The top two inches and Chris Rattue.

Every sporting fan has to put up with disappointment every now and then, some more than others, but it is a choice we make when passionate about sport.

Sometimes we will unfairly criticise a referee or match official and other times we have legitimate gripes about deemed unfair practice by referees or at least gripes about the incompetence shown by them.

Most of the time it will only be a few rumblings and dies down soon after the event, and other times we tend to have a lingering, simmering feeling of injustice about a match.

In 2007 the New Zealanders were up in arms about the famous forward pass that cost them a place in the semi finals of the Rugby World Cup. Saying that there was no unsavoury retorts by New Zealand fans will be off the mark. At the time South African fans paid little attention to the ruckus that ensued, simply because they were too busy celebrating their 2nd trophy in four attempts.

Perhaps now in hindsight it was a mistake for the simple reason that the “holier than thou attitude” shown by some individuals from the land of the long white cloud has now become the order of the day. Granted it is only but a handful of them that seem to be on a mission of redemption.

Perhaps it is important to understand the psyche of the South Africans before we continue with the actual reason for the article.

Isolation.

Up to the point where South African sport went into isolation, the Springboks were the only team in world rugby who had a superior record against all opponents.

So it would stand to reason that not participating in the inaugural world cup was shunned by many South African rugby fans as “whoever win, wins because we aren’t there.”

During the isolation years the Springboks only played 12 official test matches and managed to win 10 of them. So even during this period we believed and probably were still the best team in the world.

Rugby greats such as Naas Botha in his prime, the du Plessis brothers, Danie Gerber and many more never had the opportunity to become greats outside of South Africa because of isolation and will forever live as icons only in our memories.

Re-entry

Along came 1992 and we started off with a close loss to the all Blacks and only a week later we lost handsomely to the then reigning world champions Australia.

To say our entry into the international arena after more than a decade went smoothly will be incorrect. During the isolation years the Currie Cup became our test rugby. In my opinion the Currie Cup has never been and sadly will never again be as important and competitive as it was then.

The problem was that on our re-entry into international rugby, provincialism and internal politics which still impact our game today, was rife. John Williams was the first Springbok coach on our re-entry, Being a Northern Transvaal coach, the majority of his squad came from there. His record as Springbok coach was disappointing to say the least. Ian Macintosh the Natal coach appointed only a year later didn’t do much better and it was only when Kitch Christie the Transvaal coach got appointed that the Springboks started their winning ways.

Up to this day, internal politics, provincialism and nepotism have been the deterring factors for the Springboks to regain the heights of yesteryear.

It is fair to say the 1995 world cup for many reasons was a must win for us and the justification we needed to prove to the world that we were back on top.

And sadly 1995 was also the end of an era where we could still claim a superior record against all comers.

In 1996 New Zealand won their first ever test series against us on our shores, and with that they also took the lead head to head, as yet not been hauled in by South Africa.

We have had some mediocre years during the professional era, there are many reasons for that, but in my view the ones that stand out are much the same as those of the past, nepotism, internal politics, administrators with hidden agendas, poor coaches and the consequences of apartheid, having to rectify the wrongs of the past.

Now I will admit that professional rugby is won or lost in mere inches and the top two inches is where it matters the most. Having experienced playing rugby in South Africa first hand, I can tell you that those top two inches is where our biggest failings are.

Whether it is because we are greedy or too ambitious as administrators, or whether we allow our favouritism to rule our team selections from school level all the way up to professional level, the quality of coaches we appoint or simply the political influence that mars our selections, the top two inches have been the main cause for us not to reach our potential.

Most South African rugby fans have a deep knowledge of the game, and a deep rooted frustration for the levels of performance we have achieved during the professional era. It is not something that can be waved away with a dismissive gesture, it is real, it is burning and it is frustrating because we see the potential, we see the glaring mistakes and we see the incompetence on a too regular basis.

So getting to 2011 world cup. We had a coach who has inherited a formidable team, a man who by all accounts were appointed for non rugby reasons, assistant coaches who did not seem able to bring anything new to the table, a handful of senior rugby players unwilling to change and a host of tests being sacrificed for the good of a tournament that is a long shot.

Preparation for the tournament was a shambles, injuries, the sudden exposure of a host of rookies to Australasia and poor results over the previous two years didn’t provide much confidence.

