Jonothan Kaplan on the two yellow cards of the weekend.

First topic message reminder :

Hookers Adriaan Strauss and Dane Coles were both shown yellow cards on Saturday which could have been avoided if the referee concerned had used a bit of common sense.

Strauss was sent to the sin-bin for taking Irish fullback Rob Kearney out in the air in the Springboks' defeat in Dublin, whilst Coles was sent from the field at Twickenham for lashing out with his foot during the All Blacks' victory over England.

In the second minute of the Test at Lansdowne Road Rob Kearney clearly took Willie le Roux out and the sanction was upgraded from a free kick to a penalty with the player hardly receiving even a warning.

Then 60 minutes later Kearney was taken out by Strauss just before he landed in a fairly innocous way without any malicious intent. It was almost as if Strauss had tried to put him off catching the ball and then touched him. That is literally all it is.

If you are going on the argument that we need the players to understand what is going to happen to them before they run onto the field then it must be done across the board and there should be a lot more yellow cards than they are giving.

I am not arguing that it should not have been a penalty, it should have. But certainly if you are refereeing at this level I would expect that there needs to be more common sense in a game that is a contact sport. I think netball has more contact in an aerial sense than what was allowed in that particular case.

If the referee had used common sense he could have just as easily have managed that situation by saying that although a player was taken out in the air in this particular case it falls at the lower end of the scale and we are going to give a penalty and a caution.

It would have been in line with what he had done in the second minute of the game and I cannot agree with the decision because it is a contact sport and they are over-sanitising that arena because they happen to be concerned about injuries of players who are exposed in the air, which is a knee-jerk reaction to something that could just as easily be managed with the right amount of law application and common sense.

At Twickenham Nigel Owens did not deal with the perpetrator Dylan Hartley who started the whole thing by pulling Coles.

Coles' reaction was worse, but for me it could just as easily have been managed. It was not a yellow card offence and the guy who started it should have been included in the discussion.

My feeling was that a penalty should have gone in favour of England because the reaction of Coles was worse than Hartley's, he should not have lashed out, but certainly both should have been put on notice.

Even though the reaction is wrong you cannot ignore the original action, you have got to take both into account.

In this case it wasn't that he kicked somebody, he was frustrated so he lashed out with his foot and happened to make contact.

Whilst you can argue that Owens was not wrong in the strictest sense, there are a whole bunch of better outcomes that could have been obtained through better mangement of that situation.

By Jonathan Kaplan - Rugby 365

Kaplan talks a lot of sense.

He wasn't in line with Kearney so to me he had no intention to even compete for the ball or he changed his running line to avoid a collision after realising he was potentially going to make contact with Kearney in the air and was hoping for a loose ball, saw Kearney lose control and tried to compound it by trying to slap the ball.

Lots of ifs, buts and maybe's but I truly believe that he was not after trying to do anything cynical.

I am probably miles out with my assessment but that's pretty much how I saw it.

If Strauss deserved yellow, Kearney definitely should have been binned in the 2nd minute.

OT, but someone mentioned the whitelock non-try. Think it was Nathan that mentioned it, there was actually an English finger that brushed the ball before whitelock dived for it. I saw it, it's real. The Englishman didn't intend to brush the ball with his finger tip. But he brushed it nonetheless. Is that downward pressure and is that important? This just adds to the complexity of that decision. So a 5 m scrum to ABs and resulting penalty try for an English scrum collapse no doubt

i didnt see the english finger. was solely focused on the ball and the line. guess Owens missed it too.

was a complete horlicks of a decision by Owens. should have been either a try or a penalty if, as he said, the ball is on the line.

if it was a knock-on and the ball was on the line, it was effectively dead and therefore should have been a 22 restart!

i bet he is copping a load of flack for that series of screwups from the IRB.

Going back to the original point. Poite was not inconsistent with his rulings for taking players out in the air. Kearney received a penalty against him for it and so did Strauss. Poite did not Yellow card for the contact in the air, he ruled it a penalty just as he did with Kearney.

The yellow card was a result of a series of infringements leading up to Strauss' contact with Kearney which culminated in a team yellow card. Strauss is very unlucky for this. The fact that Poite got players confused is neither here nor there as SA had committed the infringements as a team. Poite had pulled the captains aside and given them a warning prior to the incident.

