And now for some controversy.

First topic message reminder :

Andre Watson, a man who refereed 2 world cup finals, 5 Super Rugby finals and 7 Currie Cup finals is usually a reserved man, he often speaks on Super Rugby the premier rugby show in South Africa. He was the man that once said no referee ever goes into a match with any pre conceived bias towards any team, and has defended referees vociferously on this point.

He had this to say about Bryce Lawrence, “Bryce Lawrence went into the match between SA and OZ with the very noble idea of allowing both teams to play, and was not going to get involved” That is noble indeed, wanting two of the premier sides in world rugby to go hammer and tongs at each other with as much passion and intensity as they could muster.

Problem is even when you as a referee do not want to get involved, you are officiating a match where everything is on the line, you are officiating the outcome of a match in the premier competition of world rugby, and the result of the match should not be left up to fate, or for want of a better description a pre ordained alignment of the stars, destiny or whatever mystic explanation you could dream up.

I have had to read some comments on here which is hard to swallow. “ Your team didn’t take their chances” or “ your team didn’t adapt”. These no matter how hard it is to stomach are all true, well in a certain sense they are true.

Now for some controversy.
The following statements I read was not a case of not being able to stomach them, they in my opinion were simply just wrong and biased.

Sloppy work by Burger caused the try
No, when Burger was tackled, Pocock joined the ruck from the side, as Andre Watson showed, his backside was aiming directly towards the sideline, that was the first infringement, Pocock’s second infringement was to proceed then to stand in a blatantly offside position on South Africa’s side of the ruck, infringement number two, South Africa secured the ball and then he proceeded to kick the ball to the Australian side, infringement number three, from where Australia gathered and went over for the try.

Those were three infringements with Bryce Lawrence standing three metres away, it was not Burger’s sloppy work, it should have been penalised.

Australia are the better side, they have played better rugby than the bok
When? Were they better during this match or during the tournament? Although either of these statements are difficult to prove or disprove as it is a personal opinion and I strongly disagree with both.

Before the test match we had to read from all and sundry that this Australian backline will be too talented for the Springboks to stop, we were told that their ability to run and the skill and speed that they possessed could not be contained by South Africa, we were told our team is aged and will most likely lack the fitness to go 80 minutes.

Each and every one of those statements were wrong. We not only negated their back line completely, Quade Cooper felt the pressure and had his worst game since I have seen him play, the Australians kicked the ball away from their goal line on many occasions and in such a panic from pressure that they almost never seemed in control of what went on in the field of play.

This was not a good bok team
I am not even sure how to respond to that. There were over 820 caps in the starting XV, with legends such as Victor Matfield who on the day stole 5 line outs, Schalk Burger who came back from a broken thumb into the world cup and immediately hit his straps, Heinrich Brussow one of the premier “fetchers” in world rugby, John Smit the most capped captain of all time, Bismarck du Plessis, widely recognised as the best hooker in world rugby. Etc, etc, etc.


Getting back to Andre Watson, he agreed that this was a very poor performance by Bryce Lawrence and he admits for both sides, the problem was the mistakes Lawrence made directly affected the score line. The Australian try should never have been, that was 5 points in the bag. He admitted that when JP Pietersen ran up to put O’Connor off his kick for the conversion, Bryce Lawrence should have given O’Connor the opportunity to kick again. So instead of getting 7, they got 5, which still gave them the win.

During the first half when SA were on attack, Burger was tackled by Radike Samoa and Pocock, Pocock 30 centimeters from their try line never released Burger and raked the ball back, whilst Bryce Lawrence was standing there looking at what he was doing.

There were other issues that could be seen as controversial, but these moments were in my opinion the most crucial ones.

David Pocock received the man of the match award, for his general performance on the day, but yet with two very crucial actions at two very key moments of the match, he got away with illegal and cynical play, one gifting Australia 5 points and the other robbing SA of at least 3 points.

I have said my say earlier this week as to all the contributing factors from the springbok side that they did wrong, I mentioned the key loss of injuries, the inability to adapt to Bryce Lawrence, the decision making that was wrong, the countless errors of knocking the ball on numerous occasions, but this match was not only lost by looking introspectively at the Springbok short comings, it is necessary to recognise the impact of Bryce Lawrence.

Perhaps this is the best quote I have read here on 606v2.

Maybe it was just destined that South Africa were not going to retain the cup
I agree wholeheartedly with Little John’s sentiments, every thing that could conspire to this result did, and for that reason, I simply cannot feel good about this result.

Hersh, if you knew what you were talking about I might have paid attention to your WUM, but sadly as you demonstrated so many times before, you are merely here for comic relief.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Bryce Lawerance bottles it in a big game?!? Never saw that one coming... oh wait maybe I did, pretty sure me and everyone else panned him the minute he was announced as a RWC ref. How is he still allowed to ref internationals?

