And now for some controversy.

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.

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!

Same as 2007 for us biltong. A blatant forward pass for 7 points not picked up by any of the 3- and 19 clear and proven via video after the match offside infringements second half. Mostly from kickable positions.
Not one penalty awarded second half even with the french practically standing in amongst our backs the whole half. Now THATS not getting involved.

And we were faves for the title and prior to this no one had got within 40 points.

Imagine the how we felt. And we have had to put up with choking no plan b blah blah ever since. Some things we could have done but if everyonr were doing their job we wouldnt have had to.

In the end we just had to take it. Not saying youre not and you need to get it off your chest.

Its a slow process but the alternative isnt any better.
Feel for ya though. Not a nice way to exit.
The good thing from where i sit is SA get a fresh new start. New coach, captain and hopefully a fresh new start.

Kia kaha biltong. Sometimes i really think your team doesnt deserve a supporter like you. There is huge room for improvement in the overall culture of the team and it could serve its very loyal supporters a little better than it does sometimes.

You'd make a very good AB supporter and I think you'd feel a lot more appreciative of their loyalty to their fans than i think the SA team does at times.

Just to add that i dony mean the players themselves. I mean the whole structure. The way teams and players are selected. Transparency. Consideration of current form over what used to work.

Biltong, accept my apologies on behalf of NZ. I don’t know how or why Bryce Lawrence is so highly rated, surely he must have something on Paddy O’Brien. I watched the game and SA were the better team. It seems the refs who are determined not to become a factor in the end results almost always being THE factor. It’s a bit like our scenario with Wayne Barnes in 2007….

However, the one call he got absolutely spot on was de Villiers pass to Lambie. Du Preez had a chance to score too, so it isn’t like SA didn’t have their destiny in their own hands, again like us in 07.

One thing I will say on behalf of all refs is that it will be difficult to make a call when there could be any number of things which he could blow for. I guess now is the time is to borrow from the NRL again and bring in the two ref system. One to watch the backfoot and offside line, allowing the other to concentrate solely on the ruck. And maybe look at trialling specialist scrum refs (old frontrowers turned refs) to sort the scrum out. Trial at club level first, it could make a difference.

The best team does not always win - it's tough to stomach and refereeing errors can cost dearly - This post is a combination of those factors and the emotional pain that is still resonating out there. Give it time

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Sometimes in sport whether playing or watching you just have to suck it up and move on.

Was this the worst defence by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

Taylorman wrote:Same as 2007 for us biltong. A blatant forward pass for 7 points not picked up by any of the 3- and 19 clear and proven via video after the match

Good evening Taylor. You don't know the lates and final evaluation of THAT play, do you? I has now been ruled it was not a forward pass. After careful analysis it has been ruled anti-backwards......

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Was this the worst performance by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

No, I'd say being pasted 36-0 in 2007 would be the worst!

And at least it wasnt 76-0 to the same side.

Cheers doc. Never mind the forward pass then. What about the 57 points from all the kicks then? Even one measly little scrawny one would have helped.

chewed_mintie wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Was this the worst performance by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

No, I'd say being pasted 36-0 in 2007 would be the worst!

the team that got to the final after- would you also say that it was the best performance after the battering!!

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Sometimes in sport whether playing or watching you just have to suck it up and move on.

Was this the worst performance by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

You have the right to call it whatever you want Bath, I have no problem with that, as I have the right to state the facts and how I feel about it.

mystiroakey wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Was this the worst performance by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

No, I'd say being pasted 36-0 in 2007 would be the worst!

the team that got to the final after- would you also say that it was the best performance after the battering!!

Still a urine poor performance! Yes they regathered well but I don't recall NZ, Aus, SA or Aus again being beaten by that score as defending champs!

Rubyguby makes a real good point,someimes you can dominate all facetts in the game and just not be ahead on the scorboard at the end of 80 minutes. Look at the number of times the far better dominant scrum gets penalised for a completely irrelevant technical point and the unworthy get the rewards.
There will always be another game.but I reserve the right to revisit these issues this time next week from my teams perpective should the need arise.

chewed_mintie wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Was this the worst performance by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

No, I'd say being pasted 36-0 in 2007 would be the worst!

the team that got to the final after- would you also say that it was the best performance after the battering!!

