Who is van der Westhuizen and why is he officiating the game of the week?

Easy to comment after the event but he had a reasonably good game. He handled himself and was sure throughout. When in doubt he referred to his assistants and/or the TMO. It was a good game to watch and he has to be credited for that.

Most on the blog were commending him on how well he ref'd the game..... Don't think anyone's eating humble pie. I think one even said it was the best ref'd game of the season...??

Well David. I think a few people will be eating humble pie after criticising your article. How Skelton stayed on the field is beyond me. I thought he reffed okay in general, but he was clearly overawed by the occasion in his decision to never card Skelton after 2 shoulders and a spear, and to only yellow Latu after a spear and punches...well.

So your comment about preferring an SA ref because Kiwi refs are biased was a retort to who? Saying you are being consistent later on is a criock. If that was the case why not say I prefer a neutral ref as an Aussie or kiwi would be biased. What was the comment that caused you to say McCaw was a bully? Your comments portray you as a person who has a grudge against NZ refs, players & fans. Thst may not be the case as you say but that's way you come across Peter K.

Don't forget the sports mad poms living in Adelaide. They get the PeterK vitriol as well in the haste to hate anything kiwi. He really is a bore.

Jeez - I thought journos at least did some research on their subject prior to writing an article - can you provide us with a few facts on Marius van der Westhuizen before you tell us his standard of refereeing is woeful and appointing him shows a lack of respect for both teams, Mr Lord??? Seems to me the accusation of woeful standard and lack of respect probably can be layed at someone else's feet.

Ah. I stand corrected, I didn't pick the irony there and read it literally i.e. the Tahs will lose because SA referees are crap and will favour the Crusaders. This DL article probably put me in the 'it's all painted Tah blue' zone. Clearly I got to take a couple of deep breaths and give Spiro a bit more credit and respect, I honestly used to really enjoy reading he's articles but straw on the camels back broke something like… Brumbies got lucky against the understrength Highlanders (despite Brumbies also being down players), Brumbies maul is illegal (Spiro did raise very valid and important points but hadn't been concerned about the state of the maul which hadn't really changed sine 2003 until the week the Tahs were about to play against it) and finally no mention of the undermanned Brumbies in the wrap up vs the Tahs (not a big thing for me but given the context of Spiro making a big deal out of it Brumbies v Highlander it just stuck in the jowl a bit). As I said, I dropped my lollies but it wasn't without reason. Cheers for the correction on the 'South African referee' business. ps. Spiro's, David Pocock should have put it under the dot vs the Stormers? Come on he's taking the piss there for sure?

who are you trying to kid? He never misses a chance to attack Jonathon Kaplan - the most capped ref of all time - or Andre Watson and continually implies that they are crooked.

McCaw. Greatest player to ever play the game. Crusaders. Greatest side to ever play the sxv All Blacks. Greatest side. Full stop. Good luck this year Peterk, your teams will need it.

I don't actually care if you make digs or not, I was just pointing out that your statement that you've only done where others have had a dig at Aussie/the Tahs first is pretty clearly not true.

Just further up in the thread. Akari made a comment about the incident between Tialata and McCaw. No mention whatsoever of any aussie's. Entirely New Zealand derby centred comment. "nz refs do favour the crusaders"

the close ones anyway

It's true. It's the only reason we've won any game we played in with a kiwi ref.

you misunderstood the need for tissues, they were not for tears but other bodily fluids. As I have posted before I expect the crusaders to win this.

Jerry - Actually I am praising McCaw on the bullying one. He should exert pressure on a new ref to get things his way. Dennis / Hooper are poor captains and fail to pressure refs for their teams sakes. In bully I mean in the context of the conversations the captains have with the ref. In saying I just remembered Read is the captain of the crusaders and he won't do this well not as well as Mccaw exerts pressure. Not a dig once again. Of course I only mentioned the kiwi refs and subconscious bias, if you read the thread and the context. It does not apply to SA refs since they are neutral in this match. The original comment was that would not the waratahs be praying for an oz ref that helps them, james said it suits him. A biased oz ref had already been covered, and my silence was acceptance. So SA and oz refs had been covered. Hence my comment that I agreed with a SA rather than a nz ref with bias towards a nz team. Not a dig. But kiwis are very sensitive.

Tissues? Better get yours. Things are going to turn South for your sides. You have no idea how bad they are.

He said 'players' you said 'McCaw' - ie, you made it about only the Crusaders. And you didn't say all refs had subconscious, you specified it was the Kiwi ones. In both cases, you're taking a general point and making a dig at Kiwis.

Rugby Tragic - Well you do not read my posts about how cynical the Brumbies are then. How cyncial Fardy and Carter are, and how I dislike that sort of play. McCaw gets targeted because he is the worst (greatest depending on how you view it) at this type of play.

Jerry - Charging Rhino specifically used the word bully , in saying he hoped that the young respect would be respected and not bullied. I then used his term back to show there is no chance. Of McCaw will pressure him and in the context of Rhinos original comment it was correct to use the term bully. Not a dig that one. I have constantly stated neutral refs are required, because I believe everyone has subconscious bias, studies have shown this. Hence in the context this was not a dig just being consistent. The last comment was just an extension of what I had covered before and yes an unprovoked dig.

Exactly. I've been complaining about that call all season. You can see it cluttering up my post history.