McCaw try: Referees in public spat; Rugby 365 - Photographic evidence

The players and officials have moved on, but referees on either side of the  Indian Ocean have taken to the public domain to settle a debate.

At the heart of the dispute is whether All Black captain Richie McCaw's match-winning try against the Springboks at Ellis Park at the weekend was from a legal move.

Jonathan Kaplan, a former international referee who holds the record for the most Test matches, cast doubt on the legality of the five-pointer - scored in the 73rd minute, with New Zealand trailing 17-20. The try, conversion and another late penalty gave the Kiwis a 27-20 victory.

Kaplan's argument is that McCaw, as receiver, was inside the two-metre mark - as stipulated in the laws. According to the South African the All Black captain also moved before the ball left the thrower's hands - two points on which the try should have been declared illegal.

This was countered by New Zealander Ian Cook, a retired player and referee, with a qualification of a Level Two in refereeing.

While Kaplan, on his RatetheRef website, stuck to a simple law argument, Cook went to the extreme to make his point - with screen grabs and graphics that explains how McCaw's try was actually legal.

It is not the first time Cook - who wrote on his blog on rugbyrefs.com - has disagreed with Kaplan on law issues, but it is the first time that the "debate" has exploded on the Internet and social media as this one has.

Kaplan fired the first salvo in his weekly comments section.

"As a receiver, he [McCaw] has to stand two metres away from the line-out," Kaplan said.

"It is questionable whether he was.

"Moreover, he cannot move into the line-out to receive the ball until the ball has left the hands of the thrower. It is clear he does start moving before the ball has left the hands of the hooker."

Kaplan also had a go at the referee for missing the 'transgression' and Bok skipper Schalk Burger for not questioning it.

"The referee never had a clue what was going on.

"One can see with his body language, that he was quite happy to award the try. Not even a referral! No TMO intervention either.

"And, crucially, where was our leadership to INSIST that this important and defining score be verified.

"Now I really like Schalk Burger as a human being, and I admire him as a rugby player, so I don't really want to be too critical, but these are the moments that matter.

"I'm not sure whether he was empowered to challenge, or whether he did at all, but we needed a result here and there was a window of opportunity to get it, and we didn't identify it."

Cook was equally forceful in his retort to Kaplan's column.

"I reject any contention that McCaw was only one metre from the line-out and that he moved toward the line-out before the ball was thrown," the Kiwi said, then providing what he feels is proof that the All Black skipper was in fact legally positioned.

He used three images, which Cook said spanned a time of less than 0.3 of a second!!

"The line-out - therefore LoT - was on the five-metre line," he said, adding: " The line-out players are required to be 0.5 metre from the LoT - therefore McCaw was required to be positioned two metres beyond them, at 2.5 metres from the LoT.

"KEY: The red vertical markers are at 2.5 metre intervals as measured from the goal line. The red line parallel to the five-metre line is 2.5 metres from it. McCaw was required to be standing at least this far from the LoT. The yellow marker is 1.5 metres from the LoT (one metre from the line-out). The BFG et al claim that McCaw was this close.

"These measurements and marks are positionally corrected for perspective distortion.

"McCaw can be seen to be CLEARLY beyond the 2.5-metre line and therefore beyond two metres from the line-out," the Kiwi said.

"He is certainly not as close as 1.5 metres from the line in the middle of the line-out - thus one metre from the line-out - as the BFG and others have claimed.

"McCaw does move as the ball is thrown, but he is moving parallel to LoT in order to position himself in line with the gap. I see nothing in Law that says the receiver must remain still or cannot move along parallel to the Lot before the ball is thrown so long as he remains between the five-metre and 15-metre lines.

"This is pretty conclusive"

At the beginning of the throwing action:


During the throwing action:


Fractionally after the ball has left the thrower's hands:


Sources: ratetheref.co.za; rugbyrefs.com & brugbydump.com

 Here is the link to the article if you the photos don't display correctly.
Link

my observations from this whole debacle...

- clip  clearly shows McCaw moved as the ball was thrown into the lineout. so theres no problem with that.
kapalns credibility has always been dodgy. i dont know how he can so adamantly state McCaw jumped before the ball was thrown, but we are talking about a guy who can only tell the time from a digital watch and not a dial, lolz,

- it does look like McCaw is within 2 meters of lineout though, and if that is the cas e, it shouldnt of been allowed.
but until theres definitive proof that McCaw wasnt back 2 meters, i say its a try.

- the problem with nitpicking over the distance of McCaw from the lineout is, every single lineout in the game looks like the halfback was the same distance as McCaw was when he embarrassed the lethargic unskilful Boks.
ref might have made a mistake, but it was a consistent one throughout the game.

- we all know Bok fans, Bok coaches and Bok players love the blame the ref game, but not Bok refs are hopping onto Bok rugbys favourite past time,


its good to see all our saffa brus getting a ton of blame the ref practice in. it will hold them in good steed when the All Blacks win the overrated RWC.

