Smit blows whistle on bad boy Bryce
11 Oct 2011
Retired Springbok captain John Smit had a pop at New Zealand referee Bryce Lawrence on the team’s arrival back in South Africa.
The 2007 World Cup-winning captain told local media what he told the world media after the Boks’ defeat against Australia, which was that Lawrence took no notice of his complaints about illegal Wallabies play.
”Bryce is not difficult to communicate with, he just doesn’t seem to listen very well,’ said Smit. ‘The one positive (of retirement) is that I won’t ever have to be reffed by him again.’
Smit will play for two years with English club Saracens and retires from the international game having won a World Cup and lost in the quarter-finals in 2003 and 2011 against New Zealand and Australia respectively.
He said he was proud of the effort and acknowledged the warm reception the Boks got on arrival, when thousands greeted their home-coming.
Smit also said the future of South African rugby was bright and added he expected to see the core of the 2011 World Cup squad playing for the Boks in 2012.
210 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 » Show All
11 Oct 2011, 09:17 am
@RL(RL)-48: NO RL is the doos, a lowlife braindead one at that….
11 Oct 2011, 09:19 am
@RL(RL)-48: I´ll second that.
11 Oct 2011, 09:21 am
Listen to a bok supporter before the game…
Who is reffing
What is the weather like
Who is singing the anthem
Long or short studs
Lining up the excuses before the game started.
A superior team wont worry about these.
11 Oct 2011, 09:21 am
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-49:
Did you see the two high tackles in the last 6 min that both went unpunished ?
They were marginal, but technically they were there, and they were both in kicking range. You must have had your heart in your mouth.
11 Oct 2011, 09:23 am
@Staal(Staal)-45: Hey Staal were you blogging then? I think I remember you but old age has set in so i am not sure.
11 Oct 2011, 09:26 am
@wallabie.(wallabie.)-53: You would have been whingeing your little wallabie tush off if Lawrence did the same in this game as he did in the Ireland game. You got the rub of the green. We lost cos we didnt protect our ball on attack and lack attacking penetration. Our own fault but we could easily have won had the 2 high tackle penalties gone our way. The Danie Rossouw thing was also dubious. Go to Rugby heaven and have a look at the pics of the game – especially picc 22 of 24. You tell me what Vickermann is doing there is legal? Did he get penalised? No.
11 Oct 2011, 09:26 am
Did Bryce influence the outcome – Yes. Why? Because you have to ask the question – would the Boks have won if any other ref was on the field?
Leading up to the game Bryce Lawrence was under media pressure for a perceived bias against Australia. Blowing nearly 40 penalties against and less than 20 for them. He also admitted a few errors in their Ireland defeat. English had a field day on him over his handling of the Argie match.
Bryce comes into the match, subconsciously at best, making sure he doesn’t ping the Aussies too much.
So what happens next? Crucial decisions against Australia are simply not made. Numerous penalties are not awarded and the Australia scrum is not pinged for standing up or walking around. McCabe and Pocock are not pinged and yellow-carded for fouls on their tryline in two separate incidents.
Inconsistent application of the law to favour Aussie in the clear change of mind betwen awarded Australia a scrum off a collapsed maul (with FDP’s hands are on the ball, not like was trapped) and then awarding Australia a scrum for their collapsed maul when the ball was clearly off the ground.
Bryce Lawrence, against this background, came into the game to ensure he “balanced the books” with Australia.
Yes, the Boks had all the territory and possession but the stats don’t tell the full story. The ability of the Australians to blatantly slow down ball allowed their lines to reset so their defence was effective.
The Australian try was created by Pocock entering blatantly from the side, diving over and kicking the ball out from the Bok side. Easily a penalty for the Boks, not try Australia.
That is why the Boks struggled to break through the Australian defence, consistently reset as well as often off-side (WTF were the linesmen doing?) negated much Bok attacking play.
Did Bryce Lawrence gift the game to Australia – Yes. Did Austrlia win because of great defence or bad refereeing – great defence needs a chance to set or a second to scramble that bit further – bad refereeing therefore negated nearly all attacking play.