Still a urine poor performance! Yes they regathered well but I don't recall NZ, Aus, SA or Aus again being beaten by that score as defending champs!

i dont recall the fore mentioned above getting to the final and almost winning the thing, but then i base things on fact. (I may be wrong however but england put on a very stout defense of the title)- it deserves abit of resepct pal.

mystiroakey wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Was this the worst performance by the defending world champions at the RWC by the way?

No, I'd say being pasted 36-0 in 2007 would be the worst!

the team that got to the final after- would you also say that it was the best performance after the battering!!

Still a urine poor performance! Yes they regathered well but I don't recall NZ, Aus, SA or Aus again being beaten by that score as defending champs!

i dont recall the fore mentioned above getting to the final and almost winning the thing, but then i base things on fact. (I may be wrong however but england put on a very stout defense of the title)- it deserves abit of resepct pal.

Yes, they recovered from a shambles to make a final. However Bath_btgog asked if this was the worst performance by a defending champ, and I would say no – clearly losing 36-0 is the worst performance by a reigning champ. If he is asking whether it is the worst cup defence by a reigning champ, then again I would say no. That honour would lie with Australia in 1995

But England made the final so it wasn't the worst performance for the defending champs as SA went out at the QF.

Why is it when a SH team go out of the RWC its always the Refs fault, England went home because we were a rubbish team due to poor coaching, the same could be said for SA.

Life moves on.

SA 2011 and Aus 1995 share the honour of the worst defence of the RWC that is set in stone individual matches don't count.

Bath, I’m not anti-english btw you asked if it was the worst performance without being specific. Question is, can you recall any other reigning champions getting dicked 36-0? That surely is the worst performance, which is what you asked.

Now, like I said above, if you are talking about the worst cup defence, then that will probably be Australia 1995, or possibly NZ 1991.

Now, like I said above, if you are talking about the worst cup defence, then that will probably be Australia 1995, or possibly NZ 1991.

And if you want comparisons:

1991 – NZ played some mediocre teams and never really convinced before losing to eventual champs Aus in the semi final. Our ageing team went one bridge too far
1995 – The first reigning champ to lose two games in a WC, Aust going out in QF to England
2011 – SA only lost one game, playing good rugby and looking like a title contender up to this point

BATH_BTGOG wrote:But England made the final so it wasn't the worst performance for the defending champs as SA went out at the QF.

Why is it when a SH team go out of the RWC its always the Refs fault, England went home because we were a rubbish team due to poor coaching, the same could be said for SA.

Life moves on.

Bath, don't hold back mate, kick the dog whilst his lying down, if you think our defence against Australia is the worst defence of a defending champion going down in this manner, then my friend you are as biased as the day is long.

NZ made the SF in 1991.

SA and AUS only made the QF hence = the worst defence of the RWC.

SA only beat Wales because the ref didn't ask the TMO about that kick, but to be fair the Welsh team and fans just got on with it, good luck to them.

No, when Burger was tackled, Pocock joined the ruck from the side, as Andre Watson showed, his backside was aiming directly towards the sideline

I thought that too Biltong on first watch of it. I actually called it on the match thread at the time. He seemed to come in from the side and off his feet and seconds later the ball popped out on Australia's side.

When I saw the ruck again on the half time replay it looked like I was completely wrong.

I'll have to have another look, but it seems like it was one of those issues where it's very hard to define the so-called "gate" because the ruck had formed at angle not entirely orthogonal to the side line.

I've long said that the gap between the top teams is smaller than the competency of the referees to apply the laws consistently.

It's not so much that calls are right or wrong, it's that you could make a compelling argument for a decision to go either way on occasions and when it does go one way of the other it can change the course of a tight game, which can turn a tournament.

I'm English of course I'm biased I don't follow or support SA or Aus.

But being English I can see with my own eyes that we were rubbish and deserve to be out of the RWC, I'm not the one moaning about the Ref, who I thought had a good game.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:NZ made the SF in 1991.

SA and AUS only made the QF hence = the worst defence of the RWC.

SA only beat Wales because the ref didn't ask the TMO about that kick, but to be fair the Welsh team and fans just got on with it, good luck to them.

