend. Apparently, the 8th best team is now the 3rd best team. The Reds having as many wins as the Crusaders because they beat all of the Australian teams twice.
AndyS
Guest
Actually, they don't. Cricket has neutral umpires written into the rules and regulations. They are toying with the idea of waiving it now the teams can challenge the decisions, but they aren't there yet.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Not in all cases, a bit like cricket ;)