The question then is, would the result have been any different under another ref, even Wayne Barnes or Nigel Ownes. The inescapable conclusion is: Yes. The Boks would have won comfortably under any other ref. Probably about 45 -3
Conclusion – Bryce Lawrence clealry influenced the result in Australia’s favour with bias. If there was any fairness the result should be set aside and Australia sent home – but that’s impossible obviously.
Further, Vickerman has not been cited despite an intentional knee in Brussouw to injure him and take him out of the game. He should have been banned for the rest of the tournament, maybe more because of the intent.
On hopes that next year Pocock and Vickerman are targetted and left in little bloody pulps about the field. It was Australia’s gameplan to injure the Bok open-sider for Pocock’s benefit, they must now pay in return.
Russouw’s penalty: Watched it again last night. He has his arm waiting around Samo’s leg but does not play him. Samo goes down for some other reason, and his supporters left him in the air and did not bring him to ground safely. That is actually a penalty to the Boks, believe it or not! I feel for Danie, he was hard done by.
BTW: on NZ’s QF exit and Wayne Barnes – I missed the live game being on honeymoon with other more pressing matters to attend to. But if a ref doesn’t make a single penalty call in an entire half of rugby, something is amiss. The Kiwi’s have a genuine gripe for 2007 for the entire second half, not just the forward pass. But that was not bias like Bryce Lawrence, more of a loss of nerve by Barnes who failed to make the required calls.
11 Oct 2011, 09:28 am
@JEZ(DEE DAH)-47:
Based on your logic, every mistake should be followed up by a sacking.
PdV would have gone after 5 minutes
Jake White wouldn’t have got out of the starting blocks.
Unless you can PROVE bias, stop whining and take it on the chin. The Ref let aspects of the Laws slide which the Aussies picked up on. SA didn’t.
When you are a one trick pony that relies entirely on scoring points from penalties despite having the lions share of possession and territory. it is surely time to look a little further up than your navel.
The game was “not won” because SA didn’t score points, and in fact turned down the opportunity to score points.
The game was actually lost because Danie Russow is a di ckhead.
He gave up the lead for SA. Aus had nothing left other than desperation at that point. They certainly were never going to breach the Bok defence. All SA had to do was play the game within the Laws.
Grabbing a mans leg while he is 10 feet in the air was outrageous. A more pedantic ref would have pulled out a yellow card, plus given the penalty that sealed SA’s fate.
While Lawrence didn’t do either side any favours, SA were their own worst enemy.
11 Oct 2011, 09:32 am
@President_of_the_Sharks_rugby_experts(sharks_lover)-51:
Ignore trolls with mullets that drive souped up 1980 Golf GTi’s…
11 Oct 2011, 09:34 am
@NZINCHINA(NZINCHINA)-3: Rich coming from you guys after 1995 and 2007
11 Oct 2011, 09:34 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-57:
What an utter load of trash
11 Oct 2011, 09:35 am
I picked out three Bulls players that did unbelievably stupid things at cruciual moments in the game.
I still remember spittle flying out my mouth and saying many horrible things about Pretoria.
11 Oct 2011, 09:37 am
@Slumtown(Slumtown)-56: Yeah, it’s funny if you look at the Aussie websites before the game, whining how Lawrence had robbed them from a victory against Ireland as well
Funny enough even the Aussie press thought he was ****:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/10/11/lawrence-blunders-his-way-out-of-a-rwc-semi-final/
So I guess they must be whining as well
11 Oct 2011, 09:37 am
@Brads(Brads)-61:
If you disagree, please expand.
Would a different ref have led to a different result?
11 Oct 2011, 09:39 am
@danuk(danuk)-63:
Exactly Danuk
He came into the game to balance the books.
11 Oct 2011, 09:39 am
I dont recall anybody blaming the ref during this years tri-nations!
We got beat fair and square and took it on the chin.
Last years NH tour didnt result in any ref bashing. We lost games there because of fatigue, poor coaching and poor selection. Or more simply put we were rubbish.
