Australian referee Paul Marks and South Africa’s Pro Legoete has been dropped from the Super 14 officials panel, according to The Australian newspaper.
The Australian said today that Marks was removed after his controversial handling of the New South Wales Waratahs versus Sharks match in Sydney last weekend.
Marks was criticised by Sharks coach John Plumtree after he failed to award the South African team a penalty try when Kurtley Beale knocked down a pass that appeared to deny the Sharks a late try.
The Sharks lost 25-21, their fourth successive loss of the season.
SANZAR referees chief Lyndon Bray said a penalty try should have been awarded, according to The Australian.
South African official Pro Legoete was dropped indefinetly by the referees’ selection panel.
“The referees’ selection panel have voted to drop Marks from the Super 14 panel until he has rectified shortcomings in his game management. His decision not to award the Sharks a penalty try against the Waratahs was only one event and his overall handling of the game was taken into account” said Lyndon Bray, SANZAR referee chief.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Ja na al die fanfare laas week oor hoe Pro Legoete sy eerste game sou ref en die eerste affiormative action is wat ‘n game ref…
March 10th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 11:28 pm:
Hy’t mos al drie “toetse”
tussen die minors geblaas -
Ou Agter-Indië teen Maselonika,
of so iets.
March 10th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Haas, Haas, hoe laat is dit?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Same from me as it was for old Roos good bye
March 11th, 2010 at 12:03 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 11:59 pm:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Ek weet die tyd van die nag gaan nie een van die moere in die noorde my kak gee nie so ek kan basies se wat ek wil.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:04 am
So dit lyk my Marks was
toe nie so goed as wat
JT hom uitgemaak het nie.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:05 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 12:01 am:
Roos?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Ou Willie my vriend Roos
March 11th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 12:04 am: Ja ek reken JT gaan so bietjie wegkruip vir ‘n dag of so
March 11th, 2010 at 12:12 am
Maar wag dat ek gaan inkruip
March 11th, 2010 at 12:13 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 12:08 am:
Fkt, ek het al van Willie Doos
vergeet.
Elk geval, vanaand slaap ons
darem weer onder ‘n kombers
en nie kaalgat op die gras nie.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 12:09 am:
Reply to Boertjie @ 12:04 am:
gaan kak julle – hulle is beter as die nexte poepholle wat hulle plek gaan neem – try julle ref dan praat ons weer
March 11th, 2010 at 12:48 am
So who will take there place?? Or will certain referees start reffing 2 or 3 games a weekend??
March 11th, 2010 at 12:49 am
I dont knw if we should crit Pro so much. He is calm and engaging. Does not know the rules that well yet but a lotof development goes into refs so we should not drop people. Perhaps he shoul just get a good Curie Cup behind him with big games
March 11th, 2010 at 12:51 am
no ja manne ek hoop julle koop die bakebeans lyk my Julius en sy trawante wil ons whiteys jaag!
March 11th, 2010 at 12:53 am
and whats happened to the white flag thing pilotted during the varsity cup last year? I thought it was a great system, but you should only get one card for the whole game, not one each halve.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:54 am
ja nou praat `n vrystater weer sense en al die kakpraters van die kaap weetnie wat om te se nie.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Reply to newbokshields @ 12:54 am:
het nie ‘n clue wat die vrystater se nie
March 11th, 2010 at 3:32 am
So if it’s unanimous that it was a P try… why not strip the Tahs of their points ffs!
March 11th, 2010 at 4:44 am
I wonder is Pro is going to call the entire SANZAR panel racists this time round?
March 11th, 2010 at 5:38 am
Good on you and your mates Bryce. It makes me feel that the S14 is being run in a business-like way when wrongs are righted. If a professional player performs very badly, he is dropped. No reason why professional refs should be exempt from this time-honoured tradition. It doesn’t do the Sharks any good now but it might save some other side from the frustration of last Saturday.
Here in NZ we get the Rugby Club, a magazine program broadcast on the Rugby Channel on Thursday night. A panel including Rod Keifer and other ex players discuss last week’s S14 matches and look at the weekend to come. Can’t wait to hear what they have to say tonight!
March 11th, 2010 at 7:01 am
Reply to JT @ 12:48 am: They should have use Legoete more on touch to get more experience, for the first time ref’s are also loosing some money and jobs when they mess up. Players and coaches jobs are always on the line and sometimes it was the refs that cause these problems for them.
