Watching Sunday’s gripping Rugby World Cup quarter final between Australia and South Africa was a tense, exciting, but frustrating experience.
The Australian media post match has lauded the Wallabies with praise for their courageous defense and attitude, and touted that the Springboks will lament their inability to take their opportunities.
What strikes me about this is the apparent inability for anyone to acknowledge how completely inadequate Bryce Lawrence’s refereeing performance was and how it shaped the result of the game, much more than the performance of the lackluster Wallabies.
How can a team take their opportunities when so few are handed to them by the referee, despite glaring instances of illegal play in key areas of the field after long multi-phase passages.
The Wallabies only remained in this game as a result of Lawrence’s seeming ignorance of the rules at the breakdown. David Pocock might have had a fantastic game, but only because he was allowed to exploit the breakdown in a way that was supposed to be outlawed three years ago.
Never in my life have I watched a test match where a team so deserving of a win managed to lose as a result of their attacking advances being stifled by a referee so allowing of an openside flanker to so blatantly dominate the ruck through what was, by the most part, completely illegal play according to the laws of the game.
I have to feel for the Boks. They will be going home knowing that they did everything they could, destroyed their opposition in almost every facet of the game and yet, due to the Wallabies adapting to the referee and successfully executing multiple examples of negative play, they came up short.
Don’t get me wrong, the Wallabies deserve credit for their exceptional defense and their ability to adapt to the referee, and as a result of that Pocock deserved the MOM, but my argument here is that there is a fundamental flaw in the fact that a game of rugby can hinge so heavily on the way it is refereed and how a team adapts to that, instead of the way they deal with their opposition.
When test rugby stops being about the 15 warriors from one nation going out there to outwit, out-muscle and dominate the 15 warriors of an opposing nation, we are facing a serious problem.
You could not possibly convince me that the Wallabies didn’t get away with murder at the breakdown inside their own 22, nor that they outplayed the Boks in any way outside of their manipulation at the breakdown, which only came as a result of that area of the game not being policed accurately.
The statistics speak volumes about how this game played out, which is not often the case, and even the breakdown steals stats show how much the Wallabies got away with.
The current interpretation of the laws of the breakdown were implemented post-2007 Rugby World Cup and shortly after the ELV disaster, in order to restore more traditional tactics, punishment for negative play and laws which encouraged expansive, running rugby which would hopefully, in turn, produce more tries.
This was in the wake of a World Cup and a period in time where test rugby was often stifled by players killing the ball inside the 22, happy to give away three points because it was better than seven, resulting in kicking battles as opposed to exhibitions of running rugby that the public so desperately desired.
So the IRB decided to try and de-power the role of the openside flank and the tackler by saying that once the tackle had been made, there must be daylight between tackled player, the ball and the tackler/tackle assist, allowing the tackled player to play the ball before they may attempt to contest for it on the ground.
This rule, or ‘interpretation’ as the IRB have coined it, was not implemented on Sunday evening. There were many examples of the Wallabies killing the ball in the 22 as well as many other areas of the field from offside positions, or when they weren’t entitled to play the ball where a ruck had been formed.
Even the Wallabies’ try came from a ridiculously obvious piece of illegal entry as well as handling of the ball on the deck and it all happened right in front of Bryce Lawrence’s nose.
It goes without saying that the Boks got away with a bit here and there as well, but they didn’t need to get away with much, because they had the ball for the best part of three quarters of the match. It would be very hard to argue that Lawrence’s lack of conviction in officiating the breakdown affected the Wallabies equally, let alone more than it did the Boks.
It is a mystery how Lawrence was even handed the QF, seeing as he openly apologised for a myriad of bad calls he made against the Wallabies when they played Ireland. But at least in that game, the Wallabies were outplayed in most areas and lost. Here, they were outplayed, out muscled, tactically dominated and yet, they won.
If rugby is to become a game where the dominant team is not given the tools to construct a victory, despite falling victim to blatant negative tactics by their opposition, because each different referee polices the breakdown (or any key area of the game for that matter) in a different manner, then I shall lose my eternal passion for the game and cease watching a once great sport.
Lawrence and future referees who deliver equally inadequate performances should be reviewed and punished by being forced to referee at a lower level until they can prove they actually know the laws at the breakdown.
The IRB must review the structure of the laws of the game, in order to ensure at least to some degree, that every game has a consistency about the way it is officiated, refereeing should have little to do with ‘interpretation’ of a written law.
