FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Kaplan says refs got it wrong at newlands

Kaplan says refs got it wrong at newlands

Started by Beeno134 REPLIES811 VIEWS· 14 Mar 2016, 13:48
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
14 Mar 2016, 13:48
#1
14 Mar 2016, 13:48#1
Now I ask you who would you believe maruis bonkers and that daft down under ref or the esteemed Kaplan!

Marius Jonker says he made the right call when awarding the Sharks a penalty try at Newlands, but former Test referee Jonathan Kaplan disagrees.

The Stormers were leading 10-3 after 45 minutes when Cobus Reinach reached out to place the ball over the tryline, only for it to be knocked out of his hands by Siya Kolisi's foot. The Stormers flanker had come across to defend and appeared to place his left foot where the ball was going to be grounded.

Jonker, the TMO, told referee Mike Fraser that Kolisi had kicked the ball out of Reinach's hands and recommended a penalty try and a yellow card.

According to Jonker, it’s irrelevant whether Kolisi intended to kick the ball or not.

'The rule does not deal with what a player’s intention was. If his foot did not make contact with the ball, then a try would in all likelihood have been scored. You also can’t award a penalty try if the incident does not warrant a yellow card,' Jonker told Netwerk24.

However, Kaplan questioned the decision on Twitter.

'If you look at the incident, it is clear Kolisi's action is not intentional. It's questionable whether his action is actually a kick at all.

'Does the TMO look at intention or is he interested in the outcome? And is that the correct philosophy in the first place? Surely it is in the best interests of the game to be able to take a view on intention? It would appear rough justice to card an accident!'

Kaplan added that Reinach, who was held in the tackle, had used his arm to propel himself forward.

'So, in essence, no card, no try, penalty to Stormers. Happy to argue this on any forum.'

You are welcome here Kaplan as we have an obnoxious oak called rooitwit ranting on about the matter! 

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Mar 2016, 14:09
#2
14 Mar 2016, 14:09#2
 Beeno
Why bother - fact is that intention is not a norm in rugby and that is a fact.  There can be no doubt that Kolisi was foolish going into that situation feet first - a real sign of chronic stupidity.
In any event whether Kaplan differ from that decision is really meaningless and fact is that the Stormers lost the game -whether you like it or not.  I definitely do not like it - but that does not count at all.    
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
14 Mar 2016, 14:52
#3
14 Mar 2016, 14:52#3
Beeno, please listen to the wisdom of CleverMike. He w as also very accurate in predicting the problems of the wee stormers. Others were slower on the uptake but allowances should be made.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
14 Mar 2016, 15:18
#4
14 Mar 2016, 15:18#4
 Well, intention would determine if it was a kick, walking or running? Your feet must be on the ground to stand. To move from point A to Point, you must lift one foot at a time, to put it down on a different position. If the intention was to put his leg between the ball and the tryline, it wasn't a kick...or are the laws stating that your feet are not supposed to touch a ball if said ball is in the hands of an opposing player ? To me it seemed that Brandsiek Jonker looked for a reason to award a penalty try...my blinkered perception, I know. Still, no use in crying over spilled milk. Stormers should chin up and focus on next week's match. Brumbies are going to be tough.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
14 Mar 2016, 15:48
#5
14 Mar 2016, 15:48#5
 Link to article on law discussion
The case put forward in this article makes sense to me. It was unfortunate that it had such a big impact on the game but I think there was still 20+ minutes left so stor mers still had a chance to win it. They were not up to it on the day.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Mar 2016, 16:04
#6
14 Mar 2016, 16:04#6
 Draad 
I would not say that the ref is wrong about what happened.   If you read the article by Dobson on the issue and look carefully at the slow motion of the incident on the clip in the match - their is no doubt in my mind that Kolisi's foot actually dislodged the ball from Reinach's hand.   That is the crux of the matter - intent has absolutely nothing to do with the incident.   
I agree with you about the spilled milk issue - but am seriousl;y worried about the Stormers chances in the game against the Brumbies - they have a seriously defective backline and their loose forwards are not up to standard.  Malherbe also seems to be out of form and something must be done with that problem as well.    
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Mar 2016, 17:35
#7
14 Mar 2016, 17:35#7
 Kolisi was coming across from the right and had to put his left foot somewhere. He made no attempt to kick the ball. He seemed to stretch his stride a little bit, but simply grounded the foot. Reinach then grounded the ball on his foot and the ball was dislodged.