The quarter final last week was destroyed by inept refereeing. Obviously being on the losing side means it rankles more but I believe we got cheated out of a good game to watch by a poor ref whatever the result. To be honest I think getting booted out in the quarters will be beneficial to Bok rugby. If we had progressed or dare I say it won the competition it would have been a huge elastoplast over the problems we have in our rugby that began when we selected a coach for non rugby reasons. This resulted in the players taking over a point I have made on this site since the final game of the tri-nations in 2008. The reason why we have coaches is because the players shouldn’t be making certain decisions and the squad should not have any protected members. We lost this world cup 3 years ago and hopefully somebody in SARU has realised this and will put it right.
I have personally drawn a line under the Lawrence affair and I do sincerely hope that this weekends matches are reffed according to the laws. Initial thoughts that the aussies get blown off the park have vanished but I will definitely be shouting for the AB’s.
11 Oct 2011, 09:41 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-64:
I agree that the Boks fluffed about three clear try scoring opportunities….over and above the the apparent forward passes.
The Boks simply shot themselves in the foot with their inability to score those tries. The loose maul debacle is another matter and will continue to be dabated for years to come.
11 Oct 2011, 09:42 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-64:
Would a different ref have led to a different result. Quite possibly.
But your entire post was based on the premise that Lawrence was biased, and as evidence you gave your Sigmund Freud analysis.
No actual evidence needed, just your profound understanding of the human psyche.
11 Oct 2011, 09:44 am
@Brads(Brads)-58:
“Unless you can PROVE bias, stop whining and take it on the chin. The Ref let aspects of the Laws slide which the Aussies picked up on. SA didn’t. When you are a one trick pony that relies entirely on scoring points from penalties despite having the lions share of possession and territory. it is surely time to look a little further up than your navel.”
What a load of ****. The new LAWS (not recommendations) are there to speed up play, to allow the attacking team an advantage to score more tries because defensive structures are not set
If the Boks had 75% possession but could not get quick ball then how could they get the advantage over the Aussie defensive structures. Conversely, if the Aussies could slow the attacking ball down then they could get their defensive structures set again
The referees interpretation was advantageous for the defending team (which where the Aussies for 75% of the game) and disadvantageous for the attacking team (the boks)
Now please explain to me again how this was a fair contest allowing the boks the space and defensive mismatches to score tries from the pressure they created
11 Oct 2011, 09:45 am
@JEZ(DEE DAH)-66:
There are pills that you can take for memory issues.
Suggest you consult a specialist ASAP.
11 Oct 2011, 09:45 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-57: So you’ve decide not to mention any of the decisions that went our way or that the Aussies should have got but didn’t??
While a lot of what you have said is correct it is hardly a balanced view point. And when you say we should have won by about 40 points your argument goes out the window.
Bryce gave a very similar display to the detriment of Austrlia during the Ireland / Aus game yet you didn’t see them even mention the refereeing – let’s try to be good sports, just congratulate other teams when they beat us and try to get them next time.
11 Oct 2011, 09:46 am
@Great White Shark(Predawn)-62:
lol
of course, it must be pretoria and the bulls fault.
nothing to do with, errm, that other oke.
played for the sharks a few times i think.
11 Oct 2011, 09:47 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-65: Not sure about that, I think the article in News 24 summed if up better. He seems badly prepared for aspects of the game, such as the scrum and breakdown. Also he does not seem to be fit enough.
He is not the only ref who does not look up to standard in the RWC
11 Oct 2011, 09:47 am
@Brads(Brads)-68:
So you have no answer.
11 Oct 2011, 09:48 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-57: “On hopes that next year Pocock and Vickerman are targetted and left in little bloody pulps about the field. It was Australia’s gameplan to injure the Bok open-sider for Pocock’s benefit, they must now pay in return.”
- and while I’m here that statement is something you would usually attribute to a NZ Rugby blog. Seriously that is ridiculous. Does that mean that everyone is going to go out and target Bakkies because he did something once, or Schalk etc etc. That is moronic and is the type of stuff coming from NZ about Quade Cooper.
