RE: Kaplan gifts Sharks game like a good Durban boy
October 20, 2012, 08:13:42
Your heading is really enlightening - did you actually see the game last night before you made the above statement on how Kaplan gifted the game to the Cheetahs? I really did not see any major problem in the way Kaplan refereed the game last night - so please come up with facts before making wild statements.
Lets get back to the comments of Sharkbok on a logical and legal basis. The quotation made by Sharkbok is obviously not up to date. [removed]erson resigned from the panel and Bryce Lawrence was kicked out because of gross incompetence.
There are a number of interesting points raised in the quotation though. One of those was why was Walsh kicked out by the NZRB? It is said it was for disciplinary reasons. I would like to know the reason in more detail. Did he for instance refuse to referee games according to instructions given to him by Paddy O'Brien? The fact that he moved to Australia and continued to be on the referee panel of the IRB indicates something really rotten in the New Zealand set-up.
That indicates also problems in the whole refereeing set-up. The quotation referred to the role of Paddy O'Brien as well. The latter was a bad referee - he was in fact ultimately booted out of the IRB set-up as well after the refereeing fiasco involving Bryce Lawrence in particular during the 2011 WC and the fact that he is not around anymore is really a plus for refereeing worldwide.
The fact that Walsh left the New Zealand panel and moved to Australia leaves NO New Zealand referees on the IRB Panel. We all admit that the totally wrong and that New Zealand - as leading rugby playing country in the World - should have more representation on the panel. But the latest move by New Zealand to put a complete incompetent in charge of refereeing development in New Zealand indicates that New Zealand refereeing standards - already low - is bound to go one way and that is DOWN.
There is one other aspect from the quotation that i want to deal with here and that relates to the issue of Barnes. In his autobiography Henry made one really wild statement - namely that he thought that Barnes was involved in match fixing. However, he never took any action and take up the matter with the IRB itself and did not even object to the IRB about the standard of refereeing in the 2007 French-All Blacks match. There are two interesting points here, namely -
* Barnes - despite alleged poor performance in the match referred to - is still on the IRB panel - and has never been sanctioned in any way - I would deal with is issue separately: and
* the mere fact that Henry thought it may be matchfixing indicates a state of mind that matchfixing in fact takes place - especilly in New Zealand where it apparently is regularly practised. Why is he even thinking about it in any event - that being the reason for my latter statement.
Now back to the Barnes issue - Henry and the New Zealand crowd blame Barnes for the loss of the All Blacks in 2007 - and in particular for the forward pass that led to the French try. Yet there are line judges that advise the referee about forward passes and in that particular case - no such advice was given by the line-judges - so you cannot really blame the referee himself. That may be the reason why Henry did noit proceed with any objection. The second issue raised by Henry relates to penalties not given and those in fact given. It is a fact of life that the All Blacks get penalized for frequent transgressions - even in the recent Dunedin and Soweto tests they were particularly bad in that regard. That sympttom did not change since 2007 at all. Once again there was no objection lodged by Henry about this issue as well - so we must assume he in his autobiography is in fact talking tripe to justify the All Black loss.
The solution should be that the IRB should introduce its own program for development of promising referees and the recommendation that it should be based in South Africa is basically sound - especially since 4 of the present crop of top referees are South African and the programme for referee development here is of a very high quality. That cannot be said of the other IRB countries and in particular New Zealand - who at presnt has NO REPRESENTATION on the IRB panel.
Such a recommendation would ensure that uniform standards are being developed and that interpretations are made that is factually correct in according with the law - in other words that there would be no different interpretations assigned to northern and southern hemisphere referees. It could only be beneficial.