Romain Poite's credibility

[austingtir]

There is a referee's observer at each match, or their used to be, who is solely there to assess the performance of said ref. He makes a report and the team managers also make a report to be considered and the performance judged

Every "arguable" decision may just be in the mind of the supporter watching for, as said previously, the supporter may not be as conversant with the rules or current directives as he thinks he is!

Also, as this forum shows, factual incidents are seen in various ways depending on whether the supporter's team or the opposition benefits!!

Exactly so how can we rely on one man in the middle of the field to accurately manage the game? Just as one set of supporters might see it one way three different referees will see it opposite ways (as proven by Kaplan [retired] in the Mccaw lineout try). I think sometimes referees need a reminder of certain rules or stuff a certain team might be blatantly getting away with during the game. Notice I say reminders and by a sanctioned official not team officials or captains.... It would be the referees decision to act or not.... Then they get judged after the game if they handled it right.

The problem with the referee observer is its after the fact. We need adjustments for missed stuff during the game imo.

This could even be achieved without the observer/observers even being there! They could have a team of 3 to 4 people specifically watching each game checking this.... and sending it via email or conference to the referee at the ground during stoppages or HT. I mean what do int refs actually do at HT? Just sit around and have an orange or what?

 

[TRF_heineken]

To think some ref has anything against your country is not racist, it is stupid. If you think you're going to lose because of the ref just don't watch the game. Saying that puts you in a position where if you win happens even against the ref, and if you lose it's the ref's fault. It's a childish game.

Also, questioning someone's ethical professional performance without personal insight of the man is despicable.

So what you are saying is that a referee can't ever be wrong? That nobody can question his decisions or look at his mistakes?? Name one job in the world where that happens??? Every job has an area for review, whether it's by clients, employers or government. You would be ignorant to think that a referee's job doesn't also apply to these rules.

Biasness has nothing to do with ethics. Even a judge in court can have some sense of biasness.

Sometimes I ask myself how many of you were props. I was one since I was 4 until had to retire do to hernias, and I was pretty decent, and every prop who has reached a certain level knows that you are trained from 17 years old to do exactly what Ayerza did to Koch the saturday. The specifical training of props consists exactly on that: neck movements, ways of pushing the opponent out of scrum, make it look like he colapsed the first row. I mean, that's your job. That's why your prime is from 30-36, that is the reason why Mario Ledesma was able to play a world cup at 38 over 26 Agustín Creevy.

The other day, Vincent Koch was owned by the best tighhead prop in the world. End of story. It's normal: he's a rookie and Ayerza is at his prime. And Ayerza has been doing the same since he took over Roncero, who was considerably better than him. Juan Figallo is an absolute genius because he was able to compete with Mealamu at age 23, and if you're props you'll realize he is the Mozart of scrum.

I played prop from age 8 to 24. I even attended Scrum clinics hosted by SA legends like Balie Swart and Os Du Randt. Koch wasn't owned, and it shows us how little you actually know about scrummaging. On several occassions you could clearly see Ayerza scrumming inwards or binding on the arm. And usually it was when Poite was on the other side of the scrum. Ayerza is a smart prop. and he used the inadequacy of the referee to his advantage. And as a loosehead prop he has a little bit more freedom than what Koch had.

Props are the only reason Argentina, with a -40 or even 50 kg less than NZ and SA DESTROYED them last year. And they did it again this evening after two awful games. They can do it because they have a master of scrum like Mauro Reggiardo, who designed a new protocol based on the new rules, you can watch it on youtube. There has allways been an argentinian prop considered the best or one of the two best since the 90's: Reggiardo, Hassan, Roncero, Ledesma, Ayerza, Figallo.

What I mean to say: Ayerza didn't do anything any other prop in the history of rugby with half a brain, anything Os du Randt or John Smith didn't do their whole career.

Once again, it's about the referees and the shambles in World Rugby with regard to the scrum laws. It's the topic everybody is talking about, yet there doesn't seem to be any resolution in resolving the many many problems there are with the scrums, and how certain players get away with murder!

