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.
Stukkend
Guest
Stop Bloody Whining ................ SA lost the game, get over it!!!!! SA were very lucky to beat Wales in the opening game and even Luckier to beat Samoa. Lawrence is an absolute SHOCKER and should not even be allowed to ref school boy rugby in future. SA should have turned all that possession and territory into points which they did not. Looking forward to a Wales Vs New Zealand Final
NM
Guest
Can't beleive you're still peddling that argument Mike, you were smashed in set piece as well. Too assume that if the breakdown was supervised you'd have benefitted more than us is ludricrous, a freakin pipe dream. Yes, a different game but we one we would have 20 points on you, with that there is no doubt.
Sucone
Guest
Regardless of who was meant to win/did win, Bryce Lawrence is the most useless referee in the world, he made a hash of the England - Argentina Game, Australia - Ireland Game and South Africa - Australia game. He also made a hash of the Super 15 final this year. I believe the aussies played brilliantly and although they did defend most of the game the came away with the win. Everyone knew the game was going to be close and it was, but the fact is that the game would have 1000% times better if it had been fair and the IRB had appointed a northern hemisphere referee such as Alain Rolland instead of THE MOST controversial referee in the world. We may have then seen the game entirely decided by the teams rather than the controversy that surrounds it now. SA needed a big loss (in terms of significance of the match) to allow themselves to wake up to the fact that they need more youth and need to use their backs/run the ball more in attack rather than just kick all the time. To all the people who believe that bryce lawrence did not make a hash of the game all you need to do is type his name into google and u will find the 95% of the rugby world including people in NZ, UK and Aus disagree with you. Looking forward to NZ vs Aus now - being refereed by Craig Joubert - a good referee.
Shamwari
Guest
Alan - better still. He has fallen on his sword according to the UK's Telegraph. However, apology - forget it, but his actions speak volumes. Also, where were the TJs' eyes - on some good looking women in the stands when I counted at least 2 high tackles in kickable places during the second half. However, the RWC goes on, the Boks will recover and it will take a long time to forget and forgive this traversty. It will give future Bok teams that extra bit of vooma whenever they play the great pretenders of this beautiful game; the Wallabies.
Shamwari
Guest
One of the biggest reffing challenges with any RWC is that for the past 3 or 4 RWCs the top ref has been a South African. Go back to Andre Watson, then Jonathon Kaplan and now Craig Joubert. Because there are too many fans who believe that professional refs can still be biased, the IRB is very cautious about using a South African ref when SA is playing in the knockout rounds. So SA gets landed with dross like Bryce Lawrence. Stop Press: The Telegrahp (UK) reported today that Lawrence has fallen on his sword - the only honorable thing he has done this RWC.
Henri
Guest
Let me start of by saying that i believe the ref cost the Springboks the game. The first comment from people who disagree are that the ref might have been wrong at the breakdown but that he officiated the same for both teams, the second being that the boks lost because they did not take their opportunities. There are rules in rugby and if followed you do not need a ref to make any of his own interpretations. You are not allowed to play the ball on the ground or when off your feet, you are not allowed side entry to a ruck, once a ruck is formed you can only pick up the ball if you rucked over it, the tackler must release the tackled player before competing for the ball and the tackled player needs to be given an opportunity to place the ball. Before the start of the world cup it was announced that this as well as the high tackled would be policed vigorously. As a ref you cannot choose or decide when to enforce these rules or not. I then get to the ref applying the same "rules" at the breakdown to both teams. If the rules are not enforced at the breakdown, the team with the most possession and territory would always have the biggest disadvantage (the boks in this instance), they will loose ball in attacking situations, they will have slow ball which allows defensive lines to form again and it is difficult to continue building pressure in this way. Normally teams don't mind because they are rewarded for applying pressure through getting kickable penalties when the opposing team transgresses. By then getting more points on the board, the opposing team is placed under even more pressure causing them to make even more mistakes. The attacking team can then start playing with more freedom because they at least have a buffer in terms of the score which normally then results in some tries (and not loosing the ball on the tryline or passing forward etc. as the boks did). The boks should have received at least 9 more penalties!!! The no1 team in the world NZ could also not take their opportunities against a fairly low ranked team during the first 60 minutes. The Argentinians made similar transgressions at the breakdown, the difference being that NZ received kickable penalties because a ref actually did his job, this then gave them enough points on the board to then play more freely and under less pressure which resulted in them scoring tries. (prior to this they also knocked the ball and had forward passes etc.) So i really can't believe that the boks would have lost if they were given the penalties they were supposed to get, this alone would have already given them enough points for the win nevermind the tries i believe would have followed. The more points you get the more confidence your team gets and exactly the opposite happens to the other team.
Alan
Guest
The match results will stand the test of time and no amount of complaining will change that. I do think however, the South African fans have the right to expect an apology from Bryce Lawrence.
Bert Snyman
Guest
Hi KOT. I feel with you buddy! Please read my comment just above. Lets not give a "D" ref more attention than he deserves.
NM
Guest
Oh no...of course! I'm spotting the irony but am not in agreement in the possession argument and would have been high scoring if you didn't kill the ball! lol What a hopeless idiot anyway, imagine if rugby refereeing was as transparent as football, really think if this goes on the game is going to lose alot of fans. IRB really need to act... Anyway, thats me, let the healing begin.