Was stretching his stride to block the placement illegal? Probably not.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Mar 2016, 18:21
#8
14 Mar 2016, 18:21#8
 .   This really is funny - rules do not count because Kolizi was stretching  his leg just a bit to far - it hit the ball and so he is not guilty of an offence in terms of the rules of the game of rugby.  O boy - I am still laughing about that one.
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
14 Mar 2016, 18:27
#9
14 Mar 2016, 18:27#9
Ha, ha, next we will hear that Reinach should have been penalized for assaulting Kolisi's foot with the ball.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
14 Mar 2016, 19:20
#10
14 Mar 2016, 19:20#10
 Mike, if you call that a kick, I really don't know what to say.
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Mar 2016, 19:29
#11
14 Mar 2016, 19:29#11
 It wasn't a kick ....at worst it was a block. All the force came from Reinach trying to place the ball...as JW so eloquently put it, he assaulted Kolisi's foot with the ball.

Put it this way if Kolisi's was standing dead still and Reinach grounded it on his foot, would it have been a kick? Obviously not. Why should it be a kick just because Kolisi was moving.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Mar 2016, 19:48
#12
14 Mar 2016, 19:48#12
 Balls - go and see the slow-motion clip on what exactly happened.   Kolisi definitely tried to use his foot to stop the scoring of a try and he did touch the ball with his foot causing the ball to be dislodged from Reinach's hand.    
Fact is Kolisi tried to stop the try being scored by using his foot - it dislodged the ball going down in Reinach's hand  Guilty as charged I have never before seen that a try was avoided by a player with his foot - Standing still or moving. 
In any event - read the following from Rugby 365 - Paul Dobson:-
"There was considerable discussion of the penalty try and yellow card in the match between the Stormers and the Sharks on Saturday.

There was lots of upset people with the decision.

South African referees have a website which allows readers to ask questions for explanations on points of law. On Saturday evening I recived the most obscene e-mail I have ever had, purporting to come from a Dave Snow and referring to the TMO and his decision.

I replied to the given address, davesnow@gmail.com, but it was returned undelivered, because 'The e-mail account that you tried to reach does not exist'.

Let's look at the incident and the law.

As the Sharks bashed at the Stormers line in the second half, Cobus Reinach of the Sharks ran at a diagonal towards the goal post. Tackled from behind by Coleman, Reinach stretched towards the goal-line near the goal post but the ball was dislodged from his grasp and Jano Vermaak cleared.

This led to a TMO examination in which it was clear that Siya Kolisi's left boot had made contact with the ball, dislodging it.

The referee and the TMO agreed that Kolisi's act constituted foul play and that Reinach would otherwise probably have scored a try. This resulted in a penalty try and a yellow card for Kolisi.

Both of the English commentators immediately disagreed with the decision and made their decision known with the force of infallibility.

There are thus several things to consider - the action, the law and the administration of the law.

The ball was in Reinach's right hand roughly above the plane of the goal-line. It is dislodged from his grasp by the boot of Siya Kolisi of the Stormers. The ball then hits the padding and Jano Vermaak of the Stormers gets the ball to kick it out of immediate danger.

The Law

Law 22.4 (e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal-line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.
(fl) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

There is no sanction there but there is here.

Law 15.6 (j) When a tackled player reaches out to ground the ball on or over the goal-line to score a try, an opponent may pull the ball from the player’s possession, but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Kicking the ball is not illegal but kicking it out of somebody else's hand is illegal, because it is dangerous. Dangerous play is a part of foul play, as is unfair play.

Was it a kick?

Law DEFINITION
Kick: a kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, and from knee to toe, but not including the knee.

What Kolisi did could well be described as a kick.

The commentator says it was not deliberately done. There is the matter of intention and accidental is mentioned. The law does not speak of intention at all. Kolisi was not forced to do what he did.

He could have avoided doing what he had done. He stride is a wide one to get his foot to the ball, his hands much further from the ball and with no chance of getting to it.

The Laws of the Game have used various words to describe what a player does without an outside force compelling him to do what he did - intentionally, deliberately, voluntarily and even willfully. It probably means of his own accord, not forced to do what he did, of his own accord.

In any case the referee is required to deal with what happens. He is not a mind reader.

It would seem that it was fair to judge what Kolisi did as contrary to the law - in other words a serious infringement.

It would seem that Reinach would probably (probably - not certainly, not definitely) have scored a try. His hand, which once held the ball, came down onto the line.

Law 22.4 (h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.

The penalty try seems thus a fair decision.

Then:

Law 10.2: A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

The law requires that a card, yellow or red, must follow a penalty try. That is what the referee did.

To say what the commentators said is irresponsible. The referees did not get this 'completely' wrong. It was not 'ridiculous'. It was not 'a bad decision'.

In cases like this, there will always be divided opinions. Sharks' supporters will agree with the penalty try while Stormers' supporters will disagree but for commentators to speak to the world as they did with self-styled infallibility is likely to incite anger in various forms.

To suggest that the referee 'felt embarrassed' in giving the decision borders on the bizarre - the ability to read the referee's mind and emotions is farfetched, and in any case the final decision is the referee's and he is entitled not to accept the advice of the TMO.