Os du Randt: hero of mankind, leader of men and overall genius of the scrum.

Won't disagree with you there. Lol

The problem is another: today, apart from Bismarck, SA doesn't have any world class prop. The Beast is a peace of wood on the scrum, Janie has lost it, Adrian Strauss could be but he's sitting on the bench. Stop trying to play the Ayerza card, when all he just did was to prove how over everyone else on his position he is. El gordo was just to good for the kid.

Bismarck is not a prop, neither was John Smit(h). They are hookers just like Strauss. Even though Smit played a couple of games at prop, we all agree that it was a bad move. Beast and Jannie both played great against Oz and NZ. clearly another indication that you are talking out of your ass. Did you even watch those games??

 

[Peat]

Not too sure about Mealamu being a prop either.

That said -

Routinely making crap decisions when reffing a team is not neccessarily bias. It's also quite possibly bad luck. It'd be pretty aberrant if every ref's bad decisions were equally doled around. I'm not saying there is no bias around, I'd be amazed if there was absolutely zero subconscious bias involved, but given how difficult it is to prove and how damaging an accusation can be, I don't see any point in bringing it in. You consistently get crap decisions from a ref; could be anything.

After all, lets be honest here, every ref gives crap decisions consistently. No one is shocked to hear Poite might have got the scrum decisions wrong; no one. It's just what he does. And yet he'll go to the World Cup and, while I don't know why, the argument that everyone else is even crapper is strangely plausible. Super Rugby, the JWC, Pro 12 - everywhere - godawful decisions are everywhere. Particularly in the scrum.

The general quality and consistency of reffing is far more of a glaring definite issue than any one ref or any possibility of bias; it's quite offputting enough without even considered these things.

That said - to allow the game to restart with medics on the field and the captain talking to his team is the sort of action that will have any sane and intelligent man looking at conspiracy, tis true.

 

[goodNumber10]

Think he just means front row when referring to props.

Remember English isn't Horatio's first language...

 

[TRF_heineken]

Think he just means front row when referring to props.

Remember English isn't Horatio's first language...

English isn't my first language either... yet I do know the difference between hooker and prop in the front row.

 

[Tony Manx]

Exactly so how can we rely on one man in the middle of the field to accurately manage the game? Just as one set of supporters might see it one way three different referees will see it opposite ways (as proven by Kaplan [retired] in the Mccaw lineout try). I think sometimes referees need a reminder of certain rules or stuff a certain team might be blatantly getting away with during the game. Notice I say reminders and by a sanctioned official not team officials or captains.... It would be the referees decision to act or not.... Then they get judged after the game if they handled it right.

The problem with the referee observer is its after the fact. We need adjustments for missed stuff during the game imo.

This could even be achieved without the observer/observers even being there! They could have a team of 3 to 4 people specifically watching each game checking this.... and sending it via email or conference to the referee at the ground during stoppages or HT. I mean what do int refs actually do at HT? Just sit around and have an orange or what?

Hahaha.....and do we have another team of officials somewhere else watching the watchers.......and then yet another to discuss and decide on the different interpretations!!!

Ridiculous!!!

A ref very, very rarely costs a side a game and Poite certainly did not. Nor did Barnes cost NZ a game nor Joubard the French! They may have made a difference to the score but the losing side should have played better during the whole 80 minutes!!

Rarely do winners complain!!!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

To think some ref has anything against your country is not racist, it is stupid. If you think you're going to lose because of the ref just don't watch the game. Saying that puts you in a position where if you win happens even against the ref, and if you lose it's the ref's fault. It's a childish game.

Also, questioning someone's ethical professional performance without personal insight of the man is despicable.