If's and but's over that kick because IF the kick had've been given SA probably would've beaten Ireland (based on SA beating Wales, Wales beating Ireland) and Australia would probably have beaten Wales on rankings/form. All opinion though, and we'll never know now!

SA 2011 = 1 game lost
OZ 1995 = 2 games lost

Therefore, wouldn't you agree that Australia have the title of the worst WC defence? And if you can't agree then please state your logic....

1991 NZ = SF
1995 AUS = QF
1999 SA = SF
2003 AUS = FINAL
2007 ENG = FINAL
2011 SA = QF

+1 Biltong. England never looked like winning their QF. Gotta put it down to misfortune too, as had Brüssow not been injured I think he may have had a field day as well.

The more games you play the more likely it is you will come across a game where the refereeing does not go your way. Reality is SA scored just 9 points with 99% of the ball and 99% of territory and that is simply not enough at this level. In attack it was pretty straightforward for W - they just had to tackle players running stright at them. Having made some 150 tackles some credit has to be due and given. There were no angles being run, no moves, no chip kicks - just very predictable play and the defense was up to it. Not enough field goal attempts and penalty shots were missed. Pocock played a Richie McCaw like game. For kiwi fans, that's just genius. For others it is cheating. but it aint why Sa lost - they just didn't get points on the board when the opportunities were there.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:1991 NZ = SF
1995 AUS = QF
1999 SA = SF
2003 AUS = FINAL
2007 ENG = FINAL
2011 SA = QF

Christ you are stubborn.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:1991 NZ = SF
1995 AUS = QF
1999 SA = SF
2003 AUS = FINAL
2007 ENG = FINAL
2011 SA = QF

Bath you are correct, this is the worst ever defeat in rugby wolrd cup defence history. the shame we will carry for this should never be forgotten, I bow my head in shame and never again mention the fact that england got totally slaughtered as world champions during the 2007 Rugby world cup, i will also never again mention the fact that twice this pathetic rugby nation has dealt defeats to defending champions in 1995 and 2007 during the pool rounds. And even though we are out of this world cup, we still have the best win ratio record of all nations at the RWC.

He wasn't great but the problem for rugby referees is that unlike lets say football where infringments do not generally occur off the ball... in rugby, both sides can infringe on the game in a number of places on the field and referees literally need 4 sets of eyes at any one time.

The breakdown is very controversial and different refs interpret the rules in different ways. I bet you could find flaws in every ref and every match if another ref reviewed the match with the hindsight of TV, time and video reply's.. without the issue of stopping play..

Aus were not the better team but they looked very comfortable throughout the match and never really looked like they would ever concede a try. SA on the other hand looked like they had very few ideas.

SA had well over 10 periods where they strung 5+ consecutive phases together yet very seldom got any threatening pentration into Aus' 22. The fact that they only took 2 shots at the DG would suggest the game was often played inbetween the Aus 22 & the half way line... just a bit far out for a 10 to attempt a DG.

Look at SA vs. Wales for instance. SA were well down on territory & possession at the end of the match but still won. Its the conversion of opportunities which wins matches just as much as creating them in the first place.

BL was very harsh I have to say on ENG in the ARG match too, he was picking on some of the most bizarrre infringements (most of which are often ignored by other refs & BL).... and even put an ENG player in the bin for persistant infringments even though come the end of the match ARG had committed more penalties yet had 15 players on the field for the full 80mins.
I think "BATH_BTGOG" has a point though... no one bar ENG fans agreed that BL was poor that game... it does stink a little of double standards or at least that people were less sympathetic to ENG after BL's display in their match.

I wouldn't say SA were robbed in the match. They looked for long periods the better side but this is team sport, the best side doesn't always win and given AUS have beaten SA 6 times out of 7 now... it would suggest that AUS were rather playing to SA's tactics and have found a way to neutralise their game.

biltongbek wrote:

BATH_BTGOG wrote:1991 NZ = SF
1995 AUS = QF
1999 SA = SF
2003 AUS = FINAL
2007 ENG = FINAL
2011 SA = QF

Bath you are correct, this is the worst ever defeat in rugby wolrd cup defence history. the shame we will carry for this should never be forgotten, I bow my head in shame and never again mention the fact that england got totally slaughtered as world champions during the 2007 Rugby world cup, i will also never again mention the fact that twice this pathetic rugby nation has dealt defeats to defending champions in 1995 and 2007.