JW
The question is who inserted the yellow and red lines on the photos.   The yellow is not a meter away from the feet of the line-out jumpers - the difference between the red and yellow line s nothing more than half a meter - if that. 
If it is Cook who set that distance - he apparently think that the two meter line is from the middle of the line-out - while in fact it is from the feet of the line out jumpers of the relevant team.   Lets take the distances into consideration here.
The players from the various teams must leave a space of at least one meter between the two teams.   That means that each side is half a meter away from the line running through the center of the line.  In the case of Cook's argument the yellow line is 1 meter from the center - which is not really the case -since the line-out players feet touch the yellow line in places.   The red line is less than half a meter from that one - so the distances indicated by Cook is BS.
In any event the player concerned is 2,5 meter from the last feet in the line-out - the same type of thing applies to all kinds of situations in rugby - in the main mauls where the back foot of the hindmost participant demarcates the off-side-line.   In this case the 2,5 meters is from the left feet of the line-out jumpers - not from the middle of the line-out.
Did Cook referee on the same level as Kaplan and has he similar experience?  I just wonder - if he did referee international games - I cannot remember a test referee by that name.             

Rugby's laws need to be simplified. If a bunch of refs with the aid of painstaking slow motion and screen capture analysis can't reach consensus, what chance does the guy in the middle have of making the right call on the fly?

Referees get a lot of flack but hell, just look at all the small technicalities they get saddled with. It's a wonder they get it right as often as they do.

@dr win,

thanks for that link, it clearly proves that McCaws try was legitimate.


in order to understand this picture, peeps need to understand a few things, mainly...

- the white line marking which starts on the Boks try line which is 10 meters

- codie tyaylor is throwing the ball five meters from the Boks try line

using those markings as reference, and then the yellow and red line markings as cook had done in his example, it is clear that the try is perfectly legal.

brother mike and others might not agree with cooks placement of the yellow and red line markings, but if u take a good hones unbiased look at it, it seems very close to if not spot on accurate.

well done All Blacks for a good honest legal try,


but now im  seriously worried about the locals.
if they dont get their excuses sorted out, what are they goin g to do in the RWC when the Boks come home and add nothing to their all ready empty rugby trophy cabinet???
dark days ahead in SA,

 Time to move on.

What is clear is that it was a very dubious play which could have gone either way even with the TMO's look and advice.
And what is more than clear is that most of the saffas are completely unable to assume a defeat. Last year there were 2 blatant forward passes before the first 2 boks' tries but the defeat was mainly accepted and there was no such an avalanche of comments, articles, photos, video footage,... of kiwi journalists, ex-refs and fans crying, whinning, calling cheaters to the opponents, etc, etc, etc

 Hey JW ,yeah thats the site I was talking about .I saw a linkt o it on the roar.

 Bismarck is also definitely offside  .

 The scaling of his lines are wrong.  Another idiot! 

 DB, It's all a matter of prespective - pun intended.

lolz, with the proof in the pudding, the saffa boohoos grow more silent with such strong evidence debunking their crybaby excuses.

of course u cant blame them for making up stories to justify their inability to compete against the greatest rugby nation in the world, just look at what our saffa brus have had to cheer for since coming back from isolation and what us kiwis have had to cheer for in the same time frame,,,

SA rugby achievements in pro era.
RWC - 2007 - 1 won in 4 tournaments
TriNats - 1998, 2004, 2007 - 3 TriNats won in 16 years
IRC/4nats - 0 series won in 3 years
Super Rugby - bulls 2007, 2009, 2010 - SA 3 super rugby titles in 20 years
7s world series - 08/09 - 1 series won in 16 years
7s RWC - 0 won in 6 tournaments
7s commonwealth games - gold 2014, bronze 2002 and 2010 - 3 medals in 5 tournaments

NZ rugby achievements in pro era.
RWC - 2011 - 1 won in 4 tournaments
TriNats - 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, - 10 TriNats won in 16 years
IRC/4nats - 2012, 2013, 2014 -  3 RC/4nats won in 3 years
100% winning season - 2013 - 14 tests won
Super Rugby -
blues - 1996, 1997, 2003
crusaders - 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008
chiefs - 2012, 2013
higlanders - 2015
13 super rugby titles in 20 years
7s world series - 99/00, 00/01, 01/02, 02/03, 03/04, 04/05, 06/07, 07/08, 10/11, 11/12, 12/13, 13/14 - 12 series won in 16 years
7s RWC - 2001, 2013 - 2 tournaments won in 6 tournaments
7s commonwealth games - gold 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, silver 2014 - 5 medals in 5 tournaments


no wonder our saffa cuzzies cling onto any myth to discredit any legitimate try.

to deny the facts in the face of such overwhelming evidence is easier than accepting the cold hard fact that u are and always will be at ur very best No2.

long live the NZ rugby empire, forever on top of the rugby food chain.

JW: Yes,  I know,  and I didn't make any noise about the try,  but if you are going to put up graphs and photos  to support your case,  you better di it right... and after going through all that trouble,  he can't even draw parallel lines mm's from each other and he seems to have forgotten that 500mm is actually one fifth of 2.5m. Kaplan said it was questionable... meaning reason enough to consult the TMO. A try was scored afterall. Technical and minute,  but games have been won and lost with smaller margins. 

Windgat Sasquatch,  nothing has been proven. Get your head outa your ass.  It seems you can be convinced of a flat earth by a moron,  as long as it suits the agenda. 

i feel so sorry for those few saffas with a brain, and having to listen to these uneducated mongs fight the obvious clear cut evidence and trying to justify why they have a 2.5mm weewee, i really do feel for them.
but they can take comfort that just because them having a brain puts them in the minority, we wont hold the actions and comments of the super slow as the barometer by which all saffas are held to,

kiwis more than understand, because everyone knows that its not a coincidence that the Boks national colours are the same as envy.

TBH, im pretty sure that if the All Blacks were as big a bunch of losers as the Boks, we would probably behave in the exact same way,