A couple of years ago an e-mail went around between NZ and Aus refs to 'Lets get the Japies (somewhat derogatory nick for South African whites)' in SR which got leaked because someone copied n SARU. So, you must please excuse our paranoia as it has been justified in the past. Incidentally the e-mail was started by Keith Lawrence, father of Bryce Lawrence who ousted SA in the 2011 RWC in suspicious circumstances and went on to win the NZ ref of the year the same year. I see myself as a reasonable person but cynicism can be healthy up to a point.

 

[austingtir]

Hahaha.....and do we have another team of officials somewhere else watching the watchers.......and then yet another to discuss and decide on the different interpretations!!!

Ridiculous!!!

A ref very, very rarely costs a side a game and Poite certainly did not. Nor did Barnes cost NZ a game nor Joubard the French! They may have made a difference to the score but the losing side should have played better during the whole 80 minutes!!

Rarely do winners complain!!!

But we already do they just watch the game after the fact and then pat the ref on the back and tell him he did a great job..... Obviously.


Im sure we wont be complaining when we knock England out in the final.....

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Noone has said explicitly that New Zealand have lost some of these games because of Wayne Barnes but I just wanted to be clear..

The All Blacks lost that match against the Wallabies because of some of the most godawful tackling I have ever seen in international rugby. Look no further than that.

 

[Horacito]

-I am not saying referees cannot be wrong, I'm saying you don't get to complain. Why? Because this is how it is, you don't talk to the ref on the field and you souldn't do it outside it, because that is called whining and is sort of pathetic. And this is not soccer. I know that we are adopting their things like annoying the kicker, the damn laser (that's only ours) and other great gifts of the football, but we just shouldn't.

-The problem with this is that he's been doing it for over a year. And Argentina played some games in that period, and none of the other referees said anything. Probably what happens is that the new scrum rules are bad and we need to go back to what we had, and that's ok. But it affects us all equally.

Ford example, New Zealand also owned by Pumas adapted at the last RC game last year and this year they were very solid. Maby SA could do the same and stop puting a mass of flesh of 300 tons waiting to be able to do the job just by weight.

-I was wrong to include Bismarck and John, although I do recall Adrian Strauss playing as replacement of Janie in some occasion, but I must be wrong. Any case, if the only remarcable first rowers I can remember are hookers and legend Os du Randt, maybe I am a bit right. Also, Mealamu was wrong, but I have to say I only put it there because I remember some of this two years when he smashed the replacement of Figallo at the breakdown, which was the great feature of Roncero and Ledesma apart from scrum. It shocked me so much that performance that I just remembered him. SA game against New Zealand I recall it as competent, but then again, I don't think you can say two games are indicative of anything when in the other one you get smashed by another scrum -40 kg than you and go last year to be gang banged by Ireland. And How is that a game against Australian scrum counts as great? Last year they were horrible and this year they have improved a lot, but how is that last year they were called almost a shame to the wallabie jersey in terms of scrum and when they improve a little you get to put a great game against them as a prove of capacity? It's schizophrenic.

Cheers

 

[TRF_heineken]

-I am not saying referees cannot be wrong, I'm saying you don't get to complain. Why? Because this is how it is, you don't talk to the ref on the field and you souldn't do it outside it, because that is called whining and is sort of pathetic. And this is not soccer. I know that we are adopting their things like annoying the kicker, the damn laser (that's only ours) and other great gifts of the football, but we just shouldn't.

Actually, you can. The captains are allowed to talk to the referee. It is the referee's choice to listen or not. It's not whining or anything pathetic as you think.

-The problem with this is that he's been doing it for over a year. And Argentina played some games in that period, and none of the other referees said anything. Probably what happens is that the new scrum rules are bad and we need to go back to what we had, and that's ok. But it affects us all equally.

Ford example, New Zealand also owned by Pumas adapted at the last RC game last year and this year they were very solid. Maby SA could do the same and stop puting a mass of flesh of 300 tons waiting to be able to do the job just by weight.

