• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

RWC Quarter Final: Springboks - Wallabies (09-10-2011, 18:00)

Check out facebook, you guys doing the same thing hating on Byce Lawence as we did before with Nigel Owens. Haar!. With the threatning and calling him names. Now you feel the pain what Samoans went though. Although most of the SA fans were on the ref side ?. Saying samoans should calm down and handle the fact that we lost to a world class team .. Now you guys are doing it :) SA are too much lol

There's a little difference though... In the case of Nigel Owens and Samoa = It was only Samoans and a few other people complaining about the ref...

In South Africa and Bryce Lawrence's case = Everyone, but the Aussies and a few others are NOT complaining.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/RugbyWorldCup2011/Ref-robbed-Boks-UK-scribes-20111010 - UK Newspaper, just as an example of the outcry... if you type Bryce Lawrence in google there are pages and pages of reference of where people in the past are wondering how is he still a referee...

But yeah, we lost, we're out, just like Samoa, England, Ireland, Argentina and all the others... time to move on
 
Also:

Saying you want the IRB to have stricter rules of disciplining referess =/= homophobic abuse and death threats
 
Anyone know what that awesome jersey John Smit was wearing during the coin toss was (from memory many of the South African players were wearing them during their warm up)?

It was mostly white with almost lime green stars all over it. It looked kinda of different and unique. Can't find them anywhere on the net. Anyone know anything about them?
 
Nope. You, and every other neutral or Springbok fan saw this. Only the Australians didn't, and because we were attacking for 90% of the match, we were affected a hundred times more than the Wallacheats. When Robbie Deans praised his team for 'character and coming of age', I wanted to throw up.

Come on now I was one of the first people on here to admit that the reffereeing was very poor and were very lucky to have the benefit of some poor decisions or lack of by lawrence. Sort of felt sorry for you guys as this is what we have endured for so long with Richie McCaw and his apparant invisible super powers to never get pinged but now i find it quite hilarious reading all your Butt hurt ranting. Its going to be even more hilarious reading the butthurt from the new zealanders if they lose next weekend hahaha! At this stage im comfortable with not winning next weekend. Odds are apparantly all against the wallabies and are the underdogs just like last weekend. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. BRING ORRRRN THE NEW ZEALANDERS!! Hopefully it will be another 4 more years for them.........
 
http://www.irb.com/rankings/full.html

Latest rankings in. We were 2 points ahead of Aus now we're 3 points behind. Jeesh, that hurts LOL. Also, congrats to Wales; 4rth place and can still go even higher with the double points available at the RWC.

And we won;t get a chance at revenge for almost a whole year! Argh!
 
Come on now I was one of the first people on here to admit that the reffereeing was very poor and were very lucky to have the benefit of some poor decisions or lack of by lawrence. Sort of felt sorry for you guys as this is what we have endured for so long with Richie McCaw and his apparant invisible super powers to never get pinged but now i find it quite hilarious reading all your Butt hurt ranting. Its going to be even more hilarious reading the butthurt from the new zealanders if they lose next weekend hahaha! At this stage im comfortable with not winning next weekend. Odds are apparantly all against the wallabies and are the underdogs just like last weekend. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. BRING ORRRRN THE NEW ZEALANDERS!! Hopefully it will be another 4 more years for them.........

The 'Butthurt' is nothing but the truth. We were cheated out of this tournament, and our poor veterans deserved better. The whole rugby world knows it too...

The defending champions bowed out 11-9 despite dominating vast portions of the nail-biting Wellington encounter on Sunday, and Lawrence found himself in the firing line from both Mark Reason and Brendan Gallagher of the Daily Telegraphnewspaper.It tends to be a fairly measured organ, but Reason in particular pulled no punches over New Zealander Lawrence's hotly-debated officiating of the key breakdown area.


"Lawrence made a complete hash of the game ... and the Springboks will be furious," he wrote."They identified the breakdowns as a crucial area of the match beforehand, but they did expect there to be some sort of reffing."The South Africans thought that the tackler would have to release the ball-carrier. They thought that the off-side line would be respected. They thought that men would have to stay on their feet. Instead it was a shambles.


"Yes, the Springboks are nothing like as efficient at the contact area without the great Juan Smith to clean out. But unless the IRB's refs get a grip we are going to have some really dull semi-finals."Hopefully the guys who can really get a grip at the breakdown – the South African and Northern Hemisphere refs – will be put in charge of the final four matches.


"South Africa will feel cheated and they have every right to complain."
Gallagher, meanwhile, lent his weight to the argument, saying that Lawrence had "horribly laissez faire control of the breakdown which saw (Wallaby open-sider) David Pocock seemingly offend at will".
 