Scraping through against Wales was disappointing enough, but losing players like Francois Steyn during the free for all match against Samoa was probably the biggest setback. Jean de Villiers over the last number of years has proven that he had little or no ability to attack with ball in hand, getting the backline into a gap was wishful thinking. Frans Steyn much criticised during the previous year was a revelation and showed to be the man that would take the backline to new heights. In fact in my view his injury was the biggest reason why we lost against Australia in that controversial quarter final

Quarter final day, Wellington, 9 October 2011.

As a Springbok fan it was a day of nervous anticipation, Australia had just won the Super XV with the Queensland Reds, they won the Tri Nations for the first time in a decade, and had been our biggest nemesis for the past four years, winning 7 out of 11 tests against us. In my mind I didn’t worry too much about the last two encounters as we sent a group of youngsters over there and never expected them to win in Australia anyway, the return match in SA was disappointing, but we had shown potential and messed up more than a handful of opportunities to score tries.

The reason for my concern was the Australian back line. Genia, Cooper, Ioane, Beale and O’Connor were the danger men. They had bags full of talent and showed little fear on attack. In my mind no other team had a back line as adventurous as the Aussies.

I don’t want to go into much detail about the match, it has been discussed to boredom, but would like to give my main reasons why we lost the match.
Frans Steyn. Had he been on the field that day, Australia would not have been able to stop us, the forward passes made by Jean de Villiers would not have happened, and we would have broken the line even more successfully than we had that day.

David Pocock. He approached the game with the decision that he would test the referee from the get go, it worked and his impact on the breakdown was massive in slowing ball down for the Springboks enough to allow his defensive lines to regroup.

The referee. There has been many comments about South Africa should have adapted to his methodology on the day. I agree, we should have, but by the time Pocock won the ball illegally, it cost South Africa 5 points. Now when you look at the winning and losing margins between these two countries over the previous 4 years, the points difference was nil, zero, zip.

Reaction.

There was an uproar after the match, South Africans created online petitions, there were threats, jokes were made at the expense of Bryce Lawrence. What most people don’t get, is it was about the inconsistency of his officiating, the fact that he murdered Australia at the breakdowns against Ireland, and then did nothing in the quarter final. That is it.

Forget about the threats, not all South Africans threatened him and it is most likely just ramblings that will never go into action, forget about telling us we should have adapted, we know that. Forget about tarring all South Africans with the same brush. We get it, we lost because of the top two inches.

But remember this, it was the top two inches of three men that lost us that game, Jean de Villiers and his inability to have vision, Pocock and his ability to use his top two inches against the referee, and the top two inches of Bryce Lawrence which inexplicably has no consistency.

Chris Rattue a writer for the New Zealand Herald, has afforded himself the opportunity to educate the rugby public at large. He has taken it upon himself to remind the rugby public of how bitter and twisted we are. He has decided to criticise our forwards, our captain, our gameplan and whatever else he could find to grind a knife into our souls, with a piece that in my opinion, show the biased character that he is. As a writer and individual he has little or no understanding of the South African psyche or culture, and yet has decided to use his ignorance to educate the rugby public at large.

So in closing, perhaps this will provide some understanding of the South African Psyche, we are able to accept responsibility for our failings, but just as we need to let go, perhaps a certain Mr. Chris Rattue needs to let go as well.

Link to his latest article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-sport-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502180&objectid=10780934

You call it "the top two inches"... we call it "the 1%-ers"

Thanks for the wonderful insight into the South African psyche but most world rugby fans were already aware of most of this.
Didn't you already know this, Biltong?

We all know about the frustrations SA faced during their isolation, the long-awaited re-entry into the rugby fold culminating in the jubilation of winning the 1995 RWC when the All Blacks had an off day - in more ways than one. (after being in scintillating form up until that day)

As for Quarter Final day - well you've said yourself that SA blew their opportunities and were unfortunate to be without Steyn. Australia also had injury concerns, had also been on the receiving end of some dubious refereeing decisions during their previous Pool match against Ireland. In fact, we were simply outsmarted on that day by a team who had the will and the ability to play to a particular game plan which suited them; not us.

I was kicking the screen (almost) at the Wallabies' failure to react to what was happening on the field that day. The referee (as I'm sure you'll agree) - did us no favours but we accepted the result and moved on to the next match against the USA with a lesson heeded.
Note: no blame or constant bagging. Just accept the plain fact we were outdone, then move on. However, don't forget the lessons learned either!

As for the post-match reaction - there seemed to be considerable anger and over-reaction from some fans (some were more calmer than others) but I suppose it gave us a more clearer insight into the South African psyche - which as I say above, some of us we already aware of.