Backup system needs now to be looked at at plans from SA ref’s needs to be made.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:19 am
Reply to newbokshields @ 12:49 am:
No AA to hide behind in NZ and Aus
He was found out as a “development” fool
Game over…
And he can’t even squeal “Raciss” and watch it magically transform whites into quivering wrecks like here…
March 11th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Reply to DavidS @ 8:19 am:
Yip, no history and social guilt to play a role, only performance!
March 11th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Reply to DavidS @ 8:19 am:
Legoete was no more horrid than Marks and Walsh, who has more experience.
Refs start somewhere and progress, Pro is not ready yet but I reckon you can drop the ‘development’ tag on this one, Pro is not the only one not ready for this level and it has nothing to do with his skin colour.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:40 am
Reply to Morné @ 8:29 am:
PA, the point is that in SA we would be more lenient with AA candidates than anywhere in the world. And I agree that we should be, but that is a SA issue!
He would not be dropped in SA local competitions after his performance, but the international committee does not have the same barometers than SA have!
March 11th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Yes it does Morne and you know it deep down…
March 11th, 2010 at 8:46 am
Reply to Vloye @ 8:40 am:
Nor will Marks and Walsh be dropped locally, the dynamics of the job simply demands it.
Pro is in fact one of the few up-and-coming refs in SA who has not been around for the time a Mark Lawrence of Kaplan has, so he is still learning his trade.
He is not good enough yet, but there was no harm in testing him at this level to see where he is so he can improve. Pro is much better than some of the shit I have seen in recent weeks.
And as far as I remember he was a stand-in because Dickenson had to pull himself out of the game?
I am just getting tired of racially charged opinions being thrown about where there seems to be some form of joy found in a person of another skin colour failing for whatever reason.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Reply to DavidS @ 8:44 am:
Oh really?
Why was Marks suspended?
Because he is a useless trailor-park redneck white trash?
They were both dropped for rugby reasons, but what you choose to read into it is your problem I suppose.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Morne
Nothing you can say will change the fact that Pro was advanced because of his race…. too early…
Whether he will make it at this level or not time will tell (from Vodacom and Varsity Cup evidence I think not) but in South Africa the differences were marked
Marks is poor because he is poor
Legoete is poor because he is being pushed too early because of his race….
March 11th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Anycase, I hate getting involved with political discussions and never do it in the first place, so it was a mistake for me to start this morning.
Please ignore my comments on this thread.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Reply to DavidS @ 8:55 am:
Dawie one last thing.
There is a world-wide shotage of quality referees, this is a fact and something you can ask Andre about.
There is no doubt referees are pushed early (all of them) because there is simply not enough quality ones to go around on the pro-circuit in the first place.
Not everything is about race (even in SA). Referees worldwide are pushed too early and the evidence is clear from the rubbish we see coming from our SANZAR partners.
Okay, that is me done.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:02 am
Reply to Morné @ 8:59 am:
Not everything is about race (even in SA).
Yes… it is
March 11th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Reply to Morné @ 8:59 am:
exactly and the next ref that takes the place of Pro and Marks will be less experienced, less capable and we will be back to square 1!
IMO the worst in the S14 so far has been Steve Walsh – reffing on emotion is no way to do the job!
March 11th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Reply to Morné @ 8:46 am:
PA i agree with
“I am just getting tired of racially charged opinions being thrown about where there seems to be some form of joy found in a person of another skin colour failing for whatever reason.”
There is no joy in him failing, but refs in SA who are black is being pushed more than whites, and that is the issue, and I do not have a problem with that. That is where we are in history.
March 11th, 2010 at 9:12 am
James Leckie still takes the cake…
Morne misunderstands me
But it is his choice.
Marks, Leckie and walsh are poor refs
Legoete is not a poor ref… he is just being pushed too early and maybe he will turn into a decent ref…. who knows…
It is the nature of South Africa…
Bets on
Remember Kaya Molatana as a Bok?… what about Tonderai Chavanga? And Breyten Paulse? Lawrence Sephaka?
All these guys pushed
Some make it and some don’t…
And we all know they got “pushed” because of race…
March 11th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Andre Watson:
More rumours reported were that South African referee Pro Legoete was also suspended.
Watson denied this as well.
‘Let me get this straight, Pro has just helped out this season. He has reffed one and a half games, where he stood in for Jonathan Kaplan [second half - Sharks vs Cheetahs] and Stuart Dickinson [Cheetahs vs Highlanders],’ said Watson.