Biltong I understand the frustrations but opensides are supposed to be cheeky and push the limits of the laws as far as the ref will let them. Williams did it for years for Wales and McCaw is still the best at it for NZ. Just unfortunate for SA that they had such a useless ref for Pocock to take advantage of.

Sam, I don't blame Pocock at all. Just the situation.

and you do

Hersh sounds like a guy that's just made the Nike ad celebrating England's WC triumph without realising that his team just got dumped out by a French side that wasn't even playing that well.

SA beat the best NH team at present anyway so they'd probably walk the rest.

Biltong mate I am still filthy from 07 and freely admit it. I don't blame you at all.

Hersh, pls give over - we all want the mindless taunting that became such a feature of old 606 left well and truly behind - thanks

Glas a du wrote:

Those were three infringements with Bryce Lawrence standing three metres away, it was not Burger’s sloppy work, it should have been penalised.

You allowed him time to commit three infringements? You should have got him out of there after the first!

This is exactly what SA usually do well, they're physicality at rucktime is usually terrific. Usually you'd have had Juan Smith or Bakkies going into that ruck like men possessed. Its why Alberts should have started for me, the Boks havent been as physical as they usually are this world cup. Its that edge that would have won the game for them imo.

I can sympathise with the Boks feeling hard done by. Although Lawrence's errors affected both sides, they certainly got the worst of it. Quite clearly the better side on the day as well.

Still, at least you went down fighting. Imagine how the English must feel.

England won 12-3 in the 2nd half, if thats not fighting I don't know what is

SA won the 2nd half 6-3 which is much better isn't it.

I was referring to the 80 minutes. Rugby matches are typically 80 minutes long.

Playing like a wet fart for 50 minutes and then switching on for the final 30 is not what I consider going down fighting.

South Africa dominated territory and possession against Australia for the entire game. They relentlessly pounded the Aussie line, forcing the Aussies to make vast numbers of tackles and pretty much put the Aussie defence under seige.

I think there's quite a big difference in the performances personally. It's disappointing that England fans such as yourself now settle for so little.

I find it sad and rather dull that so called rugby fans still look to turn everything back onto England, why are we always on people’s minds?

SA, Ire, Arg and England all went out at the same point, we're all losers.

funnyExiledScot wrote: Playing like a wet fart for 50 minutes and then switching on for the final 30 is not what I consider going down fighting

It's been good enough for Wales over the last few years.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: Playing like a wet fart for 50 minutes and then switching on for the final 30 is not what I consider going down fighting

It's been good enough for Wales over the last few years.

gotta love the thought process.....

my argument holds no weight, quick what shall i do, try and deflect onto the welsh, oh sheet, they're in the semis and were not and their players arent acting like clarts.

go for the welsh teams history. boom. gotcha. screw you powell I win.

I'm not sure what you're saying?

At the start of the rwc i said the ref. decisions would decide some games, and the nearer we get to the final the more impact the refs. are obviously having. The ref . should be so good that we don't need to talk about him, sadly I think theres more bad decisions on the horizon.

Trouble is , when you start blaming the ref. --justified or not, you will get panned as a whinger.

to take up Baths point about England, well yes other teams did go out at the same time, but the nz press has told us that the English were the least popular team in the competition, so maybe people are pleased they are out.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:I find it sad and rather dull that so called rugby fans still look to turn everything back onto England, why are we always on people’s minds?

SA, Ire, Arg and England all went out at the same point, we're all losers.

The discussion was about South Africa, and how sympathetic a number of us were as to their elimination from the tournament. It's tough being knocked out in a game where you played most of the rugby and dominated the game. I think it's perfectly legitimate to draw a contrast with England, who were knocked out by a side they should have beaten because they didn't show up until midway through the second half.

I note your response was not to discuss rugby, but to whinge about people picking on England. Then, without a hint of irony, you turned against the Welsh in your very next post.

Please discuss rugby. Your argument was that England "went down fighting", more so than South Africa. I've explained why that's both a disappointing and absurd statement to make. What's your response?

Consistency of Refereeing in rugby is very poor. Has been for ten years.

Sometimes it goes against you other times it doesn't.

Singling out one referee is poor form Bill.

Bruce Lawrence is no worse or better than Wayne Barnes, Romain Poite or Steve Walsh.

I agree with that. You always feel aggreived when a big decision goes against you. Happened to Scotland this time round as well. Barnes made a high profile mistake, but ultimately our elimination was entirely down to us. We were the better side against Argentina and should have put them away.

That said, Biltongbek has also confirmed that he doesn't pin sole blame on the ref.

Everyside needs to adapt to the ref. Ref's are human and whilst it's important to strive for excellence and consistency, human error will always come into play. There are plenty things South Africa could have done better, and ultimately they will not blame Lawrence. There were some clangers against the Aussies as well.

maestegmafia

Well to be honest I BL has got a lot of stick for 3 of the matches he officiated in this RWC.

ENG vs. ARG
AUS vs. IRE
SA vs. AUS

In all 3 he made some bizarre calls.... not biased, just poor.