There was no inconsistency from Poite in his rulings regarding Kearney and Strauss.

The problem I have with Poite is he is a hot head and once he has had enough, he has had enough. I think that is a poor trait in him as a ref but captains should know and understand this. Ireland recognised he was about to blow, SA didn't and continued to push their luck. Nothing more nothing less.

My apologies Sir, but South Africa did not push their luck. I thought it was n fact a very clean game, if making one high tackle and challenging the ball in the air constitutes for pushing your luck then I am obviously ignorant to what that means.

Ireland conceded 10 penalties and SA 11 in the match, that would suggest that either both teams pushed their luck or neither team pushed their luck.

I will agree however that the Frenchman is overzealous and loses his cool.

In the period leading up to Strauss' yellow card, SA pushed their luck with some silly infringements after Poite had warned both Captains. POC recognised that Poite was going to pull his old trick and told his team 'no penalties'. SA didn't and paid the price.

Once again, Poite was not inconsistent with his penalties for contests in the air.

The penalty account leading up to Poite's warning is irrelevant, its what you do after he warns you that counts and SA pushed their luck after his warning.

That is where Poite is inconsistent. Learn to play him and things will inevitably go in your favour. This is basic homework of any team before a match. Not only to know your opponent but know the ref.

What's Kaplan's ideas on ball retention by ball boys?

Mr Jones.

South Africa conceded 1 penalty inside their half in the second half prior to Strauss' yellow card, and that was for the high tackle.

our cumulative theory does not wash, neither does you suggestion that SA didn't adapt to Poite, as the penalty count bears out.

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter what happens in regards to the penalty count in the lead up to the warning, it counts after the warning with Poite. On 60mins, he warns both captains, 1 minute later SA commits a high tackle and gets under Poites skin, moments later Strauss does something rather innocuous, receives a penalty and see a yellow card.

POC knew Poite which is why he called for 'no penalties' (after the warning) for Ireland. This was done on his past experience with Poite with the knowledge that Poite would yellow card a player (from either side). SA simply did not heed this warning and paid the price. We all know that Poite is a fiery character and he showed it again on Saturday.

Poite clearly states that the yellow was for repeated offences, this is not my theory, this is a fact. Whether or not he is correct in our minds is irrelevant, this is what he did and what he said.

I also stated that this is where I feel that Poite is inconsistent.

I am not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Let me put it to you.

There is no adapting to an overzealous short fused referee. That is simply nonsense, the sequence of events happened as they did, you don't aim to tackle high, you don't intend to take someone out in the air

POite is a plonker and it is as simple as tat. Your suggestion that South Africa should somehow adapt to that is unfounded.

The were very disciplined in the physical stakes. They behaved very well throughout the game.

Biltong wrote:Let me put it to you.

There is no adapting to an overzealous short fused referee. That is simply nonsense, the sequence of events happened as they did, you don't aim to tackle high, you don't intend to take someone out in the air

POite is a plonker and it is as simple as tat. Your suggestion that South Africa should somehow adapt to that is unfounded.

The were very disciplined in the physical stakes. They behaved very well throughout the game.

Whether he is a plonker or not is irrelevant he is the referee. All teams have to adapt to the refs. You seem to be suggesting that the Boks shouldnt have to bother.

Why, immediately after Poites warning, did POC tell his team mates 'No Penalties'? That's done on past experience and is adapting to Poite's reffing... Not sure how much clearer I can make that?

Had SA done the same as Ireland (for at least 5mins) then I am sure that there would not have been a yellow card. Poite usually takes 5mins to cool down. The fact is, 1 minute after the warning, SA commit a high tackle and not long after that, Strauss infringes in a high ball contest. So no, SA did not adapt (as Ireland did) and they paid the price.

Biltong wrote:Let me put it to you.

There is no adapting to an overzealous short fused referee. That is simply nonsense

but there is Bilt if you 1. want to win or 2. want to stay as competitive as possible in the game with no yellows or reds.

