Kiwi referee Bryce Lawrence caned the Queensland Reds with a 17-7 penalty count last night that allowed the Crusaders to win their crucial clash in Christchurch 15-11 by the boot.
Crusader sharp-shooter Tom Taylor landed five from six – the Reds Mike Harris two from four. The Reds led 11-9 with eight minutes left on the clock, only to be sunk by the last two penalties before the final hooter sounded.
The rugby wasn’t ugly, nor was it entertaining. Lawrence saw to that, it was his command performance.
On March 15, All Black legend and Roar expert Murray Mexted wrote:
“Often (referees) personality influences their actions.
“Bryce Lawrence is an example, Bryce doesn’t really care about rugby. Bryce cares for himself”.
In other words a show pony. Amen to that, right on the button.
Apart from the horrendous penalty count, Lawrence and his touchies Vinny Munro and Kane McBride missed so many forward passes and knock-ons it became a one-sided farce.
The Reds have every right to feel racked off. Just about every time the defending champions looked dangerous, Lawrence was centre stage, blowing the pea out of his whistle.
But not even Lawrence could dent the two standouts last night – Liam Gill, and Richie McCaw – both openside flankers. Tyro Gill, and the world’s best McCaw.
Gill has Wallaby written all over him, although he must switch to blindside to wear gold with incumbent David Pocock a future Wallaby skipper and barring injury will be around for a long time.
Gill is also a leader, having been appointed captain of the Australian under 20 side for the Junior World Cup in South Africa next month. Last night he was in everything – pilfering, fetching, tackling, and ever ready to attack. Non stop.
All Black World Cup winning skipper McCaw is a born leader. He came off the bench in the 44th minute for only the second time after foot surgery since the RWC final, and immediately set about reducing the Reds control of the breakdown.
It was the game’s highlight watching today’s best mixing it with a superstar of tomorrow.
And with Wallaby coach Robbie Deans watching from the stand in his home town, he will be relieved world-class half-back Will Genia, backrower Scott Higginbotham, and winger Digby Ioane are back to their best – locks James Horwill and Rob Simmons aren’t far behind –
Ben Lucas is a genuine 10 – with winger Dom Shipperley, utility back Mike Harris, and full-back Luke Morahan not out of place on the Wallaby bench.
Throw in Crusader backs Taylor, Dan Carter, Robert Fruean, Israel Dagg, and the flying Zac Guilford and if the man in the middle had let the game flow this could have been a cracker.
Worth repeating Murray Mexted’s comment – Bryce Lawrence doesn’t care about rugby, only himself.
Easily fixed. Just select referees who do care, and content to be the 31st man on the park. They are around.
Cattledog
Guest
Well done David. My 'tit for tat' above was really to get you to your double century so you can now walk off the pitch after a good innings :)
Cattledog
Guest
Thank you!
Jerry
Guest
Get over yourself - I was interested in discussing the merits of the decision itself, all you've done is indulge in 'witty' asides to show how clever you are. Well done yourself.
Cattledog
Guest
Whatever. It seems when you argue with a fool, they bring you down and beat you with experience. Well done!
Jerry
Guest
Except the point made in respect of this particular decision is largely based on ignorance in many cases - you included it seems.
Cattledog
Guest
The point was made, and agreed by most, including the author that Lawrence got it wrong. Crusaders supporters and Kiwis in general see it differently. That's acknowledged, but that was just one of many errors, including the farcical refereeing of the scrums. However, if the Reds were good enough, they should have won. They didn't, move on.
Jerry
Guest
Nothing to add on topic then? Point conceded, I take it?
Cattledog
Guest
'...after thinking about it'. Now there's an oxymoron! Some of you blokes thinking about anything on this site would be a pleasant change. Perhaps think first, write second may work better!