Our props aren't heavier than other props. but our props were dominant in the Super Rugby, especially the Stormers and the Lions who had the most success rate for completing scrums. Yes there were only SH referees, and even some of them got some of the calls wrong. But what I'm getting at is a player like Vincent Koch, who got the upper hand most of the time in the scrums in the SR tournament, now suddenly can't scrum?? Which is false, and it shows that his opposing prop is either using illegal tactics or way better than him. Now I think we can all agree that Ayerza is a good prop, but how good would he really be if he was scrumming legally???

-I was wrong to include Bismarck and John, although I do recall Adrian Strauss playing as replacement of Janie in some occasion, but I must be wrong. Any case, if the only remarcable first rowers I can remember are hookers and legend Os du Randt, maybe I am a bit right. Also, Mealamu was wrong, but I have to say I only put it there because I remember some of this two years when he smashed the replacement of Figallo at the breakdown, which was the great feature of Roncero and Ledesma apart from scrum. It shocked me so much that performance that I just remembered him. SA game against New Zealand I recall it as competent, but then again, I don't think you can say two games are indicative of anything when in the other one you get smashed by another scrum -40 kg than you and go last year to be gang banged by Ireland. And How is that a game against Australian scrum counts as great? Last year they were horrible and this year they have improved a lot, but how is that last year they were called almost a shame to the wallabie jersey in terms of scrum and when they improve a little you get to put a great game against them as a prove of capacity? It's schizophrenic.

Cheers

Wut?? That last paragraph makes zero sense. Yes Adriaan Strauss came on as a prop when Koch went off against NZ, but then it was uncontested scrums...

 

[OhDannyBoy]

South Africa's scrum coach, Pieter de Villiers (the French prop not the guy with the mustache), has released a statement to say he's meeting with World Rugby High Performance Referees Manager, Joel Jutge this week to discuss the interpretation of the scrums this past Saturday and obtain clarity. I for one am glad he's taken that step, because at first glance it seemed like Saturday could've ended Vincent Koch's international career.

Don't hold your breath. After Poites ludicrous handling of the legitimate Du Plessis tackle, and his general rubbish reffing standards in that entire game, his fellow countryman had this to say after yet another rubbish performance earlier:

Sport 24 wrote:
Cape Town - The International Rugby Board (IRB) has defended its decision to allow controversial French referee, Romain Poite, to take charge of a Springbok Test later this year.

The Boks start their season with a match against a World XV on June 7 (venue to be confirmed but believed to be in Cape Town).

They then tackle Wales in consecutive Tests (Durban, June 14 and Nelspruit, June 21) before concluding the Incoming Series with a match against Scotland in Port Elizabeth on June 28.

The referees and officials for the June Test window were named on Tuesday with Poite scheduled to take charge of the June 14 Test at Kings Park. He will also be assistant referee for the Tests in Nelspruit and Port Elizabeth.

Poite was persona non grata in South Africa last year after he incorrectly gave Bok hooker Bismarck du Plessis a yellow card against the All Blacks in Auckland.

The IRB's head of referees, Joël Jutge, defended the decision, saying it's needed for Poite to referee another Springbok Test, especially with next year's World Cup in mind as it's almost certain their paths will cross again.

Jutge told the Beeld website that Poite had publicly admitted to making a mistake and was "punished" by not getting any top level Tests in November last year. The only Test awarded to the Frenchman was a match between Georgia and Samoa in Tbilisi in Eastern Europe.

"The South African rugby public is very passionate, but they know the game. They won't forget the mistake, but I'm of the opinion that he won't feel unwelcome in South Africa," said Jutge.

SARU CEO, Jurie Roux, said they expressed concern about the appointment, but respected the IRB's call.

He has a long history of being incompetent, not least his total ignorance of anything to do with the scrum. More than one side have been aggrieved at his ineptness, and as said, controversy follows his reffing performances for good reason.