Well said. Biltong, chin up mate

Likewise

Just suck it up, trying to blame the Ref is a sign that you haven't accepted it yet, maybe you should see someone?

As someone said you couldn't score a try with 99% of the ball and 99% of territory

I think the worse defence of the RWC is Wales in 2015 - Losing to Samoa and England who are ranked 5th and 9th in the world respectively in the group stages was not part of the plan and I for one do not agree with Shane at scrum half for those games at the age of 39 - He should still be on the wing.

Have to go, the Delorean's ready to take off

Rob B wrote:The more games you play the more likely it is you will come across a game where the refereeing does not go your way. Reality is SA scored just 9 points with 99% of the ball and 99% of territory and that is simply not enough at this level. In attack it was pretty straightforward for W - they just had to tackle players running stright at them. Having made some 150 tackles some credit has to be due and given. There were no angles being run, no moves, no chip kicks - just very predictable play and the defense was up to it. Not enough field goal attempts and penalty shots were missed. Pocock played a Richie McCaw like game. For kiwi fans, that's just genius. For others it is cheating. but it aint why Sa lost - they just didn't get points on the board when the opportunities were there.

Rob, I understand you feel the need to defend your teams performance, and yes you are correct that you scored the most points. I do not even want to argue with you about opportunities lost and missed chances. The facts are simple and I have already given all the reasons from a South African perspective about why we lost the match from our side. Strangely very few comments came to that thread, how ever this is the other side of the coin, the side where Australia got a try gifted by illegal play, the side where we must rcognise the fact that SA did also lose because of this.

Just one last thing, if we were so predictable then explain to me the line breaks were 7 to 2, and the defenders beaten were also in our favor.

If you want to criticise what SA did wrong, there is a thread that provides every aspect of our short comings. We were screwed and that is not in doubt. The fact that australia capitalised on it is standard procedure for any world class team.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:Likewise

Just suck it up, trying to blame the Ref is a sign that you haven't accepted it yet, maybe you should see someone?

As someone said you couldn't score a try with 99% of the ball and 99% of territory

Bath, you really need to learn how to read both sides of the argument, go read the thread "Why south africa lost", in there i apportion the balme to South Africa, in this thread I apportion the blame for Bryce Lawrence's part in this whole mess. If you think it is sour grapes then go read some newspapers from neutral countries where most of them admit to the fact that SA were hard done by. I started this trhead from the perspective of what Andre Watson a revered referee had to say, and I have to agree with him on the facts.

I am not blaming the referee for the loss, I have already blamed my team, I am saying there should be recognition of the fact that SA was hard done by Lawrence.

As far as the other poster, it was ROB B an australian supporter that doesn't have his facts straight. SA had 56% of possession and 76% of territory and had 7 line breaks and a number of defenders beaten.

As for seeing someone, no need, I am getting my feelings and opinions out there so that I can move on.

SA going home helped me get over Englands exit

Justice_4_Rugby

biltongbek wrote:

Rob B wrote:The more games you play the more likely it is you will come across a game where the refereeing does not go your way. Reality is SA scored just 9 points with 99% of the ball and 99% of territory and that is simply not enough at this level. In attack it was pretty straightforward for W - they just had to tackle players running stright at them. Having made some 150 tackles some credit has to be due and given. There were no angles being run, no moves, no chip kicks - just very predictable play and the defense was up to it. Not enough field goal attempts and penalty shots were missed. Pocock played a Richie McCaw like game. For kiwi fans, that's just genius. For others it is cheating. but it aint why Sa lost - they just didn't get points on the board when the opportunities were there.

Rob, I understand you feel the need to defend your teams performance, and yes you are correct that you scored the most points. I do not even want to argue with you about opportunities lost and missed chances. The facts are simple and I have already given all the reasons from a South African perspective about why we lost the match from our side. Strangely very few comments came to that thread, how ever this is the other side of the coin, the side where Australia got a try gifted by illegal play, the side where we must rcognise the fact that SA did also lose because of this.

Just one last thing, if we were so predictable then explain to me the line breaks were 7 to 2, and the defenders beaten were also in our favor.