Jerry
Guest
Yeah, I admit that I said that - then a few posts later, after thinking about the call realised that in fact I didn't agree that it was wrong. If you wanna focus on point scoring 'he said she said', fair enough. I'd rather discuss the merits of the call. Something you seem to have stopped doing since I provided a fair bit of evidence supporting my arguments. So on that point, I'll take the fact that you've basically given up discussing it as evidence that you've realised you might be wrong.
Cattledog
Guest
Let's cut to chase Jerry. You stated 'You think I admit Lawrence got it wrong? Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit then – what on earth gives you that impression?' I then showed you where I got that impression with '‘While I agree that the call was wrong in this instance, I really really hate that law.’ All that was necessary at that point was, 'yeah, fair enough, I did say that'. But no, you continue in your deluded denial then claim victory in the end. And you blokes think referees are jokes...
Jerry
Guest
I'll take that as an admission of defeat.
Cattledog
Guest
I'll turn up the music. Just love it when you blokes start tap dancing...;)
Jerry
Guest
And a bit more overkill - just to confirm that at least Lawrence was correct in law (you can judge for yourself whether he was correct in fact, ie if the Reds were unlikely to be able to take advantage). http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2829656/
Jerry
Guest
Looks like someone has posted it on youtube - now tell me, who is more likely to get to that ball if Taylor's not there - Dagg or one of the Reds? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCCcgLrDu-M&feature=relmfu
Jerry
Guest
And then a few posts later "Actually having thought on this a bit further, I don’t even think this was a penalty situation". So, no - not really that strong after all. I understand the law perfectly - unlike you, who seem to not understand what 'prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage' means - I just disagree with it. I don't think the offence warrants the sanction.
Cattledog
Guest
@Jerry 'While I agree that the call was wrong in this instance, I really really hate that law.' Really really! My reading comprehension IS actually quite strong. The fact that you continue to argue about the use of this law shows your total lack of understanding the subtleties of the game.
Jerry
Guest
You think I admit Lawrence got it wrong? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit then - what on earth gives you that impression? I don't think you really understand the law either - cause this bit "The fact that another onside player may get there first is irrelevant as there still may have been advantage, in this case, to the Reds" is simply wrong. If an onside player would likely have gotten there before any Red, they are in fact most likely not disadvantaged. Now, in such a case it's obviously the ref's responsibility to judge what would most likely have happened and in this case I think Lawrence's decision was perfectly acceptable. And I stand by my earlier statement - I hate this particular law. If a loose ball rolls or bounces towards a player, their first instinct is to pick it up. I don't think it's deserving of a penalty to the other side. It's just lame.
Cattledog
Guest
Yes, you were quoted by Peter having quoted someone else. Point is it's an important law (not a stupid one). The player could have attempted to regather but obviously can't when another player (in this instance a player in front) intentionally plays the ball. Penalty. The fact that another onside player may get there first is irrelevant as there still may have been advantage, in this case, to the Reds. I think you admit Lawrence got it wrong. More to the point, though, is Peter in the USA is coaching players by the sound of his post and he doesn't appear to understand the basis of intent when assessing such circumstances. Scary.
Jerry
Guest
I never said a thing about Accidental Offside, I cited the law relating to offside after a knock on. Do YOU see the difference, Cattledog? 11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage. The first part is clearly satisfied: Dagg knocks on, Taylor plays the ball. The only question then is "Were the Reds disadvantaged" In my opinion, seeing as there weren't any Reds within coo-ee (there were two Reds within 10m of the ball and neither were making any real attempt to regather) I really don't see how they were. You could argue the ball may have taken a wicked bounce and rolled towards them, I guess, but the most likely outcome (if you remove Taylor from the equation) was that Dagg would have regathered before anyone else.
Xiedazhou
Guest
Exactly, and I note that Lawrence penalised the Reds for accidental offside when they were on attack, even though the Crusaders were not disadvantaged at all by the Reds player bumping into the back of a team player. Inconsistency in his interpretaion of the rules at best, but it sure looked like bias.