Radike Samo storms forward for the Wallabies (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
The name Bryce Lawrence will be firmly imprinted on the psyche of South African rugby fans long after the final whistle is blown at the 2011 Rugby World Cup in the Land of the Long White Cloud.
A sports team psychologist prompted for his views on primetime television news, following the Springboks’ heartbreaking 11-9 World Cup quarter-final loss to the Wallabies, summed up the collective feeling of its fans by saying: “I’m sure we don’t want to see Bryce Lawrence refereeing another match for us again.”
Judging by many a fan’s reaction to the defeat Lawrence is, in the eyes of the Springbok faithful, public enemy number one.
Choosing not to lambast the Boks for spurning many a golden opportunity to seal the match in such a crucial encounter, most fans instead took their frustrations out on referee.
Former Springbok wing, Ashwin Willemse, working as a studio analyst for
a popular sports television channel, was high in his praise for how the Wallabies had fronted up and eked out the victory. But he juxtaposed those statements by saying that Lawrence’s performance was nothing short of disappointing, adding that the referee’s interpretation of the breakdown had degenerated into “lawlessness”.
The Wallabies, he said, had benefitted from Lawrence’s policing of the law, while the Boks did not, with Dave Pocock in particular benefitting through transgressions at the breakdown.
The injured Bakkies Botha, who was among the panel of experts at the national broadcaster providing opinion and comments on the game, would obviously not be drawn into commenting on the performance of the referee.
All a disconsolate looking Botha could say on national television was: “I am totally gutted by the loss … especially now that players like Victor Matfield is ending his international career.”
Botha did however emphasise that in matches of this nature, it was crucial to take your chances when they presented themselves and admitted that the Boks had not done so.
An analyst on another television station believed Australia’s try had come as a result from a blatant infringement in a ruck about five metres from the tryline. A caller to the programme pointed out that Lawrence was a New Zealander, saying he had blown the South Africans out of the World Cup because he feared the All Blacks would come up against the Springboks in the semi-final and get beaten.
But assistant coach Gary Gold’s emotional response was as immature as you could get. Gold seemed to hold back in launching an attack on the referee but couldn’t resist saying, as reported by the SuperSport website: “The way the Rugby World Cup ended for several Springbok stalwarts was nothing short of the biggest injustice in sport.”
It went on to say: “Gold was visibly emotional, and equated the exit to the death of a loved one.” Not even an intense game of rugby could be compared to the death of a loved one, Mr Gold.
Well, after all the ranting by the SA public, I for one am actually going to stick my neck out and say, thank you Bryce Lawrence for having made up your mind to stick your whistle in your pocket.
Obviously, given what has gone before regarding Mr Lawrence’s approach to previous games, I believe the referees’ panel must have requested him to tone down the shrill of his whistle a bit. So possibly, Mr Lawrence went to the other extreme and allowed the game to flow freely – too much to the liking of the Springbok faithful.
Would South Africa be complaining if they had won the game, with opposition fans crying foul that Lawrence had been a factor?
Obviously what is more galling to the Springboks, other than the defeat, is the fact that they could not win the game, when the match statistics were overwhelmingly skewed in their favour. The Boks have been warned time and time again by the Joe Soap rugby public, about the White Line Fever that had crept into their psyche over a number of years, opting for a defensive strategy for a long period in their history.
The Boks have the backs to do the job; but that is not their style, only because their rugby is built around forwards of gargantuan proportions, who are used to bash up the centre of the park to outmuscle, overpower and overwhelm their opponents.
However, opposition teams, their rivals in the south and even up north, have become equally stronger, but also more mobile and streetsmart, like is evident in the Wallabies set-up and are now thrashing the Boks at their own game – upfront.
Peter De Villiers has failed by buying into Jake White’s strategy on developing the former coach’s game-plan and sticking with the same old suspects to defend the title; he should have focused on becoming his own man but with Jake White-backers in the form of seniors, Bakkies, Smit, Matfield, Fourie Du Preez and Morne Steyn among them, De Villiers was in no position to change tack. So fans got fed the same diet of Bok rugby believing that White’s foundation was the right way to go.
Dick Muir, who is mooted in the media as one of the candidates to step into the coaching breach when De Villiers exits soon, has done very little to isnpire South Africa’s backline play. The fast men like Habana and co were virtually left in no man’s land, while the forwards went bashing about the park, leaving backline players like him to forage for the scraps, of late.