‘Pro hasn’t been appointed for any other Super 14 games this season, but he will be considered in future seasons.
‘It’s ridiculous that people think we [Sanzar] would suspend Pro after one and a half games. Marks is another story. He has reffed more than 10 Super Rugby games.’
March 11th, 2010 at 9:25 am
Marks got dropped after his first Super 14 WARMUP match as well Morne…
March 11th, 2010 at 9:46 am
En na dit alles, bly ons almal maar net k@ff3rs
March 11th, 2010 at 11:10 am
hmmm… seems to be conflicting reports on what’s going on. This from that other not so good site…
On Marks:
“‘I’ve read this news in the papers but the truth is he has not been fired or suspended,’ said Watson. ‘He has, however, been removed from the Sanzar panel of referees until further notice following the review of his performance last weekend.
‘He has been sent to a remedial process where he will be able to learn from his mistakes. Should we feel he has learnt from his errors, Sanzar might allow him back on the panel. But I don’t think he will ref another game in the Super 14 this season.’”
and on Pro:
“More rumours reported were that South African referee Pro Legoete was also suspended.
Watson denied this as well.
‘Let me get this straight, Pro has just helped out this season. He has reffed one and a half games, where he stood in for Jonathan Kaplan [second half - Sharks vs Cheetahs] and Stuart Dickinson [Cheetahs vs Highlanders],’ said Watson.
‘Pro hasn’t been appointed for any other Super 14 games this season, but he will be considered in future seasons.”
http://www.keo.co.za/2010/03/11/controversial-marks-axed/
Personally I prefer to believe a quote from Watson provided http://www.keo.co.za didn’t mess up the quote.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:13 am
I watched the RugbyDump clip on the “knock down” by Beale.
Was ZERO knock-down !!!
Look at last play in clip.
Pause-start-pause-start through the move.
Beale’s hand is lower than the ball (below) he stretches-out moves his hand-arm UPWARDS – gets hand to the ball and the ball goes forward.
Knock-on ONLY
March 11th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Reply to The Brand @ 11:13 am:
Are you sure the ball went forward? It might actually just have looked like it but actually went backwards?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:16 am
FOOOOOK
Andre Watson (en sy uitverkorenes) het mos nog net een fout in sy lewe gemaak:
Hy het gedog hy was verkeerd – maar hy was nie…
FOPPEN WANKER!!
March 11th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Reply to The Brand @ 11:13 am:
More seriously though, does the ball actually have to be knocked down or can it just be a case of not trying to catch the ball but knock it anywhere where the receiving player can’t catch it?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Reply to The Brand @ 11:13 am:
DANKIE! That is what I have been saying but NOOO!
March 11th, 2010 at 11:47 am
Brand you are totally wrong…
Remember you are watching in isolation.
Beale comes across to stop TWO runners
Now recall after the match he claimed he was “going for the intercept”
AND the ref said it was an INTENTIONAL knockon and yellowed him.
So that takes care of your arguments over what it was.
All we can use to assess is what the ref said vide it was an intentional knockon and what the player said , going for intercept.
So you have to decide which story is more likely.
After that it is easy
The players is NOWAY going for an intercept… watch his eyes … he is watching the ball not the player as he comes over to tackle…. then he uses one splayed outstratched hand to GO FOR THE BALL whist the other stays back almost as if to tackle Tereblanche.
The going for the ball I believe was probably instinctual
BUT
As Morne and I discussed earlier
When read against the rules it was an infringement that stopped a try … a probable try is the test but it was a certain try in the circumstances…
Ergo
Penalty Try was the corect finding aside from the YC.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Reply to Ollie @ 11:17 am:
it must be an attempt to catch it – what constitutes an attempt is up to the referee so comes down to INTERPRETATION.
HOWEVER why did Marks give the YC and PK?? If it was an attempt to catch that went wrong why not only a scrum? So if in Marks eyes good enough for a YC and PK then surely it was good enough for a PT – let’s see what comes from all this… probably fokkol!
March 11th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Reply to The Brand @ 11:13 am:
Did he have any chance of catching that ball?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:50 am
But even if i am wrong the question is not whether it was a YC offence
The question is whether the offence prevented a probable try…
It did
So whether intentional or not the ciorrect outcome was Penalty Try PLUS the infriongement…
BUT
I still think Brand is watching gat oor kop
March 11th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:49 am:
if it was Habana – yes
March 11th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Reply to DavidS @ 11:47 am:
I agree with you that it doesn’t seem that Beale was going for the intercept, only to stop the ball getting to Kankowski.