You can't deny Poite is there.  You can't, whilst a game is going on, say he shouldn't be there.  Those are all arguments for after a game and if SA, or indeed Ireland or any other Nation, has an issue with a particular ref, then their Union brings it up with IRB.  You deal with Poite, or attempt to deal with him after a game.

What happens in the game defines who wins.  The result won't be changed by saying the ref was an overzealous short fused idiot.  The result will stand.  

So in a sense - resistance is futile when a game is ongoing.  Teams must - TRY - to adapt to a ref or they'll suffer the consequences.  Yes, for some teams at any given time, it feels they are being reffed out of a game as by following the whims of the ref they're making their gameplans impotent.  But there you go - we've ALL been there.  Refs are human...they'll ref different.  Teams have to try to adapt if they want to win.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Let me put it to you.

There is no adapting to an overzealous short fused referee. That is simply nonsense

but there is Bilt if you 1. want to win or 2. want to stay as competitive as possible in the game with no yellows or reds.

You can't deny Poite is there.  You can't, whilst a game is going on, say he shouldn't be there.  Those are all arguments for after a game and if SA, or indeed Ireland or any other Nation, has an issue with a particular ref, then their Union brings it up with IRB.  You deal with Poite, or attempt to deal with him after a game.

What happens in the game defines who wins.  The result won't be changed by saying the ref was an overzealous short fused idiot.  The result will stand.  

So in a sense - resistance is futile when a game is ongoing.  Teams must - TRY - to adapt to a ref or they'll suffer the consequences.  Yes, for some teams at any given time, it feels they are being reffed out of a game as by following the whims of the ref they're making their gameplans impotent.  But there you go - we've ALL been there.  Refs are human...they'll ref different.  Teams have to try to adapt if they want to win.

Fair enough: I usually say that the refree is part of the 'conditions' that teams must adapt to, like the weather or the pitch. But what do you do if a ref has sent off a player for a legitimate, perfectly-timed tackle from an onside position? Is one to avoid tackling? What do you do if a ref sends someone off for bumping a guy while both of you are going up for a high ball? Is one to avoid going up for the high ball? You can't afford to to be second guessing your every action in case you get sent off for it!

One must be a very good actor and make it look very convincing that you are indeed, or did indeed, go for the ball that was in the air.

Unforntunately, Strauss wasn't close to acting that bit well enough

The alternative for a bad actor is to time run better, pause even, to impact with player when he lands.

Fishpaste - no, but that's a different kettle of fish - those would be totally unexpected, unpredictable decisions from any ref. What the guys are arguing - I don't know Poite well enough to be sure if they are right - is that it is predictable that repeated offences after a warning will provoke him into a yellow. And predictable = easily avoidable, if you have prepared and can keep your discipline.

For the record I think the Coles thing was a clear yellow - I have little time for Hartley's behaviour and would love to see that penalised more, but you can't lash out at someone's ankle and not expect a card (especially as it wasn't Hartley's ankle). I didn't think the Strauss one was a yellow by itself, no idea if there was a good case for a team yellow at that point. That said, generally I like the harshness on aerial take-outs as it protects people going for a daring / spectacular takes under the high ball, which for sure is an exciting part of the game and not something we want players to fear attempting for safety reasons.

Kaplan's analysis of the Strauss/Kearney incident ignores one thing completely - why Poite decided to give Strauss a yellow card.   He said very clearly that it was a penalty offence for taking Kearney out in the air.  He then said that Strauss deliberately hit Kearney with his arm which overbalanced him.   He then said that he was giving him a yellow card because there had been another incident "in the air" involving Vermuelen I think with his high tackle on Heaslip if I recall correctly.   That's what he stated and re-stated was his reason for giving the yellow card as well as the penalty.  In other words, if the Vermuelen tackle hadn't happened, then it would just have been a yellow card.

If Kaplan is going to do an analysis of his former colleague's decisions, then he should at least report the facts correctly as to what Poite said was the basis of his decision - whether we agree with that or not is a different matter.

SecretFly wrote:One must be a very good actor and make it look very convincing that you are indeed, or did indeed, go for the ball that was in the air.

Unforntunately, Strauss wasn't close to acting that bit well enough

The alternative for a bad actor is to time run better, pause even, to impact with player when he lands.