In fact, the dour Muir can do little to take South Africa forward. SA Rugby would do well to put Allister Coetzee into the post, as he and Robbie Fleck have brought much-needed X-factor to the Stormers franchise.
South Africans sometimes have the habit of putting extra pressure on their players by “talking them up” in the papers and electronic media. Heinrich Brussow is almost heralded as a Bok messiah for his foraging skills – but has he got the staying power? Pockock showed how ordinary he in fact is.
De Villiers’ selections became highly questionable and was consistently under the kosh for choosing John Smit above Bismarck Du Plessis, for example. Smit towards the latter part of his career, as was the case in the quarter-final, looked like a modern-day Mr Plod on the field of play … he was going nowhere, but De Villiers thought differently.
Bismarck therefore could not be criticised for showing his disgust, when the pretender-to-the-throne was substituted for Smith in the Tri- Nations game against the ABs in Port Elizabeth. But when all is said and done, laying the blame at the foot of Lawrence’s door is a cheap shot indeed … it’s a slap in the Wallabies’ face really. They were simply brilliant on the day.
There is danger, too, in this approach by the SA fans – that the loss was the fault of the ref, and that the Boks were simply invincible on the day and not themselves to blame for the defeat. That’s not the way to inspire and teach the next generation about the realities of the game.
If everyone says the Boks have a good future despite the seasoned players moving on, then the Bok fraternity better dispense with the “sore losers” approach quickly.
To some people Australia may have lost the battle, but they definitely won the war. And that’s all that matters, isn’t it?
ruggerman
Guest
A lot of people have talked about this, but show me one ruck where a bok player "seals" the ball when he hasn't made contact with an opposing player??! if you make contact with an opposing player and subsequently lose your feet, which often happens as a result of you knocking the defending player at the ruck off his feet, then you haven't actually done anything illegal.
John
Guest
There is in thing we can all agree on... and that's that the Boks will be watching the semi on TV!
AC
Guest
"I don't think I'd survive in Aus -- that accent will make me slap people everyday" And that's coming from a South African! Go figure... Mate I don't know many Australians who reckon the Wallabies played well. They executed 50% of the skills of the game (defence) very well, but the rest was utter garbage.
PeterK
Guest
the boks cheat most breakdowns in attack by sealing off the ball when the arriving players leave their feet. If refereed properly they would never be able to retain so much ball. Teams in possession can get penalised as well.
steve
Guest
I do apologies for my misguided South African friend, I have for a long time had the idea that South Africans have a inferiority complex when it comes to Australia. On a completely different topic, my South Africa accent served me quite well with the ladies in Australia, as much as an Australian accent would serve you well here:)
ruggerman
Guest
cheers, mate, have a peek at my article, http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/10/12/inconsistent-refereeing-a-blight-on-modern-rugby/
Guzilam
Guest
Fully agree Ruggerman, this adapting to the ref is BS anyway. A team should play by the rule book, the ref is expected to apply the rules in said rule book, simple really.
Guzilam
Guest
...And that translates into NZ playing the second best in their semi final this weekend...as simple as that. By the way...we WILL get whippped this weekend.
Ivan Nel
Roar Rookie
i doubt it - We are just shocking when it comes to knockout cricket. We take Choke to the next level.
2many1ndians
Roar Rookie
Nah not even that, NZ needed a six just to draw. Shocking. It's pretty widely regarded that the 'underarm bowl' incident is possibly the biggest blight on trans-tasman sporting rivalry, but it is also widely regarded that next to no Australian on that day (and to this day) find that behaviour remotely acceptable. Just one of those things. It happens.