He could have avoided feeling embarrassed if he had wanted to."

Sorry - but as a Stormer supporter I am of the opinion that Kolisi made a mistake in what he did,    


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Mar 2016, 19:53
#13
14 Mar 2016, 19:53#13
I agree  with Kaplan, Skinstad and Crowley.....a speculative call and a wrong one.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
14 Mar 2016, 20:09
#14
14 Mar 2016, 20:09#14
 I wonder if there would have been any further discussions by Shark supporters if the try was disallowed and no card was given.
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
14 Mar 2016, 20:11
#15
14 Mar 2016, 20:11#15
 The law means nothing - what else is new?  Kaplan spoke about intent - but that is not in any law applicable to rugby.  Happy ignorance day to you.       
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
14 Mar 2016, 20:25
#16
14 Mar 2016, 20:25#16
"I wonder if there would have been any further discussions by Shark supporters if the try was disallowed and no card was given."
Well I can only speak for myself and this is all purely hypothetical but I'm guessing I might have said something about the application of the laws of rugby and the sanctions for kicking the ball out of another player's hands . . . but (hypothetically speaking) if the ref had got it wrong and not applied one of the basic laws of rugby, well, I have actually played rugby (unlike some on this forum) and I reckon I would have accepted it as a refereeing error. I certainly would not have squealed and blubbered the way the Blowhards are doing on this thread.
The Sharks gave their Bunnies yet another snotklap . . . at Newlands nogal!
Deal with it, Stompies . . . and stop behaving like such snivelling crybabies.
Bunnies!
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
14 Mar 2016, 21:35
#17
14 Mar 2016, 21:35#17
I have looked at the incident again.....Kolisi was simply trying to get his leg in front of Reinach's path to the line. There is zero evidence of any kick. In fact the arc of his leg in his previous stride is exactly the same, the foot angles are exactly the same.
And no doubt Reinach did propel himself forward using his left arm. Where he initially fell he couldn't have reached the line. It's quite clear he is lifting up using his left hand and rotating around that arm as a lever.
Would he have actually placed the ball on the line? His right  arm was crooked with his hand over the front of the ball, the ball behind the hand i.e. further  from the goal line. The ball itself never reached the line, even though contact was with the side of  Kolisi's foot. 
Now think about this. Reinach's arm is coming almost straight down to place the ball....hits the side of Kolisi's boot inches off the deck. But Kolisi's boot was a good 15 inches short of the line. For the penalty try it has to be certain a try would be scored. But given where it hits his boot, it has to have been grounded at least 9 inches short of the line.
After all this stretching, rotating and pushing, Reinach's hand with the arm now fully extended just reached the line. There is a lot of doubt whether the ball would have been placed on the line, not short, and whether it was a legal placement.
This is an intrusive and speculative call which undoubtedly changed the path and most likely the result of the game. 
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
14 Mar 2016, 22:26
#18
14 Mar 2016, 22:26#18
 Bunnies se gat ........... it'll take a few more victories to achieve that status . Check the scores  over the past four years (vlag, where are you) . One dubious victory by the slithering Guppies & we're your bunnies? Bollocks .
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Mar 2016, 02:47
#19
15 Mar 2016, 02:47#19
 I look at the issue again as discussed by the panel on Super Rugby on DSTV - which included Paulse -and it was clear that in their words Kolisi used his foot "doelbewus" to get the ball away from being scored.
Doelbewus means "deliberately" - so the intent was present and when the definition of what a kick entails - which includes the following in the laws of rugby - one has to reach only one conclusion - namely that what is written above by Mozart i clearly BS:-
"Kick: a kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, and from knee to toe, but not including the knee."
 But then I forget that Reinach - which is constantly attacked by Mozart was involved - that was enough to set off another ton of vitriol in this case. 
However, their is clear intent on the part of Kolisi to use his foot to prevent a try being scored - the evidence is conclusive irrespective of what our local law expert is saying trying to wriggle himself out of a situation where ignorance is bliss - so what he says is totally discredited.   I have seen many players using their left arm to lift them off the ground in a tackle situation so as to free his right arm to place the ball on or over the line and score a try.  That does not mean propelling a body forward - but up and is not a second motion.
The problem is it is not an "intrusive and speculative call" at all - it is an interpretation of the law as given and clearly mentioned by at least four experts - while others refer to intent as a counter-argument - when intent is not included in any law governing rugby.  The intent was there - to prevent a try being scored by all means possible and an unlawful method was used to achieve that objective.
What is weird is that I really wanted the Stormers to win that game and actually predicted a win by the Stormers on Superbru - but I am not blinded by that preference to realize that the laws of rugby must be adhered to - as was done in this case.     
        
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Mar 2016, 03:47
#20
15 Mar 2016, 03:47#20
Enough said:
Should the controversial penalty try at Newlands have been awarded? Results.

MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Mar 2016, 03:49
#21
15 Mar 2016, 03:49#21
This is what one of the world's top referees said:

Kaplan added that Reinach, who was held in the tackle, had used his arm to propel himself forward.

'So, in essence, no card, no try, penalty to Stormers. Happy to argue this on any forum.'


MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Mar 2016, 04:24
#22
15 Mar 2016, 04:24#22
 And here's the killer fact. Reinach's hand without the ball just reaches the goal line. With a ball in hand the point of grounding has to be at least three inches back, even if he straightened his arm fully....which he wouldn't have done. The descending ball hits Kolisi's foot at least 15 inches from the line at a max of three inches above the ground.  The angles don't compute. Given the angle the ball was following it could never have made the goal line.
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
15 Mar 2016, 05:16
#23
15 Mar 2016, 05:16#23
 Well Rooi, I'll go with Kaplan's interpretation of the laws...and he was always a bit pro Sharks. I would have done the same if the situation was reversed and WP was the team gaining by such error. 
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
15 Mar 2016, 07:00
#24
15 Mar 2016, 07:00#24
Klop, unless you're a devious Guppie supporter
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Mar 2016, 07:55
#25
15 Mar 2016, 07:55#25
 The laws of rugby has nothing to do with what is written here - we make our own laws and then decide what is right or wrong.  We also talk absolute BS - like the ball being 15 inches back from the hand coming down on the goal line.   If this is not BS - nothing really is.  
However, the matter was being dealt with on a legal basis and the penalty try awarded - so all this is really not worth discussing.   
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
15 Mar 2016, 08:50
#26
15 Mar 2016, 08:50#26
 Oh look ... Pussy Whipped has fcked up the margins again.
Surprise, surprise!!!!!!!!!
I see he's blaming the ref ... again.
Probably hasn't done the horizontal mambo for awhile now.
Cross eyed, Beandip???



RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
15 Mar 2016, 10:24
#27
15 Mar 2016, 10:24#27
"Well Rooi, I'll go with Kaplan's interpretation of the laws . . ."

No problem, suit yourself. You go with the retired ref who talks about ref decisions on Twitter and I'll go with the active ref who makes decisions in real games.

Like I said earlier, I'm not overly concerned whether the try was legit or not (although I definitely think Kolisi's kick was intentional and I reckon Jonker got it spot on), I just love the fact that all you Stompie Blowhards are getting so worked up about it . . . it makes the win that much sweeter.

Bunnies!
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
15 Mar 2016, 11:42
#28
15 Mar 2016, 11:42#28
 Congratulations SHARKS!!!!!!!
Awesome match. Deserved victory!!!
Joe Pietersen's running the show at 10 like a man born to play fllyhalf.



BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
15 Mar 2016, 12:44
#29
15 Mar 2016, 12:44#29
 BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA MOUNTAINS OF EGG LAND AGAIN ON ROOI ROOI AND HIS SERVILE GIMP WEE CC!.May I suggest before you start extreme blowharding about the Stormers being the sharks bunnies you assess whether the sharks won the game fair and  square. Obviously they did not!  
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
15 Mar 2016, 13:32
#30
15 Mar 2016, 13:32#30
 the new stormers' shirt


RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
15 Mar 2016, 13:34
#31
15 Mar 2016, 13:34#31
Love it!
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
15 Mar 2016, 13:38
#32
15 Mar 2016, 13:38#32
 Beeno
I am afraid the Sharks won the game fair and square - and the incident you kept quoting is strictly in terms of the Rugby Laws.   if this happened in the case of any other team doing what Kolisi did - you yourself would have screamed murder.
It is hard for me as a Stormers supporters (it was a bitter pill) - but I accept the ruling made in the case of that incident as legitimate and that should actually be the end of the story.   It is no use that sentiment and vague terms like intent are used to  legitimize the illegitimate.     
JW
Just_winCaptain18,570 posts
15 Mar 2016, 13:39
#33
15 Mar 2016, 13:39#33
 Fantastic ABF, lol
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
15 Mar 2016, 13:50
#34
15 Mar 2016, 13:50#34
 mozart,

you are screwing the margins up (in this thread and in the other related to the stormers-sharks game-Bunnies)

usually when your avatar is moved to the left, you are the culprit, like in your post where the facebook and twitter logos appear. And usually is very easy to fix it: just delete the logos.

in the "Bunnies" thread is the one with the photo of the wales' players . Also easy to fix: to add photos use the symbol placed at the top of the square where you write (near the emoticons and youtube symbols) instead of making a copy&paste
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
15 Mar 2016, 16:23
#35
15 Mar 2016, 16:23#35
 Thanks I appreciate that advice. Your para 2 works well. Para 3 using the photo symbol is not working for me on my mobile device. What are the steps, do you copy the url into the picture window?
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news