It's not even worth bringing Chris Rattue into your debate since he is only pursuing his own agenda... whatever that may be. However, he does make a few interesting points which may interest some of us non-SA fans. Good on him. He's not the first to have done so; nor will he be the last I'd imagine. As you stated, you must accept responsibility for your failings (like everyone else) and let go of this gripe. It's OK to let your grandchildren know your feelings regarding some painful memory but surely that doesn't achieve much purpose in the long run. Lose the emotional perspective... then move on as you say.

Rattue's a NZ's version of Stephen Jones. Don't take him seriously, most of us don't even read his columns, or do so with the brain disengaged.

It was unnecessarily spiteful and full of vitriol. Did he have a bad experience in a hotel in South Africa or what?

I started reading the cricket article afterwards... and lost interest halfway through.

I guess he got bored of England. His Wales "Village Idiots" one was pretty good, but the guy is a spoon.

You say people ignore him but if you read some of the comments on less Brit centric sites than this one theres clealry a number of NZers who take his outpourings as the basis of their philosphy of life.
Sometimes if you make the lie often enough it sticks ( England are arrogant, New Zealand enslave Fijians etc ) I really dislike that people of this nature are given such a high profile and dont come with a caveat at the end of their column saying "this guy is having a giraffe, he doesnt really mean it". Its like Jeremey Clarkson, anyone with a brain knows hes playing a comic character...but people still start picking up on his rubbish and taking it on board.

I hate this guy.

LB, I agree with you on most of what you said, except there is a fundamental difference between the result of your match vs Ireland and our match vs You.

We got knocked out, you lived to fight another day.

That's right I know Biltong. Also, if we had our act together and had topped our Group as expected we would have played Wales instead of you in that game... and you would have played Ireland.

The opening paragraph was a bit sensationalist but couldn't find anything to disagree with in the rest of it.

LB, apart from your comments I really did expect you to compliment me on what I (in my self opinionated way) thought was a beautifully written piece.

biltongbek wrote:LB, apart from your comments I really did expect you to compliment me on what I (in my self opinionated way) thought was a beautifully written piece.

Very well written Biltong. I'd have had Brussow's injury in the match as another major factor in the loss. Had he been there throughout I feel Pocock would have had far less of an impact on the game.

For me, reading a Chris Rattue article has roughly the same impact as a Stephen Jones one. 9 times out of ten you finish it peeved off with the @#$%^. Then the tenth time you feel dirty because he's managed to write something you happened to agree with.

It is a beautifully written piece in the aesthetic sense, Biltong. You explain your (SA Rugby's) situation perfectly and I like the way your article is structured. You don't miss anything. Top marks!

Of course it's the content which is always open to debate and I hope I haven't added more fuel to the fire with my comment above - it's just the way I see it from my point of view.

I certainly do respect your viewpoint and share similar frustrations from time to time watching the game they play in heaven.

Sorry, should have said "well written article" Biltongbek - I was mentioning Chris Rattue's article in my post. Can't say I've read much of him but judging by that one he's nowhere near as bad as Stephen Jones who single-handedly stopped me buying the Sunday Times.

Well LB, the content is supposed to create debate. And as you say it is a moment in time we can tell our grand kids about.

For most of us, those I speak to anyway aren't bitter about it anymore, the problem is it keeps popping up from sources outside of SA.

It would make sense if everyone else leaves it alone, it will disappear like yesterday's newspaper.

Kiwireddevil, I thought of bringing Brussow into it as well, but he wasn't in my opinion the reason we lost, even before he went off, he wasn't effective enough to stop Pocock.

Biltong its Rattue, He is the Andy Howell of the NZ press. I wouldnt take him too seriously there are a lot better rugby journos Hes just one of dumb ones who has to be controversial to get attention because his actual understanding of the game seems limited. As Isaid just like Andy Howell or Stephen Jones.

I pretty much agree with this guy at http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/10/rugby-world-cup-ref-debate.html . He's a SA sports scientist that's worked with the IRB. Essentially he says, rugby is too subjective, and refs have to much influence. More than any other sport. I think the referees struggled throughout the tournement. The solution is published analysis of their refereeing.

Biltong agree with you re styen. I think the boks have a potentially game breaking inside centre. A big lad who has the size to play centre and the skills of a 1st five. I watched them live and thought they were one of the few sides that had the ability to stretch defences.