If I understand correctly, the law does not make provision for which direction the ball was knocked by the obstructing player but whether the action was intentional or not.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Reply to JT @ 11:51 am:
I also remember that the law was that if you attempt and intercept, you have to use both hands – does that still apply?
Cause it will lay to rest this debate.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:49 am:
Given his own post game explanation that he was “going for an intecept” one has to say
1. He is lying
2. There is NO AYS you use the fingertips of one hand to intercept a ball
In that respect Marks was correct
March 11th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Reply to DavidS @ 11:50 am:
look at the incident regardless of referee decision – IMO an attempt to intercept! Hand was in an upward motion which is the general cue for an intercept.
Marks fooked himself by giving the YC and PK and not the PT – If he gave a scrum he would be better at getting away with NOT giving the PT!
March 11th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Reply to Ollie @ 11:52 am:
But here is where the law gets it wrong.
If you knock it down back towards your own goal line intentionally there is no sanction.
For instance, let’s say Terblanche and Kanko passed Beale and running towards his own goal-line, Beale knocks down a pass between Terblanche and Kanko and the ball goes towards his own goal line – there is no penalty…
March 11th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Reply to Ollie @ 11:17 am:
Watch the clip !!!
IMO – he “obviously” tried to stop the movement – he is Aussie-skelm-scum after-all.
But
he did it LEGALLY !!!
March 11th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Reply to JT @ 11:53 am:
Ball was knocked upwards because of it’s hight in flight and Beales late reaction, i.e He couldn’t have knocked it downwards as easily as knocking it up.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Reply to Ollie @ 11:52 am:
Hi Ollie
As I understand from the laws Morne quoted it is about whether a probable try was prevented by the actions of a player… it does not say whether the infringement should be deliberate or not….
So no matter what beale’s exaplanation or our spin on it the point is whether the infringement KO or intentional KO prevented a probable try…
CLEARLY it did
Hence the correct outcome would have been PT or ratyher should have been
Just to change the subject
With Marks gone do you reckon Phil Waugh’s gloating over the way marks applied the rules are over now? Maybe Waugh should have kept his gotch shut after the game instead of rubbing the faces of the Sharks in it..
March 11th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:52 am:
can’t remember that – all I know is the upward motion equals an intercept attempt & downward motion a deliberate knockdown.
How many times has Habana sticked out a hand the ball got knocked and he manages to controll it anyway and run through for a try!?
March 11th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:54 am:
Which is definitely not the case in this case.
Reply to The Brand @ 11:55 am:
I did watch the clip, how do you justify him doing it legally if it was intentional
March 11th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Reply to DavidS @ 11:56 am:
Dawie has hit the nail on the head.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 11:55 am:
I did and I think you’re watching a different clip…
Yes the hand come from the bottom, and Beale is watching the ball not the player but he uses one hand and spreads his fingers and thus the atempt is NOT LEGAL
It is instinctual but the corect outcome was PT
Infringement stopped probable try
END OF DISCUSSION
March 11th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 11:58 am:
the law should be changed – ANY ATTEMPTED Intercept that goes wrong (Knocked on) should be penalized!
That will take out Habana and JdV a bit but the Law will then be clear cut.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Reply to Morné @ 11:49 am:
Yes !!!
Reply to DavidS @ 11:47 am:
Dawie read this slooowly – then you tell me if he tried to intercept or not.
“watch his eyes … he is watching the ball not the player as he comes over to tackle…. then he uses one splayed outstratched hand to GO FOR THE BALL”
March 11th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:00 pm:
gaan kak! Only I say when it is the END of DISCUSSION!
It was a genuine attempt at the intercept! SCRUM only! END OF DISCUSSION
March 11th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Reply to Morné @ 11:52 am:
THAT – willmake BIG difference – I was not aware of that “NEW” Law interpretation – thenagain there are soooo many nowadays
March 11th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Reply to JT @ 11:53 am:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Reply to JT @ 11:57 am: Reply to Ollie @ 11:58 am:
Was definately a case.
If you do not attempt an intercept with both hands chances are you are deliberately obstructing play, i.e. foul play.