Personally I think that Steve Walsh & Wayne Barnes have been much improved since a couple of years back and see them as top class referees now.
Don't think BL has done his country any favours though.

Many pundits inc. Kiwi ones have said that whilst they can deal with SA as they know what to expect... AUS is completely different, they're chaotic, unpredictable and have the players to unsettle NZ.

Perhaps its BL who will indirectly knock his own team out of the RWC.

How did I turn against the Welsh?

I said "It's been good enough for Wales over the last few years" this was in reference to only playing the last 30 odd mins of a game which is true and Gatland even admitted that in a interview a couple of years ago.

Wales vs Scotland, one of the greatest comebacks in 6 nations history.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: Playing like a wet fart for 50 minutes and then switching on for the final 30 is not what I consider going down fighting

It's been good enough for Wales over the last few years.

This is how you turned against the Welsh. Do you even read you own posts?

How is that any different to me pointing out the difference between England's demise and South Africa's demise. Why is that anti-English and your post not anti-Welsh, when both are simply fair criticisms.

You still haven't responded to the debate we were having on rugby.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote: Playing like a wet fart for 50 minutes and then switching on for the final 30 is not what I consider going down fighting

It's been good enough for Wales over the last few years.

This is how you turned against the Welsh. Do you even read you own posts?

you are wasting your time mate. nothing can be gained from debating with Bath. He has been born with pre concieved ideas and will stick to them with the tenacity of poop to a wool blanket.

Ah, fair enough!

What's the Biltongbek view of the next SA coach? Who are the frontrunners?

We need someone with fresh ideas, someone who will break the pattern of old and make us less predictable.

Rassie erasmus, John Mithcell, Nick mallet or even Naka Drotske from the Cheetahs, they seem to have the ability to create better all round performing teams.

Maybe you need a few George North's Bilton

But that’s not a criticism!

Its what happened, plus they won most of their games but they did start slow.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Ah, fair enough!

What's the Biltongbek view of the next SA coach? Who are the frontrunners?

Personally, I think Nick Mallet could do wonders with the talent at SA's disposal.

Though Bill will undoubtedly have a much better idea of the goings-on and the actual frontrunners.

And BATH, c'mon, it was pretty obvious dig at the welsh. Lets just be friends

not only does bill have a better idea, hes quicker than me.

now i know how ROG feels about Sexton.

biltongbek wrote:We need someone with fresh ideas, someone who will break the pattern of old and make us less predictable.

Rassie erasmus, John Mithcell, Nick mallet or even Naka Drotske from the Cheetahs, they seem to have the ability to create better all round performing teams.

I think Mallett would be an excellent appointment, but question whether he'd go back. He's the guy I think England should look to. He's got the added bonus of knowing the 6 Nations extremely well.

I always thought Mitchell was a bit of a joker. Made a mess of the All Blacks.

As you say, the key for the Boks is to get a coach able to build a team. The pool of talent is pretty deep in South Africa so it's less a question of finding talented individuals, and more a question of getting them to gel together.

It'll be helpful that some of the old guard will likely move on now. Hard to build a new side when you've got to handle legends like Smit and Matfield, who would perhaps not be particularly open to new ideas.

Presumably Du Plessis is going to be the next captain. I'd have thought that's an easy choice to make.

Comfort it wasn't a dig, I have already said on other posts that I'm behind Wales for the rest of the RWC.

Its just a shame some people are out to shot down anyone who is A - English and B - point out the truth that they don't want to hear or accept.

and hands of Mallett as I think England should go for him.

Johnson for Scotland.

I hope you meant Ulrika.

No, but I think you may be onto something

jubblies.

Ulrika = nae jubblies :egg?::egg?:

England go for Mallett or 'a mallet' sorry Englanders, couldn't let that go! let's all lighten up shall we? scots and french

If you meant Martin Johnson, I guess it would be good news for Scott Murray, Jason White, Ali Hogg and Simon Taylor.

He'd drool over the "experience" and "go forward" they'd bring to the Scotland squad.

Reckon Jake and Eddie back for the boks for me, good forwards and a backs coaching team.

HERSH wrote:We're still the six nations champions or have people forgotten that, where did SA come in the tri nationzzzz?

bye bye SA bye bye

6 Nations champions when you had a Grand Slam for the taking. The shame,

One factor rob touched on was the ability to play lawrence.
Oz have a little history with lawrence with the ireland game and some sxv results that went for and against the reds from memory.
Prior to this match there was some stirring in oz circles about having lawrence officiate.
I think theyve done a lot of homework on lawrence preceding the match and ended up the better for it.

Bit hypocritical of one of the dodgiest refs, Andre Watson having a pop at Bryce Lawrence.

Andre Watson tried his best to hand Australia the 2003 world cup but luckily he failed.

His disgraceful reffing is never mentioned because England prevailed.

To ping an obviously dominant English scrum was ridiculous. Almost cost us the world cup.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-247299/Touch-judge-says-World-Cup-ref-wrong.html

oops! mispost.