Let’s hope the semis aren’t hindered by further examples of this and may the best team lift the Webb Ellis Cup as a result of playing better rugby, not their ability to exploit a referee’s inadequacies.
Huge respect must be paid to all of those Springbok players who competed in their last test match on Sunday. They were part of one of the most successful eras of South African rugby history, and despite being bundled out in 2011, did themselves proud in that quarter final, which will unfortunately, to my mind, be one of the best test matches that was never allowed to be properly contested.
To say the Boks deserved to win would be wrong, considering that this is how it is, but to say they deserved to lose would be equally unjust.
Here’s to the (hopefully more consistent and accurate) future of test rugby.
Matthew Skellett
Guest
I'm wondering WHY in all the South African Ref Assc./Public 'free-for -all-ruck' that is intent on stamping on the proverbial head of Mr Lawrence-WHY hasn't the NZRU OR THE IRB stuck up for him and come to his defence ??-it's ALL because the BOKS DIDN'T WIN . If they had won we wouldn't hear anything about him really -so really the South African public and the South African Refs ARE A DISGRACE TO THE GAME and the NZRU AND THE IRB ARE A DISGRACE for leaving Bryce lawrence 'out to dry' to be crucified by this outrageous display of deeply flawed and biased criticism -and be blessed :-)
Who?
Guest
Bryce Lawrence is a blight on the game. He's been a blight on the game all year. But the Boks had more than enough territory to win the match. Slow ball or not. There's no good reason why the Boks didn't pot another drop goal. Or five. Lambie's late miss reminded me very much of Latham's near miss in the QF on 07. Further, as others have said, Lawrence's officiating went both ways. The Boks were guilty of as many infringements as the Wallabies. I know that it's not popular to penalize the attacking team, but they entered the ruck - attacking and defending - from wherever they liked, however they liked. Watch Russouw here - no, the penalty's not for his entry, from the side and off his feet, it's for the tackled player not releasing. http://oi55.tinypic.com/21jssoh.jpg Then consider how Horwill was wrongly penalized at 37 minutes for hands in the ruck. He was the tackler, he got to his feet, he played the ball, THEN the Boks arrived. He had all the rights. That gave the Boks 3 points, it was wrong under the standard laws, and it was even more wrong when you consider how Bryce reffed the rest of the game. Finally, think about foul play. You can say that Pocock stole the WC, but at least he didn't try to steal the gift of sight from players. And he didn't tip anyone on their head. Russouw and Burger should've been cited - Russouw for his tip on Samo, Burger for raking Pocock's face (as he does in every game they play) and attempting to eye gouge. Look here -http://images4.hiboox.com/images/4111/diapoe8f8259bd3e71b0961f8be9d89034ade.gif And even on the one time the Boks got across our line (the famous forward pass), the Boks had infringed. Habana didn't let Beale land before tackling him and turning him over. Then add both Diggers and Kurtley being taken out on kick chases... Bryce didn't kill the Boks. The Boks just didn't know how to win the game. And the Wallabies put in a monstrous effort. Does that mean Bryce is a good ref? No. I've never thought he's a good ref, and I didn't want him at the RWC. But the Boks have no capacity to blame him. They have even less reason than the ABs had in 07 to blame Barnes. Both teams had enough possession and territory to steal the win. All they needed - both teams - was one (more) drop goal...
Pete
Guest
I've never been to this website before, but this article encapsulates everything I assumed and ensures I won't be hurrying back!!! You've written a 1,149 word article without once precisely describing why you think Pocock was "illegally" dominating the breakdown but the Irish were "legal" in dominating us in the pool stage. OK PEANUT HERE IT IS: - Ireland > Australia: Ireland had a world-class open-side, Australia didn't (Pocock injured, no back up open-side on tour). Ireland dominated the breakdown. - Australia > South Africa: Australia had a world-class open-side, South Africa didn't (Brüssow injured by a legal game-changing rib-shot by Vickerman early, no back up open-side on the bench). Australia dominated the breakdown. Nothing p--ses me off more than a team that can't win their own ball, and asks the ref to clean out for them. Watch the game again, I guarantee Pocock was on his feet more than any other forward. That's why he is world-class. And here IS an example: you'll find a play in the second half where there is a ruck where Pocock is first to the break down, then 3 x South Africans unsuccessfully try to clear him out and ALL end up off their feet, while Pocock remains on his feet playing the ball. Note: the ref penalised POCOCK for this. If you're sick of seeing contests at the scrums and the rucks go watch league; they have uncontested scrums and uncontested rucks. Stop whinging, get to the ruck quicker, and clear out. That's what rugby union is about.