Deliberate foul play in the event a probably try would have been scored = penalty try.
If you knock a ball on with one hand, control it, and catch it the ref cannot blow you up because you successfully completed an interception.
However, sticking one hand out as Beale did, you have little chance of recovering the ball, hence the action is a deliberate attempt to stop a move or pass, if the action turns into an offence, i.e. you cannot complete the interception and ball goes to ground or into touch, it is a deliberate infringement = penalty and in this case, prevented a probably try from being scored, so penalty try.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 11:56 am:
If that is the case, then it is clearly a PT.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:06 pm:
Where do you get this from? Nothing in the IRB lawbook!
And if it were to be the case a successful 1 hand intercept should also be penalized! The intent is there for foul play but he gets away with it because he got lucky?? No, there is nothing I can find in the regulations or Lawbook on this.
It is like saying a players throwing a punch can only be penalized if the punch makes contact
March 11th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:06 pm:
THAT is NOT Law – only your interpretation of it
Sad that SA Referees – or SANZAR do not make any attempt to clarify this – IN DETAIL.
Their reaction to it – possibly destroying a refereeing career – DEMAND – detailed clarification.
I they did – sorry – would then
till then 
March 11th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 12:03 pm:
I will mail Andre Watson but I definately remember this being a tool referees used to judge interceptions and deliberate knock-downs, but let me get official response.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:06 pm:
Exactly
It does not need to be an intentional infringement to bring about a PT…
It just needs to be an infringement that stops a probable try
So again I sugges we ask what Beale’s intentions were
He claims to have been going for an intercept but the clip says otherwize. You do not try to intercept with the fingers of one hand….
If the ball was knocked on then one needs to ask if that infringement prevented a probable try… if it did (remember not definite but probable) then PT MUST be awarded…
Beale’s KO undoubtedly stopped a try… the only variable is if kankow would have caught the ball but that is a negligible one.
The correct outcome was the infringemnt, deliberate or otherwise, prevented a probable try from being scored…. hence…. PT
March 11th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:13 pm:
get it on black and white from the IRB! Not just AW’s interpretation – hy praat net so baie kak soos die res van ons
March 11th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:11 pm:
Reply to The Brand @ 12:12 pm:
So what DOES THE LAW say about it?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Reply to Morné @ 12:13 pm:
Mail Andre Watson also about Reply to The Brand @ 12:12 pm: thanks
March 11th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
For the record:
I liked Pro’s presence on
the field, won’t try and
judge his shortcomings.
Face it, it’s not the most
enviable job – especially
if you’re not white in SA.
Guy also had a higher
education.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:19 pm:
Nothing – fokkol = just that a deliberate knock on is a penalty.
No upward motion mentioned, no one hand v two hands mentioned etc. That is discriminating against people with only one hand!!
PS: We have a guy playing in Asutria with only one hand! You would not know it the way he handles a ball!
Seriously!
March 11th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:32 pm:
.. and that if the knock-on is deliberate and it is probable the opposition would score then a PT?
March 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:32 pm:
“You would not know it the way he handles a ball!
Seriously!”
I would !!!!!!!!!!
March 11th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
BTW – with all the criticism against referees I would suggest to them that they stand up united and go on strike! See how you like them apples!
The game can not be played without referees and they do the best they can (most of them most of the time! Steve Walsh is a different issue
)
Anyway – lay off the refs a bit :nono:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:38 pm:
Not referees, just one referee
Besides, ref’s are easier to rplace when on strike thatn a whole team, just ask SWD
March 11th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:35 pm:
If I remember correctly
THAT is stringing two aspects together
deliberate infringement
+
stopping a probable try
March 11th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:38 pm:
IMO – Marks messed-up when he gave a yellow-card and NOT a PT.
If he had only given a PK
fine
how could anybody then jump on him.
But he kinda went the middle route – that left nobody happy and cost him his job
March 11th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 12:41 pm:
He he he
or should that rather read
Stopping a probable try – with a deliberate infringement
March 11th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
thing is, the players know the ‘interpretation’ of refs for intercepts/knock-downs etc…
IMO Beales was never gonna intercept the ball but had to prevent it getting to Kanko… so… because he is wiley… he doesn’t just pat it down… he’s knocks it on/up… to try and avoid being pinged for the infringment…
and because of that he says he was trying to intercept…
don’t like to judge people but I think he is being dishonest… no ways was he really trying to intercept… just trying to avoid being pinged for knocking the ball off its trajectory to Kanko and the try-line…
March 11th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 12:42 pm:
exactly! simply put
March 11th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Reply to UFO @ 12:45 pm:
if the situation was tahs v Stormers and it was Habana – what would you be saying then
March 11th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 12:44 pm:
Stopping a probable try with ANY infringement Om Brand is what the law says….