The 'Butthurt' is nothing but the truth. We were cheated out of this tournament, and our poor veterans deserved better. The whole rugby world knows it too...

You dont have to convince me with those quotes. Youre preaching to the converted hahaha!
One of my first posts clearly stated Lawrence lost complete control of the game. And to be fair the Bokke were infringing in the second half just as much as aus. I think you guys should maybe take them blinkers off yourselves?
 
You were not cheated and your poor vets did not deserve better. Prehaps if they had been better, got to the breakdown quicker Pocock and co, would not have had time to get there hands on the ball. It would have been on it's way out wide.

The amount of territory you had, the amount of possession, the failure of the Boks to score given all this is the reason you lost. The Aus team put in three times as many tackles, if you had the backs and the ability to break the gain line you would have won. On the day you did not and you paid the price.

I hate to say it but if you can't win with all the ball you had, well you deserve to be going home.
 
You were not cheated and your poor vets did not deserve better. Prehaps if they had been better, got to the breakdown quicker Pocock and co, would not have had time to get there hands on the ball. It would have been on it's way out wide.

The amount of territory you had, the amount of possession, the failure of the Boks to score given all this is the reason you lost. The Aus team put in three times as many tackles, if you had the backs and the ability to break the gain line you would have won. On the day you did not and you paid the price.

I hate to say it but if you can't win with all the ball you had, well you deserve to be going home.

Ok then, please explain how you are supposed to use your opportunities when you make 60m into the opposition's goal area, only to keep having the ball turned over illegally? It's a mute point saying 'you should have used the opportunities' when half the time you can't even get to that point thanks to illegal play either slowing down your ball, or stealing it.

So please, do explain.

What South Africa do, and do well, is force teams into making mistakes, so that we can capitalise on infringements with our accurate goal kickers. We did just that, only the infringements were never blown. Pocock was allowed to do whatever he wanted. He came in from the side a couple of times (The first which resulted in Australia's try), and nothing happened. On two occasions, hands were used in a ruck, but nothing happened. He goes off his feet, and then gets back up and still contests, but nothing happens.

Tell me, please, how is it any team is supposed to capitalise on that?



An Article in The Australian, a daily newspaper in Sydney...





LIMITING THE POWER OF THE WHISTLE



There are no doubt a lot of Australian rugby supporters celebrating
our victory over the Springboks yesterday. There are also a number of
us that are wondering how on earth we managed to pull it off against a
side that dominated possession and territory and lineouts. Now, I
don't want to take anything away from the Australian victory – our
boys did perform superbly but on the day the Springboks were, we have
to admit, the better side. The boks, as always were magnanimous in
defeat with a somewhat pragmatic approach to the result. I wonder what
our boys would have said faced with the same situation of blatant
incompetence by Mr Bryce Lawrence.



I support Australia and always will but for those of us that believe
in fair play this was a hollow victory. This was very much like
fighting a worthy opponent with one arm strapped behind his back – it
leaves a bad taste. There were rumours about Mr Lawrence's
impartiality before kick-off from a lot of ex pat South Africans now
living in Australia but we tend to dismiss these conspiracy theories
with a grin. Certainly, Mr Lawrence's performance on the field did
nothing to dispel those theories. His performance was nothing short of
abysmal. He did not award the bok try because of a dubious forward
pass. I have looked and looked and to me, anyway, it did not look
forward. Minutes later when the boks once again breached our defences
and were well on the way to scoring another try, he called them back
for a forward pass. If the first call was contentious, there certainly
was nothing wrong with the second one. Here, I must ask – why not use
the "eye in the sky"? An impressive expensive piece of equipment that
should be used for such decisions.



He failed to penalise Pocock for slowing the ball down. If we had
played like that against the All Blacks, they would not have been so
quiet about it. – and rightly so. In the dying minutes of the game he
was in full view of at least 2 high tackles by our boys that went
unpunished. Any of these transgressions, if properly acted on, would
have surely given the game to the Boks with their advantage over
territory. To rub salt in the South African wounds, he awarded a high
tackle to the Wallabies for a chest high tackle.



We won, but did we really? Our sport has always been regarded as a
"hooligans game played by gentlemen" – If we do not want rugby union
to degenerate into a farce that soccer can become we need to make sure
that our refs are of suitable calibre. They need to be trustworthy
gentlemen.



Mr Lawrence, I would advise against any planned holidays to South
Africa for a couple of years.



Chris Davis
 
Last edited:
seriously, i'm thinking about not checking facebook or twitter for 3 weeks. some of the dumb **** that's being posted is starting to rot my brain.
 