 

[Groundhog]

Won't comment too much on the tap try in the corner as I've only seen highlights, but from what I've seen it appeared legal if very poorly managed by Poite. The scrum however is another issue as boring in on a tighthead that blatantly should be picked up on by any halfway competent referee. Looking at who's going backwards in a scrum and considering them the offender is a really lazy interpretation of the rules.

 

[smartcooky]

A couple of years ago an e-mail went around between NZ and Aus refs to 'Lets get the Japies (somewhat derogatory nick for South African whites)' in SR which got leaked because someone copied n SARU. So, you must please excuse our paranoia as it has been justified in the past. Incidentally the e-mail was started by Keith Lawrence, father of Bryce Lawrence who ousted SA in the 2011 RWC in suspicious circumstances and went on to win the NZ ref of the year the same year. I see myself as a reasonable person but cynicism can be healthy up to a point.

Stormer, you are completely misrepresenting the meaning of that memo and conflating two separate issues. I get tired of hearing this old chestnut being dragged up as some kind of "proof" of some imagined conspiracy against the Springboks. Its just complete and utter BS.

The actual phrase used was NOT "lets get the Japies", it was "lets teach those Japies a lesson". While that phrasing in the memo was totally inappropriate, it was blown out of all proportion by the South African media, who frankly, stoked up the fires and flat out lied to the South African public. There is a reason why their media never published the whole actual memo; because it had absolutely NOTHING to do with a conspiracy to do some crooked refereeing with regards to the South African rugby team or players, and publishing it would have caught them out as liars.

The memo (or series of memos) were ALL to do with the administration of SARU; in particular, the assessment criteria and standards they were using in assessing their referees. This was 1999, and South African rugby had only been back in the world rugby community for five years after their long isolation. SARU were still using referee assessment methods that other nations had abandoned in the 1980's. SARU were exhibiting a fair amount of intransigence in not changing their assessment methods to coincide with that of their SANZAR partners, which both the NZRU and ARU considered necessary in order to ensure consistent refereeing across the whole Super 12 competition.

The emails in question were between the Keith Lawrence and his ARU counterpart (Peter Marshall?). They contained references to keeping SARU in the dark regarding administrative and other decisions, including the non-appointment of South African referees to major Super 12 matches. It was Lawrence's idea for the NZRU and ARU to block appointments to major matches in order to force SARU's hand. Lawrence was frustrated with his SARU counterpart, Freek Burger, who refused to budge, and some of that frustration boiled over into the e-mail.

 

[Horacito]

-The captain is allowed to talk to the referee during the match, doing so after the match is considered, let's say, not very diplomatic.

-Ok, Marcos Ayerza is a fairly decent prop. He is a C+ in the scale of props, I get it. And he is a cheater as well.

-Yeah, sorry for that, it was written too fast and in a spanish-writing manner, sorry. Seeing how the thing is I'm not even going to correct it though.

See ya

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

-I am not saying referees cannot be wrong, I'm saying you don't get to complain. Why? Because this is how it is, you don't talk to the ref on the field and you souldn't do it outside it, because that is called whining and is sort of pathetic. And this is not soccer. I know that we are adopting their things like annoying the kicker, the damn laser (that's only ours) and other great gifts of the football, but we just shouldn't.

I agree with the last part, but disagree with the first part. Whether i like it or not, that "whining" increases a bit the accountability refs have. Some things might go overlooked without it. In the field, shuddup and play, but after that there should and are proper channels to communicate these sort of things.

Refs have become more critical in some cases than any other the 30+ players on the pitch.
When i see some post game press conferences i sincerely wish the refs had to answer questions from the press too.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Stormer, you are completely misrepresenting the meaning of that memo and conflating two separate issues. I get tired of hearing this old chestnut being dragged up as some kind of "proof" of some imagined conspiracy against the Springboks. Its just complete and utter BS.

The actual phrase used was NOT "lets get the Japies", it was "lets teach those Japies a lesson". While that phrasing in the memo was totally inappropriate, it was blown out of all proportion by the South African media, who frankly, stoked up the fires and flat out lied to the South African public. There is a reason why their media never published the whole actual memo; because it had absolutely NOTHING to do with a conspiracy to do some crooked refereeing with regards to the South African rugby team or players, and publishing it would have caught them out as liars.

