Canucks take lead in World Cup Ref spray title!

[Burgs]

Canadians blast officials

By Barnaby Chesterman
September 26, 2007

CANADA claimed drastic changes needed to be made in rugby officiating after a late converted try cost it victory against Japan here.

Canada is almost certain to lose its proud record of never having gone away from a World Cup without a win after the 12-12 draw with Japan left them with two defeats and a draw from their three games with mighty Australia up next.

Captain and scrum-half Morgan Williams blasted the match referee Jonathan Kaplan from South Africa after he had what he thought was a clear try ruled out because Kaplan called in the help of the video referee and the video images were unclear.

"I'll say it now because I'm retiring and I don't care, but the referees need to start taking ownership of calls," said Williams.

"I feel a lot of teams are getting screwed on calls. We got screwed for the try in the second half and I don't know how he can't call it.

"I put it on the line and the referee was standing right there. It was clearly a try and it was strange for him to go upstairs (to the video referee)."

Williams was also angry about the amount of over time played, during which Japan scored their equalising points.

"It's unbelievable, the ball went out in the 81st minute and he played another three minutes. Every other game we've played, as soon as it hits 80 that's the end of the game - I don't know maybe his watch is broken or he's blind, one of the two."

Coach Ric Suggitt said the International Rugby Board (IRB) needs to follow the lead of American sports in increasing the number of match officials on the pitch.

"The speed of the game is something that needs to be addressed, not just the playing of the game. You look at the NBA they've got another official, the NHL have got another official.

"Those are professional sports that bring in heaps of money and as games get stronger and faster, you have to have more officials to keep up with the speed of the game.

"It's not just foot speed, it's eye speed and everything else that's going on. You could have a camera above the goal line to give a bird's eye view like in the NHL.

"They're making lots of money, there's a full crowd here."

Suggitt also called on the IRB to abandon plans to reduce the number of teams in the tournament from 16 to 20.

"We had a full house, it was an entertaining game, the fans definitely got their money's worth," he said of their match with Japan.

"Teams like us, Japan, Georgia and the USA, it is truly a global game, you need to look outside the teams like Australia, France and England.

"Teams like Tonga sure scared South Africa, look what Georgia did (to Ireland) and we did it for short period of time against Wales.

"We're on an eight year and 12 year cycle to revamp rugby in Canada. We know that Rome was not built in a day. It is a global game now and growing quickly and we have to move with it and find the resources to compete with the likes of New Zealand, England and France."

Agence France-Presse

[JediKnight]

Maybe just get rid of South African referees!!!

[blueandblack]

Maybe just get rid of South African referees!!!

I support this motion

[joblot]

Could not agree more, with Kaplan the first to walk the plank.

[Sagerian]

*shrugs* They seem like realistic concerns to me.

[hopep]

Wheres the petition, and how many times can I sign it???

[Ecky]

Well I agree with the concerns about the time, but then maybe the clock on the telecast was wrong. I've noticed that it often keeps ticking even when the ref (any ref, not just Kaplan) calls time off. I also notice that most refs (including Kaplan) don't stop & start their own watches, indicating they are getting the call from someone else.

Also, just because the ball goes out, doesn't mean there's no time to keep playing, as quite a few refs will allow the line-out if the ball is kicked out from a penalty. Not that this was the case in that match.

TMO call - well, that's another story altogether! Just because the ref was "on the spot", doesn't mean he can anticipate where or when Morgan is going to put the ball down. If there is the chance to refer to another set of eyes, then they may as well use them.

A bit like how we have In-goal Judges for the finals in the domestic comp here in Perth: If the ball carrier is obscuring the ball from the ref - say because he's gone over in the corner and facing the sideline - then using the TJ or IGJ can, and regularly does, prove very helpful to confirm the score or not.

[gustafsl]

TMO call - well, that's another story altogether! Just because the ref was "on the spot", doesn't mean he can anticipate where or when Morgan is going to put the ball down. If there is the chance to refer to another set of eyes, then they may as well use them.