Rattue is naughty naughty boy in the opinions of most kiwis on this site that I've read. He's dragged us through the mud over 07 in a similar way, had a go at the Welsh. He is a shock jock.

p.s. it's not the forward pass that haunts me. It's an emotional game, and different parts of our community blame different things (the coach, selections, injuries, buildup, conditioning). For me it's the French setting a record for the longest time with the ball in play without conceeding a penalty (the equivelent of some games). While that's the case, it's important to me that Barnes continues to referee. I think the same is true of Lawrence.

Sorry Biltongbek , but for all the inaccuracies of the refereeing that day, South Africa had twice more possession and territory then any other winning quarter-finalist.

The Springboks simply didn't have the cutting edge to get past Australia's defense. You didn't mention the early loss of Heinrich Brussow who surely would have negated to some extent Pocock's ability to make a mess of the ruck area.

In this blaming of referees, blaming of injuries, blaming of coaching, blaming of selection, the problem is you do little justice to a very good Australia team who played what was in front of them with composure and clinched a thrilling victory. A team that had been selected and honed over a few years but a very clever coach, to do just that, in just such circumstances.

The fact is that South Africa by contrast stubbornly stuck with their successful game plan from 2007, despite ample evidence from successive tri-nations tournaments that both Australia and New Zealand had developed a game capable of dismantling it; yet South African coaches and players did not react to that.

South Africa arrived in 2011 based around a core of key players from 2007 and brought the same tired, limited game. When the conditions on the day, the interpretations (which shouldn't have been news to anyone), and a few key injuries put paid to that, they couldn't adapt and hence lost.

blackcanelion wrote:

Rattue is naughty naughty boy in the opinions of most kiwis on this site that I've read. He's dragged us through the mud over 07 in a similar way, had a go at the Welsh. He is a shock jock.

must be an auto censor as the word I used was much worse.....

Just as an aside, here's thew criteria for referees im the upcoming 6 nations. http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_7456138,00.html . interestingly consistency of decision making is emphasised.

miteyironpaw wrote:Sorry Biltongbek , but for all the inaccuracies of the refereeing that day, South Africa had twice more possession and territory then any other winning quarter-finalist.

The Springboks simply didn't have the cutting edge to get past Australia's defense. You didn't mention the early loss of Heinrich Brussow who surely would have negated to some extent Pocock's ability to make a mess of the ruck area.

The fact is that South Africa by contrast stubbornly stuck with their successful game plan from 2007, despite ample evidence from successive tri-nations tournaments that both Australia and New Zealand had developed a game capable of dismantling it; yet South African coaches and players did not react to that.

South Africa arrived in 2011 based around a core of key players from 2007 and brought the same tired, limited game. When the conditions on the day, the interpretations (which shouldn't have been news to anyone), and a few key injuries put paid to that, they couldn't adapt and hence lost.

Sorry mate but I do not agree with you.

Firstly, that same tired gameplan you are talking about was not employed in that match. running 488 metres with the ball, making 141 runs and 200 passes, making 33 kicks versus 38 by Australia, beating 13 defenders, making 17 offloads and beating 1 defender vs 5 defenders beaten, making 5 offloads and 2 clean breaks by Australia, contradicts your theory of us playing a tired old game plan completely.

As far as Brussow is concerned, he wasn't effective during the time he was on, he made effected one turnover, made one tackle, missed one tackle and conceded a penalty during the 24 minutes he was on the field.

As for not doing justice to a very good australian team, they were under the cosh in that match and similarly to france in 2007 vs the all Blacks didn't concede any penlaties for a very long period of time whilst being under severe pressure.

The similarities between these two matches are uncanny. both teams that lost didn't adapt, both teams played the game, both teams failed with skill and execution that could have made the difference.

As I said above, we accept our failings, we accept we were beaten, but unlike many, we also acknowledge the role of the referee. The point of this article is that we are trying our damndest to put this behind us, but when the reminder of the event keeps popping up in the media, and with hatefull vitriol such as this, it won't be put to bed.

Let's face it, most media pundits serve their masters well and offer up controversy as an amuse-bouche that most readers are all too willing to chew on and make a meal out of it.

When you look at the disgraceful way the NZ media underestimated the French going into the final, there actually wasn't much support for the French elsewhere in the world's media. That was undoubtedly in reaction to the result in 2007. These things are usually cyclical.

Chris Rattue is the antithesis of Mark Reason in the NZ media but they're performing essentially the same function. That is to say, to wind people up and sell more papers as a result. If we all paid them a lot less attention, they would all go away. Unfortunately we get caught in the trap of thinking that their opinion matters and we unwittingly spread word of them around, thus ensuring they can repeat the process again and again.