11 Oct 2011, 09:48 am
the boks had 75% of the ball the ozzies 25%
straight forward logic says that the boks got screwed of 50% more than the other side given that the ref was equally bad.
11 Oct 2011, 09:50 am
@danuk(danuk)-69:
There were plenty of opportunities to score tries, nearly did a few times, but the excitement at doing something new got to the players concerned and they fluffed it.
You can hardly blame the ref for that can you?
Call me old fashioned, but I tend to think that was the coaches area of responsibility.
11 Oct 2011, 09:51 am
@jeest(jeest)-71:
the Australian press had a field day on him. He even admitted his errors, espcially at the scrum. One penalty at the scrum despite the Australians pulling out and walking around??
He came in with too much baggage to be impartial and police the game properly.
Under another ref the Boks would have won – its that simple.
11 Oct 2011, 09:51 am
@jeest(jeest)-71: Lol, did you see the Aussie response to the Ireland game?
Agree, it’s in the past, however to say that the impact of the refereeing affected both side evenly is not from my point of view
11 Oct 2011, 09:51 am
@jeest(jeest)-71:
Yeah, the 40+ points is perhaps a bit far
11 Oct 2011, 09:54 am
@Brigadier Van Zyl(Brigadier Van Zyl)-72:
I was getting mal with Rossouw a few times as he looks suspect with ball in hand when being tackled. He has the uncanny ability to give away the ball and penalties at will.
Morne did an impression of a moffie ragdoll when ‘trying’ to tackle the Aussie that scored the try. Lambie can’t be everywhere unfortunately.
Smit did the business and made no mistakes that I saw personally.
The bionic man Spies was brittle in the tackle. For a huge piece of meat he goes down far too easily in the tackle. He only seems comfortable in broken play.
We missed Bakkies.
11 Oct 2011, 09:54 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-74:
I did – deal with it, like the result on Saturday
11 Oct 2011, 09:55 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-78: Ok then prove the would have won…you don’t know that…it may have been an even bigger margin. Your logic is lacking badly.
And no the aussie press didn’t say much at all. Rugby Union hardly gets a mention in Oz as it’s about their 5th or 6th sport. The only corrrespondance was a letter from the Wallabies to the IRB to “clarify” some decisions around the scrum. The IRB wrote back saying that on 3 occasions they were incorrectly penalised.
The facts are:
1. Bryce is a terrible ref – anyone who has watched or played in the SH over the last 3 years knows this.
2. His decisions nearly exclusively favour Kiwi teams when he refs the Super 15. when he refs other games it’s a lottery but generally the breakdowns are a mess.
3. The Aussies hate him as much as we do, and rightly so.
11 Oct 2011, 09:55 am
@Brads(Brads)-70:
do they have pills for “thick skin”?
or maybe even just general thickness?
11 Oct 2011, 09:56 am
@Brads(Brads)-70:
Fark me you really are enjoying this. Apologies I didnt realise that I was facing a QC.
I never blamed the ref after this tri-nations. Yes there were some plebs who blamed the ref but judging by their posts and lack of rugby nous I choose to ignore them.
In my mind a line has been drawn under the Bryce Lawrence affair. It took a couple of days, a few castles and a stick of biltong but gee whiz if I bumped into him in Randburg I would welcome him to South Africa and buy him a drink. I have had bigger setbacks in life than the boks dumping a world cup.
The only point I am making is that BL screwed himself by publicly apologising to Australia and somebody within the IRB should have seen the sh1tstorm coming when he was appointed to that match after the apology.
11 Oct 2011, 09:56 am
@Brads(Brads)-82:
Really? I hope you’re not a lawyer coz otherwise you’d be sweeping the streets.
11 Oct 2011, 09:57 am
@danuk(danuk)-79: Did actually – they went to town on their own team and coach – but again, there isn’t much union press in OZ.
Seriously, the ref didn’t get much of a mention other than they said he had a few “baffling calls” – he certainly wasn’t blamed for the loss.