A bit like how we have In-goal Judges for the finals in the domestic comp here in Perth: If the ball carrier is obscuring the ball from the ref - say because he's gone over in the corner and facing the sideline - then using the TJ or IGJ can, and regularly does, prove very helpful to confirm the score or not.

I agree they should use the video review when it's there, but the problem is a lot of times where a try probably would have been given before the days of video review, it's not conclusive on the video so they don't award it. Of course, it goes both ways, there are a lot of trys called back for knock-ons etc...that may have gone undetected without the video.

Maybe it's a case of the referee not asking the right question again. It's my understanding that if he had asked "is there any reason not to award the try" then it doesn't matter if the video does not see the grounding because all they are looking for is conclusive evidence it wasn't a try.

I think they should go to a system similiar to NFL. The referee has to make a call on the field (try or no try) and then the video has to beyond a doubt proove that call wrong. So if he calls it a try but wants to check the grounding, and there are no angles that you can see the ball, it's still a try.

[AndyS]

With respect to the timekeeping, they get a big steaming mug of STFU from me until such time as the laws are changed to make TV the sole arbiter of time on and off (and that better not ever happen!).

As for going to the TMO, it is a tougher one. Maybe there should be no question asked - the ref merely goes to the TMO who checks whether there is a definitive answer and, if not, it is sent back to the ref to make whatever call he sees fit (secure in the knowledge that there isn't any vision to show him up)

[Flat-top]

Many reasons to dislike Kaplan but these two instances are not among them.

As I understand it in the 2007 RWC the timekeeping is not down to the ref, he advises when to stop and start the clock but he is informed when time is up by the TMO or someone else speaking in his ear-piece (I thought it was normally Gregan!)

I have often complained when TMO's have not been used so I can hardly complain when they are used. I tend to agree with the suggestion from AndyS, they should be used to confirm that decision the ref is about to make can't subsequently be challenged but I am afraid they are too often used by the refs as a way of avoiding taking responsibility.

The Canadian does himself no favours in this outburst, sure the Japanese scored post 80 minutes to tie the game but it was the canadians failure to put the game out of reach in the previous 80 minutes that prevented their victory...methinks he should look closer to home for the reasons they failed to get their win.

[gustafsl]

Maybe there should be no question asked - the ref merely goes to the TMO who checks whether there is a definitive answer and, if not, it is sent back to the ref to make whatever call he sees fit (secure in the knowledge that there isn't any vision to show him up)

I'd rather he makes the call before going to TMO and then the video has to disprove it. If he makes the call after going to TMO then there will be arguments that he changed his mind.

[AndyS]

Oh right, so in THAT game the ref awards the Force a try, goes to the TMO and then decides to disallow it for the draw. That would have been special...

[Burgs]

"the ball went out in the 81st minute and he played another three minutes"

Re the time issue, I think this is the main point, not re immediately finishing at 80.
If his claim is correct then the match ran for at least 84 minutes which would be highly unusual.
Ecky, how often in your career would you have ended a match in the 83rd or 84th minute, not counting a stoppage for a major injury (neck etc) or playing out consecutive "after the siren" penalties?

[AndyS]

Actually, for mine the point is that it went out in the 81st minute by the TV rather than the official timekeeper. There is no way Williams could have known that at the time, so how did it affect play on the field?

What Paddy O'Brian has had to say is:
"There has been criticism since Jonathan Kaplan's Japan vs Canada match with claims that Jonathan played extra time, hence enabling Japan to score in that period.

The truth is that the TMO who is acting as timekeeper told Jonathan that there was 30 seconds to go when the line-out was formed though the television and stadium clock showed there was 80.34 time played.

This was because of the people in charge of the stadium clock had not stopped it correctly during injury breaks and other stoppages during the match and also a communication problem between the timekeeper and those synchronising the stadium and television clocks..

It has been an ongoing problem during the tournament and we are doing our best to address it."

[tragic]

... and Canada officially joins the rather well-subscribed Kaplan Fan Club.
Welcome, fellas!!!