If you want to criticise what SA did wrong, there is a thread that provides every aspect of our short comings. We were screwed and that is not in doubt. The fact that australia capitalised on it is standard procedure for any world class team.

I am not defending the W performance - they were poor in everything excpet in defense and at the breakdown which won them the game.

The line breaks were 7-2 because you had the ball for 75 mins of the game, but Sa did not cross the line - I don't call that creative. Refereering cuts both ways from game to game. Anyone who dared argue that Lawrence's annihilation of OZ against Ireland were shouted down pretty quickly on this site NWS Bryce himself wrote a letter to OZ after the game saying he agreed he could not explain why he gave 4 out of the 6 scrum penalties aginst OZ - some of which lead to direct penalty shots. In the end Aust did not look like scoring and didn't.

Sa knew Lawrence's style before the game started and so did OZ. One team adapted to him better than the other.

I've seen Bryce ref a few games now, some important ones too (France England 6N 2010, England-Ireland 6N 2011, Eng-Arg WC, SA-Aus WC spring to mind) and I've never been particularly impressed by him. He just doesn't seem to control games particularly well, or show much consistency in his decision making. Not sure why he's rated so highly. Having said that, SA are also guilty of not adapting to his refereeing. Can't remember him pinging SA at the breakdown much for off their feet, etc. so not just a case of inconsistency. Once SA had worked out he was letting a lot go, they should have tried a lot more on...

fair enough Kiwi
heres to the rest of the world cup
Enjoy it everyone.

BATH_BTGOG wrote:NZ made the SF in 1991.

SA and AUS only made the QF hence = the worst defence of the RWC.

SA only beat Wales because the ref didn't ask the TMO about that kick, but to be fair the Welsh team and fans just got on with it, good luck to them.

The TMO would not have given that kick anyway, because there was no conclusive evidence that it went over. the reason the welsh moved on is becasue they could still play on, the reason why we aren't moving on is becasue we have been eliminated.

Your ability to reason is akin to ignorance, a profound lack of common sense and unimpeachable desire to be a WUM.

How am I a wum?

For pointing out the truth and some facts that are now part of RWC history?

You're out, move on and enjoy watching the rest of the comp, I take it you are a rugby fan?

Maybe this flowchart will help you understand Bryce Lawrence's decisions:
https://i.imgur.com/pQljf.png

v good, IronMike, and not too far from the truth from what I watched!

RubyGuby wrote:I think the worse defence of the RWC is Wales in 2015 - Losing to Samoa and England who are ranked 5th and 9th in the world respectively in the group stages was not part of the plan and I for one do not agree with Shane at scrum half for those games at the age of 39 - He should still be on the wing.

Have to go, the Delorean's ready to take off

Just fired up the Delorean - fascinating 2019 World Cup - major upset - minnows England (ranked 23) beat San Marino (ranked 21) in the pool stages but went on to get walloped by Jamiaca and group favourites Russia. There was even talk that the part time England players had to get thier own flights home as the sponsership monies donated by the Scottish Rugby Union had run out.

I didn't watch the quarters!

Yeah, saw that about five minutes ago, my brother emailed me the flowchart, amazing how quickly these things come out.

Yeah Hersh but South Africa are still a bloody good side. Can't say the same for your sorry lot.

Same as in 07 for us, Biltong's just breaking down the reasons why.

We had amazing French defence but a ref that called no infringements, missing a forward pass and giving a rubbish yellow. We also made really bad decisions under pressure, and suffered crucial injuries to dropkick exponents in Carter and Evans.

SA had amazing Aussie defence but a ref that called no infringements. Brüssow's injury was crucial in that he could've taken advantage of this lax interpretation too and looked after Pocock more. SA also made bad decisions under pressure.

Hope that's right Biltong. Sorry to bring it up again mate, and can't believe that not everyone thinks England's 0-36 demolition by your boys wasn't the worst game at a cup played by defending champs. Jeepers.

Disney thanks, I had to get both reasons why we lost out of my system, I am seldom a sore loser and perhaps this time I am, but in my defence can say I argued both sides of the fence, our shortcomings and the impact of the referee.

Now I can move on, slap the poop out of Bryce Lawrence if I ever meet him and enjoy the rest of what lays ahead.

I am excited about our future as long a SARU cleans up their act and appoint a referee on merit.

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

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.