March 11th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Reply to UFO @ 12:45 pm:
Being a high level rugby player he probably went for the ball just to be able to get his hands on it, if he could turn it into an intercept all the better, but first get a hand on it.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:48 pm:
same thing JT… I’m very objective about it…
eg I’ve already said I think Schalk was VERY lucky not to get cited and banned ofr his ‘tussle’ with Mark Lawrence… had that been in Aus or NZ with a non-SA ref I believe Schalk would’ve been banned for a VERY longtime…
March 11th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:53 pm:
Ollie… I believe he went for the ball just to prevent Kanko getting his hands on it…
March 11th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Reply to UFO @ 1:23 pm:
like Adam Thompson ‘pretending’ to get out of the ruck by doing stationary doggy-paddle strokes…
March 11th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Reply to Ollie @ 12:53 pm:
I’m thinking – How could he NOT try for intercept?
If it comes off – he is a GREAT hero
if not
he is still a hero for saving the match !!!
My biggest gripe is that the SA Referees and SANZAR is staying – mouth-zipped about the DETAILS of the Law / Interpretations
March 11th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 12:51 pm:
Dawie I am NOT s sure about that.
I always understood it to be – deliberate
thus INTENTIONAL !
he he he – even I have been wrong before – so stand to be corrected
March 11th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Reply to The Brand @ 1:36 pm:
Forward passes.
Intercepts.
What’s next?
March 11th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 1:47 pm:
Crooked throw-in’s at scrums???
March 11th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Reply to UFO @ 1:22 pm:
RE SCHALK:
I still think it was a storm
in a tea cup – otherwise the
scribes on the blogs and the
OZmob and Kiwis would have
made mileage from it.
They all ignored it.
It was an accident – plain and
simple. And for once the
judiciaries saw it in the same
light.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 1:50 pm:
And I’m not the Afkophoender’s
biggest fan, as some may have
noticed.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 1:50 pm:
i hear you… and I’m obviously in the minority about this… I am a big Schalk fan and happy to see him back to his best…
but could you see Schalk getting away with everyone ignoring it if it was against the poms in the end of year tour and Stuart Barnes was the ref…???
also if it had happened in Canberra or Auckland for their fans to see it and scream blue murder…??
look… I’m glad from a SA and Stormers rugby perspective… but I do think he was lucky…
and I don’t think there is any excuse for that… IMO it looked as accidental as beales’ knock-on…
March 11th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
You may have a point
re Canberra and Auckland,
not to mention the
whining Poms.
Maybe home ground was to
Schalk’s advantage. And I
suppose the Down Under scribes
were already asleep or
sloshed by that stage.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Well we better hope he plays above himself because heaven alone only knows we need it with Brussouw neutralized….
Cobus Grobbelaar?
Has not really shone this year
March 11th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 2:21 pm:
Dewald Potgieter.
March 11th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 2:21 pm:
Asking the impossible:
Shining in a Lions team.
Sorry, Auto and General Lions.
What happened to the “Golden”?
March 11th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 2:26 pm:
Auto fookup and
General incompetence.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Reply to JT @ 12:38 pm:
Major League Baseball umpires went on strike a few years ago.
MLB hired replacements and the umpires learned to their surprise that the fans do not pay to watch them.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Ja shame A&G must be wondering what the hell they must do to get mileage out of their sponsorship?
Maybe if they rather sponsored through a subsidiary like Dial Direct or Budeget Insurance or even the Hippo it would be more accurate.
Boer the Golden Lions is the CCteam and the name of the holding company
The S14 team is just The Lions
Happened in 1998 when they created the regional teams…
March 11th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Reply to DavidS @ 10:22 pm:
Maybe Pik n Petaal
se No Name brands
kan hulle borg?
March 12th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 10:25 pm:
No their NoName brand actually has value
A&G is universally in legal circles regarded as the most untrustwirthy insurer one can go with which is why they keep having to change their product from Budget to Dial Direct to 1st for Women to Hippo etc etc etc…