The memo (or series of memos) were ALL to do with the administration of SARU; in particular, the assessment criteria and standards they were using in assessing their referees. This was 1999, and South African rugby had only been back in the world rugby community for five years after their long isolation. SARU were still using referee assessment methods that other nations had abandoned in the 1980's. SARU were exhibiting a fair amount of intransigence in not changing their assessment methods to coincide with that of their SANZAR partners, which both the NZRU and ARU considered necessary in order to ensure consistent refereeing across the whole Super 12 competition.

The emails in question were between the Keith Lawrence and his ARU counterpart (Peter Marshall?). They contained references to keeping SARU in the dark regarding administrative and other decisions, including the non-appointment of South African referees to major Super 12 matches. It was Lawrence's idea for the NZRU and ARU to block appointments to major matches in order to force SARU's hand. Lawrence was frustrated with his SARU counterpart, Freek Burger, who refused to budge, and some of that frustration boiled over into the e-mail.

Do you have those memo's? I'd like to see them...

Anyway, if what you say is true, then why did NZ ally with Oz? When Oz clearly produced worse referees than other nations. Oz have a reputation for producing below par referees. Well, at least in the eyes of us Saffas.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Stormer, you are completely misrepresenting the meaning of that memo and conflating two separate issues. I get tired of hearing this old chestnut being dragged up as some kind of "proof" of some imagined conspiracy against the Springboks. Its just complete and utter BS.

The actual phrase used was NOT "lets get the Japies", it was "lets teach those Japies a lesson". While that phrasing in the memo was totally inappropriate, it was blown out of all proportion by the South African media, who frankly, stoked up the fires and flat out lied to the South African public. There is a reason why their media never published the whole actual memo; because it had absolutely NOTHING to do with a conspiracy to do some crooked refereeing with regards to the South African rugby team or players, and publishing it would have caught them out as liars.

The memo (or series of memos) were ALL to do with the administration of SARU; in particular, the assessment criteria and standards they were using in assessing their referees. This was 1999, and South African rugby had only been back in the world rugby community for five years after their long isolation. SARU were still using referee assessment methods that other nations had abandoned in the 1980's. SARU were exhibiting a fair amount of intransigence in not changing their assessment methods to coincide with that of their SANZAR partners, which both the NZRU and ARU considered necessary in order to ensure consistent refereeing across the whole Super 12 competition.

The emails in question were between the Keith Lawrence and his ARU counterpart (Peter Marshall?). They contained references to keeping SARU in the dark regarding administrative and other decisions, including the non-appointment of South African referees to major Super 12 matches. It was Lawrence's idea for the NZRU and ARU to block appointments to major matches in order to force SARU's hand. Lawrence was frustrated with his SARU counterpart, Freek Burger, who refused to budge, and some of that frustration boiled over into the e-mail.

That makes no difference to me. The exact content of the memo and context doesn't take away the fact that that phrasing shows clear disrespect and disregard to a nation as a whole on the part of Lawrence. I was alluding to the perception in SA that key (NZ/Aus in both SANZAR and the IRB in the past) rugby administrators see SA as 'the enemy'. That type of mentality and (more importantly) the manner in which it is dicussed WILL rub of and filter down the ranks IMO whether orchestrated or not.

 

[TRF_heineken]

This is what Jonathan Kaplan had to say:

http://ratetheref.co.za/2015/08/12/kaplans-comments-the-rugby-championship-round-3/

Referee Poite and his crew failed to detect a clear forward pass to the try scorer, which is not good enough at this level.

Personally, I thought the ref could have done more to ensure that Ayerza's angle was more parallel to the touch lines, and perhaps get Creevy a little higher. These are important points, but we got monstered on the day.

