how is it ridiculous?!?!?! you say it and then you don’t have an arguement mate…give me a better alternative to create a consistent, streamlined mode of development? If the concept has the backing of the aru, obviously they would be contributing to the scholarships of players earmarked by the ARU through the schools development ranks. And noone said anything about non-rugby playing states being part of it., that would be stupid. if it were based through universities located near super rugby teams, i don;t see how it would ‘make no sense’. You make no sense mate. Instead of coming out of the blue and fobbing off the article and the idea as if there is no solution to a problem that has been highlighted by both your national coach and a world cup winning coach who now operates in the australian system, how about you either write your own piece on whatever phenomenal idea you have up your sleeve, say something constructive or go have another pie and F*&^ off

again, it’s called a scholarship, guys. If the university structure came to the fore, scouts would obviously not only be looking at private school players. The school representative system takes players from all sorts of schools and then comes up with state and then national teams. why would it not be a feasible concept to have university clubs selecting out of those talent pools, offering scholarships to their universities and playing contracts?! that’s hardly what you could call shortsighted

sharminator, it’s called a scholarship mate.

The South African Varsity cup only allows player with 3 or fewer super rugby caps to be eligible to play for their uni….players with more caps play in the vodacom or currie cups……As Australia does not have the same provincial set up, alternative eligibility rules would need to be established, but seeing as you’d want the comp to be running in behind the super rugby comp, it wouldn;t be a major issue, but a great way to identify young guys playing at a near professional level in the instance of an injury crisis or a period of rebuilding for a super rugby franchise.

it works does it? Just enlighten me on how the australian u20’s team have done at the u20’s world cup in the last 5 yrs…

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.

“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.

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.

wow…there is an unbelievable amount of BS littered through this article, none more than the comment suggesting that the stormers had X-factor in 2011….didn’t they have one of the lowest try scoring records in the whole S15 comp, let alone the top 6?

Next, the boks weren’t able to breach the defense because bryce lawrence allowed David pocock to kill the ball every time it entered the 22 and managed to call 2 forward passes, which clearly weren’t. The only way to overcome this would have been to take dropgoals every time they visited the wallabies 4th quarter, which perhaps they should’ve done. But saying they are incapable of scoring tries from quality ball based on Sunday, is nothing short of audacious, pal.

You cannot ignore that the Boks opportunities were stifled by poor refereeing and pocock’s ability to exploit that. Those two factors, it would be hard to argue, played a significant role in the boks losing, you cannot place full blame or reason on those two factors but they played a major role. The boks weren’t the only ones on the end of dubious decisions in those 80 minutes, but the wallabies only had the ball 25% of the time, so it affected them significantly less. This article is ridiculous.

Also, Brussouw was on for 20 mins, clearly nursing an injury and don’t forget 2009 when Brussouw schooled Pocock and McCaw. They are ALL class players.

Lastly, the only aspect in which the wallabies were “brilliant” is their defense and adaptability to the referee. And had the referee policed the breakdown and the boks given the opportunity to continue advancing with the ball without illegal infringement, i suspect there would have been reason to question the defense, rather than laud it.

You sir, need to go to rugby school. What a load of outrageous drivel you have bothered to waste time writing.

The issue is that the way Lawrence refereed the game, made it just like ’07, where everyone slowed the ball down in the 22, but without any punishment, making it all the more audacious of a performance. No one said the Boks didn’t get away with their fair share, in fact, it’s mentioned in the article.

The issue is that for both sides, the breakdown was a farce, but the wallabies played much more negatively in this area in key areas of the field for the attacking side, which for 75% of the game was the Springboks and they were never rewarded for their persistance and pressure, which forced the wallabies to resort to negative play. It was much more prevalent in the 2nd half, as in the first half the wallabies competed half as much.

The laws are supposed to have evolved from ’07 to give an advantage to the team that controls the ball and aptly punish teams who try to slow it down and the 22 (often coined ‘the red zone’) is supposed to be where the laws are applied even more sternly, yet it appeared to be the opposite with Lawrence on Sunday.

No one can say the wallabies didn’t deserve to win nor that, had the penalties that were there been awarded, the
Boks would’ve won, because you don’t know what would’ve happened or how they would’ve responded. All anyone wants is clarity and consistency. And maybe a northern hemisphere ref for southern hemisphere games at the world cup.

p.s. I agree about McCaw….they only made him captain in the first place so that referees would be scared to penalise him, just turns out that he’s a pretty good leader, too!

cheers, Cam, not sure if you’re referring to my article on the ‘bias’ accusation, but if so, re-read and please note that i make no mention of bias being at all to do with it. Lawrence was awful overall, at the breakdown as well as in a few other respects (I didn’t even mention the forward passes or the charge on O’Connor’s Kick) But I felt the breakdown was where the game was won and lost and the wallabies exploited this area mostly in their own 22, which largely came as a result of illegal contesting for the ball, be it entry or hands, thus why i chose to focus on those examples. What needs to be considered is the amount of penalties in kickable positions that could have gone to each team. If you go back over the game and have i look, i think you’ll find the boks were robbed of many, many more opportunitiues. 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.

Cheers, Dan, good to see A FEW people managed to get the crucial message inside the article. Your point of it being unique to rugby is an interesting one and makes me think of the (IMO) blights of cricket, in which the result is so often stifled by umpiring decisions which could be overturned with available technology. My issue is not that there is some leeway and the occasional mistake by referee’s in rugby, but that there is such a huge portion of referee’s floating around who just don’t police the laws, particularly at the breakdown. There will always be an element of human error, but Lawrence’s performance could have some thinking he might be in a late stage of dementia. As i said in the article, the Boks were stripped of the ball at the breakdown illegally several times inside the wallabies 22, where I believe the breakdown laws should be implemented at their most stern. The current interpretations are there to punish teams for slowing down attacking ball and the majority of this world cup has seen teams constantly entering the 22, having their ball slowed down more than it has been anywhere on the field and then no punishment. 2007, anyone? The only difference is that the penalties aren’t being given, instead the entire area is just being ignored, maybe because it’s easier? who knows.

The issue is that Lawrence failed to police an ENTIRE area of the game. The ELV’s were a disaster and allowed teams to get away with way too much, the current structure aims to give the attacking team, who holds onto the ball, the upper hand. The arguement is more to do with Lawrence and other referees, who fail to police such a large chunk of the rules, being properly reviewed and punished as a player would be for a poor performance. No one cares about rugby league here, so your reference is outrageously invalid, simple rules for a simple game.

If referees in rugby are fit enough (another area which Lawrence appears to fall short in) and they actually know the rules, the current rules aren’t that diffucult to enforce, at least to a reasonably high accuracy rate.

Lawrences performance was reflective of someone from Sweden, who’d seen maybe 2 or 3 games of tests rugby and just managed to gain an understanding of what goes on, being handed the whistle. But the game could also benefit from further clarification at the breakdown for referees, rather than a number of catch phrases to describe what they’re supposed to see to define an offence.

I also think it of vast importance that penalties for killing the ball inside the 22 render a more serious punishment, to enhance the risk and reward of slowing and controlling the ball in that area. The article doesn’t aim to provide a solution, but to highlight a problem, so your ridiculous accusations of me not having any idea what I’m talking about despite the rounded and knowledgeable nature of the article, suggest that only you, have little idea what you’re on about.

Try adding something constructive to the comments section next time, champ, as opposed to irrelevant, unwarranted abuse.douche.