The fact of the matter is, what happened, was not fair, and unjust. There is nothing we can do about it now, and that's just how sport is.
 
I think I have finally discerned the true reason Beast didn't play.

Anyone remember Beast's 'dangerous play' in the scrums in the Sharks game against the Crusaders in the play-off of the S15? Remember Lawrence was the referee for that as well.

Still the most bizarre decision I have seen this year.
 
Ok then, please explain how you are supposed to use your opportunities when you make 60m into the opposition's goal area, only to keep having the ball turned over illegally? It's a mute point saying 'you should have used the opportunities' when half the time you can't even get to that point thanks to illegal play either slowing down your ball, or stealing it.

So please, do explain.

What South Africa do, and do well, is force teams into making mistakes, so that we can capitalise on infringements with our accurate goal kickers. We did just that, only the infringements were never blown. Pocock was allowed to do whatever he wanted. He came in from the side a couple of times (The first which resulted in Australia's try), and nothing happened. On two occasions, hands were used in a ruck, but nothing happened. He goes off his feet, and then gets back up and still contests, but nothing happens.

Tell me, please, how is it any team is supposed to capitalise on that?



An Article in The Australian, a daily newspaper in Sydney...

The ref was not great that is for sure.

The 140 odd tackles against you did not help I guess.

You can't say every time you turned over the ball it was illegal, and that you could not score because of cheating. The problem is you lost because you could not get over the line.

As you say in your post half the time you can't even get to that point thanks to illegal play. My point is for the rest of the match you could and should have and the simple fact remains you did not.

Do you think the Wales back line, or the All Blacks would have failed to score given the stats SA had. I think they would have punished Australia pretty hard, even when they defended like demons.
 
The ref was not great that is for sure.

The 140 odd tackles against you did not help I guess.

You can't say every time you turned over the ball it was illegal, and that you could not score because of cheating. The problem is you lost because you could not get over the line.

As you say in your post half the time you can't even get to that point thanks to illegal play. My point is for the rest of the match you could and should have and the simple fact remains you did not.

Do you think the Wales back line, or the All Blacks would have failed to score given the stats SA had. I think they would have punished Australia pretty hard, even when they defended like demons.

Making 140 odd tackles as you say and just conceding 6 penalties throughout the game is unnatural! not one other game has had this in the history of the sport!!

Therefore there is evidence in the statistics as well that the referee did not do his job properly!
 
Ok then, please explain how you are supposed to use your opportunities when you make 60m into the opposition's goal area, only to keep having the ball turned over illegally? It's a mute point saying 'you should have used the opportunities' when half the time you can't even get to that point thanks to illegal play either slowing down your ball, or stealing it.

So please, do explain.

What South Africa do, and do well, is force teams into making mistakes, so that we can capitalise on infringements with our accurate goal kickers. We did just that, only the infringements were never blown. Pocock was allowed to do whatever he wanted. He came in from the side a couple of times (The first which resulted in Australia's try), and nothing happened. On two occasions, hands were used in a ruck, but nothing happened. He goes off his feet, and then gets back up and still contests, but nothing happens.

Tell me, please, how is it any team is supposed to capitalise on that?

Fourie DuPreez drops the ball in certain try scoring situations twice under tackles from Genia.
Capitalise on that, you boys win. FDP knock on x2, Wallabies win.

Penalty count was in your favour. Pocock hands in the ruck, Boks diving over. The breakdown was a mess, but it was a mess for both.
You say that the missed penalties stopped you from scoring, i say the missed penalties stopped Wallabies from getting out of our own half.

But again, the game breaking moments for me were Genia popping the ball out of FdP twice, once with a certain try and McCabe hitting Habana near the line to stop him.
You can talk about the ref all you want, but you have the bok blinkers on and you are failing to consider the impact of his shitness on the wallaby ability to get out of their half.
 
Had anyone spotted this? I wouldn't want to mess with BdP, specially if his brother Fat Shalk Burger is around.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thought the ref did a good job. There were plenty of bung calls that went against the Aussies as well however as fans we tend to notice the indiscretions against our team more so than the ones we commit. South African rest assured although you dominated territory you didn't deserve the win, we deserved on the back of our defense and the fact we actually scored a try. Try not to seem so bitter next time.:rolleyes:
 
Was Pocock illegally entering the ruck to steel Bok ball? You need to have a look at POcocks tactics of not being the tackler, but being the first player to get hands on the player before the ball touches the ground. Therefore the ruck hasn't formed and there is no offside. Once he has hands on the ball he has all rights to it.

[h=3]16.1 FORMING A RUCK[/h](a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.
 

Latest posts

Top