I agree with our scrum coach when he asks world rugby referee boss, Jutge, for clarity in certain decisions, one of which was for a clear slip which was nonsense and the other for our whole front row going down was highly questionable (look at how low Creevy's head is prior to engagement).

I thought Poites decision to disallow Reinachs try was a poor call. Quite clearly the place of penalty is at the place of infringement, not in the exact place the referee happens to be standing. Reinach took it from the correct place or close enough and didn't appear to be ahead of the place of infringement. We see this every game with a quick tap where the half back anticipates where the referee is going to give the mark. For example, in the case of a penalty from a line out he will tap on the 15m line well before the ref gets there as he knows where to restart from. The same applies for a scrum. The 9 either throws to the 8 who taps and goes or goes to the back of the scrum and does it himself.

And then on that try in the corner:

And so on to another contentious moment in the game. Poite awards a penalty to the Pumas. A player is injured. Poite calls time out. I didn't hear him go to our captain and ask him to speak to our players. He then calls time on without looking around him on the field. The Pumas tap and score uncontested.

A few points:

-Is it relevant that the medics are still on the field as our commentary team erroneously mentioned? Not at all! Why is this even brought up? It misleads the public!
-Did the Pumas do anything wrong? Not at all.
-What about Poite? He is entitled to call time on and time off as the referee. It appeared that he allowed the player to get treatment and then called time on. Technically, nothing wrong. We were caught napping. We need to accept responsibility for that. But I think as a referee, it's a good idea to check that you have a platform for a fair contest. Perhaps notifying the Boks that he was about to restart play may have been a better outcome for the sake of that fair contest. And in addition, if he did ask De Villiers to talk to his team, then the decision is a shocker. It happened against Ireland a few years ago, when Honiss lost concentration for a brief moment, but I would like to give Poite the benefit of the doubt here, as I didn't hear him say anything to our captain over the comms.

Incidentally, we are not the only victims of this. Rolland did exactly the same thing to France when they played the All Blacks in the last RWC when he called time on with most of the French team having a drink. I thought that was grossly unfair and didn't allow for a fair contest. I think the question really is: "Shouldn't the referee have a better understanding of what is happening around him to ensure a fair contest, even though he may well be technically within his rights to call time on when he sees fit?"

It's interesting remarks from Kaplan. It also seems like he's trying persuade the SA public to be a bit forgiving towards Poite because he's a nice guy, even though he's not up to standard.

But if you look at the bad calls. It calculates to 17 points that Argentina scored on errors by the Referee, and 7 points which the Boks didn't get. That is a 24-point difference!!!!

Now I know that it doesn't mean anything and that a lot could've changed or some tries would've inevitably be scored, etc... But 24 points based on mistakes by the referee shows how badly inadequate Poite really is.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

This is what Jonathan Kaplan had to say:

http://ratetheref.co.za/2015/08/12/kaplans-comments-the-rugby-championship-round-3/



And then on that try in the corner:



It's interesting remarks from Kaplan. It also seems like he's trying persuade the SA public to be a bit forgiving towards Poite because he's a nice guy, even though he's not up to standard.

But if you look at the bad calls. It calculates to 17 points that Argentina scored on errors by the Referee, and 7 points which the Boks didn't get. That is a 24-point difference!!!!

Now I know that it doesn't mean anything and that a lot could've changed or some tries would've inevitably be scored, etc... But 24 points based on mistakes by the referee shows how badly inadequate Poite really is.

I'd have liked to hear his opinions on the work at the breakdown even though I know he is making reference to specific instances here I feel Poite was anything but consistent at the brekdown. Beast got pinged for sealing off while we were on the attack in their 22 yet Argentina were guilty of sealing themselves on quite a few occasions without sanction. Then there is the pilfers, Creevy especially where he is clearly not supporting his own weight (hips wayyyy ahead of his knees) but lying over others yet Poite allows the pilfers.

Its just very difficult to read anythig into a match that is so lopsidedly blown.