Surprise! Lawrence refereeing produces a dour game
150 Have your say
- Rugby Union news
- Wallabies news
- Rugby World Cup 2011 news
- South Africa Springboks news
- Rugby 2011 news
Thank goodness Australia won. And I’m not saying that because If not, this country would lose interest in the World Cup and have a ‘rugby reccession’. Although that would have happened.
I’m saying that because I can now safely say that Bryce Lawrence’s refereeing at the breakdown was incompetent, without coming across as a bitter rugby tragic.
As Lawrence reffed matches tend to go, there was just the one try. In fact, that has me amazed, how can a side with 75% territory and something like 90% of the ball not score a try?
Which do you think is more useless, the Springbok attack or Lawrences breakdown refereeing? (Leave ‘bokkes’ or ‘Lawrence’ at the bottom of your comment.)
It took 19 minutes for the first penalty, and there were very few penalties in the first half, slightly more in the second.
Very few penalties you say? isn’t that meant to be a good thing in rugby?
No. Because the breakdown was reduced to a farce. I could rant and rave about my point being proven and analyse why the Springboks lost.
However, after reading all the match reports, I believe the reason the Boks lost was because of this, and I quote the telegraph in the UK:
“The South Africans thought that the tackler would have to release the ball carrier. They thought that the offside line would be respected.
They thought that men would have to stay on the feet. Instead it was a complete shambles.”
There you have it folks. South Africa honestly thought that Bryce would actually penalize all those infringements! How silly of them. Much has been made of Australia’s failure to play to refs this year, they certainly did it today. If South Africa were smart, they should have known Bryce would never penalize those infringements for either side.
The team that played to the ref won. And with 10% of the ball.