KOT
Guest
Where were the assistant referees? At least 2 high tackles which should have been brought to the ref's attention - withinkicking range - would have resulted in a deserved win for the Boks
Mike
Guest
NM, couldn't resist this - guess who was the referee in Durban?! That match is one of the main reasons we had nightmares about this one. Very low scoring, yes we won in the end, but man it was close.
NM
Guest
Respect that Mike, just so you haven't forgotten remember that we also dominated territory and possession against you in Durban when we had our A side back...it was only fitness and poor defence that made the tide turn. This is Rassie's influence in the side this yr, hence the better control of posession... Anyway, good luck vs NZ.
Mike
Guest
NM, I agree, we will just have to disagree about the effect of the set piece and the breakdown. My view is that Lawrence's loose style of refereeing was very favourable to the Boks and that is why you enjoyed far greater success in possession and territory than in other games this year and last year. But yes, we'll have to square off on that one. I just wanted to clarify that I was not suggesting that Boks "scrummed illegally". I was saying that overall I think you had the better of the scrum contest. In my view that is not a bad achievement for a Wallaby team - Australia is not a great scrummaging nation by comparison with South Africa, NZ or England. We also left our best scrummager at home (Robinson), so just holding up is a major achievement for us.
NM
Guest
Absolutely correct, we haven't dominated set piece for along time against any of the leading nations. Its quite simple why it happened this time Mike, we finally prepared better! As you rightly pointed out it was more lineouts than scrums, so if anyone infers we scrummed illegally and it wasn't picked up - which would be rich coming from an Australian - thats a mute point as they were even. Yes, if you have possession and territory normally you are going forward and if you are going forward you dominate the breakdown, well thats what is supposed to happen with the new directives. Based on that and there would have been only one outcome, not as you say one that could have gone either way. The interpretations favoured you! If the shoe was on the other foot I'd accept it, we have got our of jail numerous times over the years by the same token. To now say that the refereeing is somehow responsbile for your lack of possession is illogical to me as you got the benefit of some massively dodgy turnovers and were then unable to release the pressure through bad kicking. Would brossouw have been a factor, we were attacking and he would only have been able to clean out players on they're feet! Most were not! lol But yes with proper breakdown refereeing what an absortbing contest it would be. Anyway, no point continuing, agree to disagree mate!
Mike
Guest
NM, This is not meant disrespectfully to the Bokke, but they haven't been "totally dominating" the set piece in matches against us for the last couple of years, so why would they be doing it now? They are stronger than us at the set piece, sure, but the set piece inevitably interacts with the breakdown and as I am sure you know well from our recent 3N matches the Wallabies have done at least as well as Bokke in the area of possession and territory. I am not complaining, just saying that the Boks got a boost from this ref in some areas as well. Before the game I wrote that Lawrence was the better ref for Bokke style, and that is still my view, but I accept that we disagree on that one. Lineout sure, no argument, you creamed us. Scrum, you didn't dominate every scrum as in past years, but overall had the better of teh encounters. I agree entirely that this match could have gone either way. A somewhat different reffing decision on a particular point, wind shift, different tactical decision by one side or another, different bounce... "you have better fetcher after all" - nice of you to say so, but I would like to see Brussow do a full game against Pocock. It will be absorbing and I expect very hard to pick the difference.
Bert Snyman
Guest
Hi all. Lets stop all the bickering. This debate can continue forever without any resolution. It is really sad that the Boks lost and it doesn't matter how sad it makes me or all the other Bok supporters, the World Cup goes on - and so does life! Let's face it, this was a great match between two great sides and all we are achieving now is to scar the most beautiful game in the world - RUGBY!!!!
NM
Guest
Completely incorrect, we only started sealing off our ball, when it was being illegally turned over in the first place! You are also completely ignoring TOTAL set piece dominance which determines both territory and possession. Or did we get the benefit of refereeing decisions in the lineout as well...? The refereeing suited you game not ours remember, you have better fetcher after all and you won by scrapping at the breakdown, if the roles were reveresed and you'd have managed to get on top of our pack, we'd have had no chance!
Mike
Guest
Gareth Hawkins, a very gracious post mate. Bokke did indeed play a colossal game. Absolutely smashing. Loss of Frans and Bakkies before game made things very difficult for you, and also Heinrich during it. How did Boks apply so much pressure without Bakkies and Brussow? Amazing, but they did. As I wrote before the game, it was very sad that this had to be a quarter final where one of these great teams must inevitably go home. i am looking forward to 4N, see the Boks back and with Goosen and some of these other new fellows we hear about.
Jerry
Guest
Pocock's entry to that ruck looked fine to me.
NM
Guest
I ask you again then PeterK, what is the term for this seemingly Australisian interpretation, a heap? And again that didn't happen nearly as often as you said it did, you are grasping at a technicality, one which if it ensued was probably to prevent an illegal turneover.And whatever this bizarre piece of your handbook means, it wasn't the case under the goalposts where Argentina received a yellow card for similar transgressions. And finally, on viewing the game again where Pocock kicked the ball out and Oz scored. It WAS a ruck and pocock entered from the SIDE. If you can't spot that them I'm afraid you're refereering or impartiality needs some serious work pal! Anyway, we have only ourselves to blame, we should have engineered more drop goals.