Eric
Guest
The uniformly lax refereeing helped the Wallabies more, but that's only because the Boks have literally no plan in place to score without a whistle being blown. Yes the IRB needs to be more uniform in its battle against negative rugby, but playing with the intention of getting to the 50m line and waiting for a whistle is NOT positive rugby. SA has a boring style of play that is not spectator-friendly and ultimately paid the price for it. Fine with me.
From Over the Ditch
Guest
When are one eyed blinkered Australians going to wake up to two facts! One. The rules are broken by the players who do their best to cheat under the guidance that they are playing rules to the limit! Two, that the rules are idiotic and some poor bugger has to interpretate the flawed rules given. Get over Lawerence, the howls would have been much more if the SAFFA's had won!
Brian
Guest
Hey Red - how on earth can you say he was uniformly atrocious? If you're saying he wasn't partial in his failings, I could agree ... but I would not agree that both sides were equally impacted. When you look at all the stats you can see immediately that the Boks were controlling most aspects of play and the Wallabies were predominantly on defense. The Boks were going to ground with ball in hand far more frequently than the Wallabies and the Wallabies were far more frequently fighting to pilfer possession in the rucks - which Pocock did so well. Net is Bok dominance created far more opportunity for the ref's deficiencies, creating advantage for the Wallabies. ... and of course the Wallabies defended superbly!
Ivan Nel
Roar Rookie
Just thought of something funny. Aus were beaten by Ireland, should never have won against SA, and will lose to NZ this weekend. Wales look really good, and using the Boks as a benchmark for having played both, are faaaar stronger than Aus. Samoa beat Aus not long before the WC and the French showed that they were just holding back for the knockout stages. They sure looked stronger than Aus to me. Argentina held the Kiwis at bay for a large part of their game, and also looked quite good, id say a little better than Aus. So if we take this data - hand it to a kid for an honest answer, the calculation would be something like Ranking at this WC 1. NZ 2. SA 3. Wales 4. Ireland 5. Samoa 6. France 7. Argentina 8. Australia I understand that this logic is flawed and even dreamy so take it for what it is. But its funny nonetheless since thats how i see the IRB rankings going by the next world cup.
Falk
Guest
Rubbish!
PeterK
Guest
I do think the players and coaches are more at fault than referees at the professional level. The referees COULD catch most infringements at the breakdown, and blow them. The trouble is there will be a penalty at every breakdown due to the willful cheating by coahces / players. They will be the first to complain re the whistle happy ref spoiling the game, the fans , sponsors , media (who pay the bills) will also be up in arms. So you get the sad situation we are in now that each ref is left to subjectively decide which infringements he decides to enforce this game / breakdown. No wonder there is inconsistency. This level of cheating does not happen at amateur level, and the refs are far more strict at enforcing the laws, and guess what there are in general less penalties and it is more free flowing. The real answer is not greater education of refs but zero tolerance of laws, also 3rd team penalty on the saem offence mandatory yellow card, 3rd offence by any player on any offences mandatory yellow card, ALL cynical infringements automatic yellow card each and every time. Sure the first few games will be lots of penalties, and lots of yellow cards. They will whinge, you dont listen, and once they realise this is the way it will be the cheating will decrease dramatically and the game will played to the laws and laws enforced and a lot better game will result. There wont be all on focus on refs and bitterness on close games anymore either.
PeterK
Guest
I am not justifying poor reffing. If failure to ref a game correctly is failure then every single ref is a failure in every single game. As a player (maybe you never played) did you prefer a ref that was consistent in their ruling even if disagreed with a particular interpretation or did you prefer a ref who got it right on the same aspect only some of the time ie same situation soemtimes a penalty other times not? I know from both as a player and a ref the majority prefer you to be consistent.
ruggerman
Guest
THANKYOU CREEK!!! You are one of the few who has managed to get the point here!!!
ruggerman
Guest
SA went into the game with a flawed and outdated game plan and was found wanting. Bad luck. That flawed and outdated gameplan dominated every statistical element of the game. The point made is that they were unable to convert pressure into points because every time they were in a position to do so, the ref allowed the wallabies to kill the ball. It's difficult to complete attacking phases when every ruck is being infringed illegally. No one has said the ref didn't miss things south africa did wrong, only that he was uniformly awful and it cost the boks more than the wallabies due to the amount of ball and favourable territory they acquired and controlled for the majority of the game. You've missed the key points completely.