11 Oct 2011, 10:00 am
@Brads(Brads)-77: yes, and there would have been more chances and more gaps and overlaps if the ball was not slowed down (and on one occassion pulled back on Aussie tryline by Rocky Elsom’s hand) for most of the match.
Are you implying that we should be good enough to only score tries from (essentially) 1st phase possession? What teams does that? The Aussie try came from Pocock kicking the ball out of the loose ruck, where our defense was not set.
How is that try just good old skills and finishing and our attempts are just poor execution?
Yes, maybe we should have had a better coach and skills, however you cannot say that we did not score any tries just because we did not take our chances
11 Oct 2011, 10:01 am
@jeest(jeest)-87:
here you go:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/10/11/lawrence-blunders-his-way-out-of-a-rwc-semi-final/
11 Oct 2011, 10:02 am
@JEZ(DEE DAH)-85:
Bryce Lawrence may be a whole buch of things, but that is not what you said in the post I responded to and where this response is traced from.
So, when you said nobody in your post, your were actually using the Royal “we” definition of nobody.
11 Oct 2011, 10:05 am
@danuk(danuk)-89: That article was written today – not after the Ireland game.
So my comment stands until you find something written then that blames the ref for their loss. And I’m talking about press here – not some amateur Rugby blog written by a fan.
11 Oct 2011, 10:06 am
Like we said in 2007 – couple of bad calls, and it turns to ****. Fact is we got knocked out of the tournament, like you guys, and thats what hurts.
At least we supported you in the final !
Thats shocking that **** about Bryce trying to balance the ledger against his Ire-Aus match episode, fn bad man!
11 Oct 2011, 10:06 am
@danuk(danuk)-88:
No, I am suggesting SA should have marched to the tune of its own dogma. Defence wins RWC, and take the points whend they are offered.
NZ were drilled by the ref in 2007, but the real reason we lost was arrogance. We thought we could do better and score a try. well we came unstuck royally.
Same old same old!
11 Oct 2011, 10:08 am
@zoo cleaner(zoo cleaner)-57:
All correct – very good; what about the neck lock tackle that none of the officials called but it was there for all the world to see. If Bakkies had done that he would be jailed for life, if not hanged.
So as long as Paddy O’Brien is calling the shots it will never change.
11 Oct 2011, 10:09 am
blah blah blah … read this …
“Until 1885, the laws of rugby football were made by England, as the founder nation. However, following a disputed try in an international between Scotland and England, letters were exchanged, in which England claimed that they made the laws, and the try should stand. In 1885, as part of the Home Nations Championship Scotland refused to play England. Following the dispute, the home unions of Scotland, Ireland and Wales decided to form an international union whose membership would agree on the standard rules of rugby football. The three nations met in Dublin in 1886, though no formal regulations were agreed upon. On 5 December 1887, committee members of the IRU, SRU and WFU met in Manchester and wrote up the first four principals of the International Rugby Football Board. England refused to take part in the founding of the IRFB, stating that they should have greater representation, as they had more clubs. The England Union also refused to accept the IRFB as the recognised law maker of the game. This led to the IRFB taking the stance of member countries not playing England until they joined. In 1890, England joined the IRFB. The same year, the IRFB wrote the first international laws of rugby union.”
11 Oct 2011, 10:10 am
@Brads(Brads)-93: Not much to defend when you have 75% of the ball, but take your point and agree we should have taken the 3 points on offer in the 1st half …
11 Oct 2011, 10:10 am
was gonna say … we have been battling with LAWS for 100 + Years ….
11 Oct 2011, 10:12 am
@PeaceFrog(PeaceFrog)-97: I think the laws are probably ok – it’s the 300 interpretations of wha are quite clear rules that kills the game as a spectacle.
11 Oct 2011, 10:12 am
@PeaceFrog(PeaceFrog)-95:
Did you find that info like that, if so well done.
Or did you decide to improve its comprehension by posting it as a solid block.
11 Oct 2011, 10:15 am
@KiaKahaNZ(KiaKahaNZ)-92:
Yes, it is bad, but the worst part is that it is correct
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.