Australian Rules
Guest
Maybe a few underarms would have won u boys a cricket world cup by now.. haha
Australian Rules
Guest
"The boks shouldn't have been put in a position where their tactics needed to be changed"... Do you think the way the Wallabies played on Sunday was typical of their usual game? Highly defensive, kicking not running, focused on the breakdown..? Goes both ways rugs, Get over it mate.
bob
Guest
Only the aussies could think they had any right to win this game when everyone else in the world (even the english) have said otherwise, the fact that they did is a travesty of justice and on the whole bad for rugby. Sundays match was bordering on comical .Its a shame the aussies couldnt have said sorry chaps we didnt deserve to win and been on their way. I suppose they wouldn't be aussies if they did. SA would have won the game if a competent ref had been on the field. Aus are in the semi-finals because of Bryce (sic) and thats that, no other reason. The main issue now is what the IRB are going to do to stop this happening again. ruggerman you are spot on...John you are obviously an aussi retard Wouldnt it be great if the AB's beat the wallabies the same way they (and bryce) beat SA, jeez you would see some whinging then GO WALES
ruggerman
Roar Rookie
Really scraping the barrel for comebacks when you start giving me lessons in grammar and spelling, champ. How about referring to the many points made in response to the article that make up the comment? It should never be up to a team to adapt to a referee, particularly when they are the dominant team. AND John Smit has stated that the only conversations he and Matfield had with Lawrence throughout the game, of which there were many, were about the breakdown. If you knew much about what the penalties he was giving throughout the tournament were in relation to, you'd know he was in the bottom 3 referee's in the tournament for awarding pen's at the breakdown. All that needs to happen is a uniform approach from ALL referees to the officiating of the breakdown and more harsh punishment for killing the ball in the 22. A definitive approach that all referee's take into each and every game. None of this individual interpretation BS. The boks shouldn't have been put in a position where their tactics needed to be changed, because their tactics were working and smothering their opposition into submitting and resorting to illegal play. That is not the fault of the boks, it is the fault of the referee for not punishing the defensive team for resorting to negative play. You can say all you want that they should've done all manner of things to better their chances of winning and maybe they should have, but the point is, WHY? In the professional era, referee's should be professional, too and some kind of consistency between them has to be evident as well as a publicised process for punishing referee's who fail to officiate games accurately. Obviously it's impossible for referee's to not make mistakes, but for a referee to completely ignore and entire portion of the rules is farcical. Lawrence failed to control the breakdown, for both teams, it's just that it had a more profound impact on the Boks chances of winning, because they controlled 75% of the game. End of.
El Gamba
Roar Guru
The TMO ruling was different. Why? I don't know but let's move on.
El Gamba
Guest
Sorry Jeznez, good work. As mentioned, the other stat was the points scored against the opposition. 11-9. Did I mention semi-final :)
Ivan Nel
Roar Rookie
Tri-Nations – Champions – check! - empty victory when the other 2 teams play their B teams because they are focussed on the World Cup. unlike Aus, in SA and NZ the guys play provincial rugby too, which means less rest than the Aussies get. Player management is key in WC years. Super Rugby Title – check! - Well done to the Reds. Played well but were lucky to get a vital ref decision against Crusaders which gave them a home final. But will give them that one. well done. RWC Semi-finalist – check! - Totally undeserved- lost to Ireland in group, and had no right beating the Boks where they were creamed in every facet. Hardly a good checklist mate, you seem have left out losses to Ireland by 9, Samoa by 9, England twice by 17 and 1, Scotland by 1, and Wales by 3 since the last World Cup. You also neglect to mention that this was the first Super Rugby title since the Brumbies of 2004. Or that the only times an Australian team has even qualified for the Semis of Super Rugby (ie finish top4) between 04 and 2010 was the Waratahs on 4 occasions as compared to South Africa having been in semis 8 times, and won 3 titles. You also forgot that aside from the Reds winning in 11, that Australia had 3 teams in the bottom 4 of the same year. did you mention the first 3N title since 2001 ? I must have missed that line. no wonder so many Aussies are suddenly vocal - theyve had to shut up for so many years. You have had a good year Wallabies. Congratulations, however - my prediction - is that now that the boks can get a decent coach, the older legs are moving on, and the new talent is coming in - the Boks will get even better, and should beat Australia again soon. Since 07, the Boks didnt really improve - but they will now. So we give it to you, get it out - have your say. because after this weekend i think its back to silence for you wallas. .
jeznez
Guest
The guy is sensational - a real shame he has had the injuries he's had. His injury was the major turning point of the match for mine.
jeznez
Guest
I agree, think that dose applies both ways though. The number of people claiming theft is grating over here.
jeznez
Guest
I know the TMO ruled on a pass to assist SA in Port Elizabeth but you do know that legally he cannot actually assist there don't you?