That is, in fact, another related worry of mine. Does not the slightly arbitrary nature of some of these rulings encourage soccer-style play acting in order to get the ref to, shall we say, enhance his decision? Do we want this creeping in (any more than it has already) into rugby? I always thought (maybe its my national bias showing) that In the 2013 SA v NZ test, Liam Messam 'played up' to ensure that Bismarck got another yellow...I know he said otherwise, but I have my suspicions.

Pot Hale wrote:Kaplan's analysis of the Strauss/Kearney incident ignores one thing completely - why Poite decided to give Strauss a yellow card.   He said very clearly that it was a penalty offence for taking Kearney out in the air.  He then said that Strauss deliberately hit Kearney with his arm which overbalanced him.   He then said that he was giving him a yellow card because there had been another incident "in the air" involving Vermuelen I think with his high tackle on Heaslip if I recall correctly.   That's what he stated and re-stated was his reason for giving the yellow card as well as the penalty.  In other words, if the Vermuelen tackle hadn't happened, then it would just have been a yellow card.

If Kaplan is going to do an analysis of his former colleague's decisions, then he should at least report the facts correctly as to what Poite said was the basis of his decision - whether we agree with that or not is a different matter.

By that dodgy assessment two high tackles in the game should automatically equal yellow ? Vermuelens high tackle should have had nothing to do with Strauss's ridiculous yellow . Using your interpretation the only reason Kearney didnt see yellow for taking out Le Roux is that Ireland hadnt had the opportunity to infringe because it was only the 2nd minute of the game??

Bullsbok wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Kaplan's analysis of the Strauss/Kearney incident ignores one thing completely - why Poite decided to give Strauss a yellow card.   He said very clearly that it was a penalty offence for taking Kearney out in the air.  He then said that Strauss deliberately hit Kearney with his arm which overbalanced him.   He then said that he was giving him a yellow card because there had been another incident "in the air" involving Vermuelen I think with his high tackle on Heaslip if I recall correctly.   That's what he stated and re-stated was his reason for giving the yellow card as well as the penalty.  In other words, if the Vermuelen tackle hadn't happened, then it would just have been a yellow card.

If Kaplan is going to do an analysis of his former colleague's decisions, then he should at least report the facts correctly as to what Poite said was the basis of his decision - whether we agree with that or not is a different matter.

By that dodgy assessment two high tackles in the game should automatically equal yellow ? Vermuelens high tackle should have had nothing to do with Strauss's ridiculous yellow . Using your interpretation the only reason Kearney didnt see yellow for taking out Le Roux is that Ireland hadnt had the opportunity to infringe because it was only the 2nd minute of the game??

It's not my interpretation. It's simply the facts. The "which overbalanced him" is my addition and my opinion. The rest is pretty much what Poite said was his reasoning. I'm not arguing whether I agree with it or not, I'm just re-stating what Poite said were his reason for the penalty, and the yellow card. Watch the incident and what Poite says.

And my main point is that if Kaplan wants to do an assessment, then he should asses the ruling and Poite's reasons for it.

Bullsbok wrote:By that dodgy assessment two high tackles in the game should automatically equal yellow ? Vermuelens high tackle should have had nothing to do with Strauss's ridiculous yellow . Using your interpretation the only reason Kearney didnt see yellow for taking out Le Roux is that Ireland hadnt had the opportunity to infringe because it was only the 2nd minute of the game??

No-one is arguing two high tackles equals an automatic yellow. What Kaplan left out of his account, however, is the very pertinent point that the referee gave both teams a warning about future incidents. South Africa then committed two clumsy penalty offences, and the second was enough for Poite to issue a team yellow.

Bullsbok wrote:By that dodgy assessment two high tackles in the game should automatically equal yellow ? Vermuelens high tackle should have had nothing to do with Strauss's ridiculous yellow . Using your interpretation the only reason Kearney didnt see yellow for taking out Le Roux is that Ireland hadnt had the opportunity to infringe because it was only the 2nd minute of the game??

It's pretty difficult to get a yellow for repeat infringements in the first 2 mins. It's got to be a really bad start.