ruggerman
Guest
sorry, i don't know why it's coming up with a different name, but i am the writer of the article! Cheers for the comment. And I would also like to clarify that I'm not trying to say the boks did nothing wrong! I'm really only trying to point out that Lawrences example of refereeing the game was a shocking advertisement for professional rugby.
bemused
Guest
Ah, now, a few people have said something about that one. But you've pointed out the flaw in your own explanation of what happened. Regardless of whether a RUCK had formed, pocock is required to come through the 'gate' because there was a TACKLE and he wasn't the tackler. It is however debatable whether there were definitely hands from someone on the ground, i may have my foot in my mouth on that one, but pocock's initial entry was definitely from an offside position, there doesn't have to be a ruck formed any more for you to have to come from an onside position, unless you made the initial tackle, release the tackled player and then compete for the ball. In terms of the Boks' entry points, the initial decision is supposed to be given against the defensive team for illegal entry if both parties are in the wrong, as it is assumed that in order to remove an offside player, it would be quite difficult to get him out of the way from an onside position, otherwise everyone would do it.
bemused
Guest
who have i abused mate? I have also refereed my fair share of games and saying you've refereed both codes is completely irrelevant, again, League has nothing to do with anything that anyone is talking about here. I can confide in the fact that the rules aren't EASY to enforce, i said it wasn't THAT difficult. The statement was made in particular reference to the highest level of the game and considering the fact that top referee's are paid to be fit enough to keep up with the play and are constantly trained and re-trained. It is, after all, their job. To back up what I'm saying in terms of the difficulty of enforcing the rules, one also has to consider that there are 2 assistant referee's in professional rugby, as well. They are allowed to advise the #1 in the middle at any time in relation to any rule. Then, one must consider that, despite it all happening very quickly, the ruck is something of a reasonably ordered process and the way the rules are constructed reflect this. I noticed an earlier poster, citing around 16 things a ref has to look at and yes, that is a lot and every referee can't spot everything, but for each stage of a ruck, for both the attacking and defensive teams, there are infringements that a referee can pick up. From the tackler, to the tackle assist, to the tackled player, to the contest for the ball, to the physical contest (when the ruck is formed). Lawrence failed, on numerous occasions to pick anything at all out of countless rucks where there were blatantly evident examples of both teams illegally competing. Perhaps i should have clarified that i was specifically referring to the professional side of things, but nonetheless, it really isn't hard to pick out SOMETHING every now and then. And Sunday's match presented a myriad of opportunities for Lawrence to use his whistle, he just chose not to and it ruined the spectacle in terms of allowing for running rugby and opportunities to be created.
The expert
Guest
Sakiwi your a turncoat have respect for yourself you will allways be sth african
ruggerman
Roar Rookie
Absolutely agree with you, Cam and i did mention it would be hard to assume a change in that area would have definitely benefited the Boks. My key point is that both teams, the spectators and the occasion deserved better. I'm not here to whinge and whine, nor to necessarily single out Lawrence as the only ref at fault. It's an issue for the IRB refereeing panel to clarify the jobs of these guys so it's less of a toss up. It seems like test rugby is become a lottery, not a contest based on which team can get the better of their opponents.
The expert
Guest
Lawrence is responsible for wallabies been in semi final and will be responsible for the miss match that the rugby world now have to see ,lone of these teams dosent go with the other ,you have three teams in semis on merit one by default ,people pay alot of money to go these games they should see best teams mr lawrence please explain
ruggerman
Roar Rookie
"That’s not to say it would’ve won them the game, especially considering that restarts can be such a momentum shifting weapon. All I’m wanting to point out is how different the shape of the game could’ve been had it been refereed correctly and that the world cup, let alone test matches, is the last place we should see examples of such inaccurate, inadequate refereeing" umm...i think i said something about that.
2many1ndians
Roar Rookie
"It is better to ref wrong if you do it consistently than to be inconsistent." No it's not. Failure to ref a game correctly is failure. There is no good failure and bad failure when the end product is failure. That's like saying cat crap tastes better than dog crap. No, they would both taste like crap. Stop trying to justify incompetence. It's unacceptable.