Much like a WUM on here who won't listen to rhyme or reason, often the best thing is to move on and let the keyboard warrior puff out his chest like a pigoen and think that he has relevance and importance in this world.

So whilst I sympathise with you Biltong, I think a better tactic is to treat his words much like a Starbucks coffee: empty, tasteless foam not worth paying any attention to.

blackcanelion wrote:Just as an aside, here's thew criteria for referees im the upcoming 6 nations. http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16024_7456138,00.html . interestingly consistency of decision making is emphasised.

So as long as you get it wrong all the time youre wecome? Awesome.

biltongbek wrote:

miteyironpaw wrote:Sorry Biltongbek , but for all the inaccuracies of the refereeing that day, South Africa had twice more possession and territory then any other winning quarter-finalist.

The Springboks simply didn't have the cutting edge to get past Australia's defense. You didn't mention the early loss of Heinrich Brussow who surely would have negated to some extent Pocock's ability to make a mess of the ruck area.

The fact is that South Africa by contrast stubbornly stuck with their successful game plan from 2007, despite ample evidence from successive tri-nations tournaments that both Australia and New Zealand had developed a game capable of dismantling it; yet South African coaches and players did not react to that.

South Africa arrived in 2011 based around a core of key players from 2007 and brought the same tired, limited game. When the conditions on the day, the interpretations (which shouldn't have been news to anyone), and a few key injuries put paid to that, they couldn't adapt and hence lost.

Sorry mate but I do not agree with you.

Firstly, that same tired gameplan you are talking about was not employed in that match. running 488 metres with the ball, making 141 runs and 200 passes, making 33 kicks versus 38 by Australia, beating 13 defenders, making 17 offloads and beating 1 defender vs 5 defenders beaten, making 5 offloads and 2 clean breaks by Australia, contradicts your theory of us playing a tired old game plan completely.

Exactly my point. You can't switch to a type of rugby you haven't played in a quarter-final and expect it to work. They hadn't picked a team for, and honed the execution of the type of game they needed to bring to win. Exactly the same criticism levelled at NZ in 2007 - they had no idea how to engineer a score from a drop goal.

South African looked impotent with the ball in hand. They were so predictable. The fact is, for all the possession and offloads and line breaks and offloads and meters gained and passes, they couldn't execute a try scoring move, and that's why they lost. They weren't dynamic enough at the ruck to begin with - they allowed Australia to slow it down.

It fact it reminded my thoroughly of England's humiliation by Australia in the '99 final, when England similarly were duped into playing a game they weren't capable of executing.

Miteyironpaw. The only missing link on the day for that game plan was sitting on a plane back to SA. There was nothing wrong with the plan, it outfixed the aussies as they never expected that.

Was Frans Steyn there to give potence to the back line there would have been more linebreaks and better offloads into space.

you keep on believing the reason we lost is our inability and tired old men.

We will not agree on this point.

But you already said you made plenty of line breaks and tonnes of off-loads, and still didn't score.

If your entire ability to win depends on one man, then there is a problem anyway. If the game plan was dependent on a guy who wasn't available it can't have been a good plan.

It clearly wasn't good enough to better the Aussies, because they won.

Remember NZ in 1995? Too much reliance on Jonah. SA shut him down and won the RWC.

I'm sorry, believe it or not as you choose, but this is just the reality. And let's face another reality. NZ in their semi-final played arguably the most accurate and complete 80 minutes of rugby by any team ever, so much that Australia probably just saved the Springboks a weeks worth of hotel charges.

no mate, that is your reality, the one you choose to believe, and in my vew, a onesided argument.

@ miteyironpaw - wouldn't call the semifinal another reality - the Aussies seemed tired after the battering they'd taken in the quarter and the ABs were ruthless - I would've slightly favoured NZ over SA if they'd've played but would not have put money on it, don't think that it was a foregone conclusion that NZ would've won. I think the tournament was poorer for them not having met.

Dunno Galted, according to Biltongbek, South Africa were entirely reliant on one man who wasn't available.

The work by Dagg in the lead up to the Nonu try was the kind of cutting edge required that South Africa were missing to score against Australia the week before, very reminiscent of that weaving try from nothing he scored against South Africa the year before. If anything NZ's defense was even more robust than Australia's, as an example have a look at Jerome Kaino's tackle on Ioane. He lifts him off his feet like a child and his feet are still going around. It's like something out of a cartoon.

Won't argue with that, just think that it would have been more of a contest if it had've been NZ v SA - the robustness/brutality would've been coming from both sides. NZ are that bit cleverer which is why I'd have slightly favoured them.

Miteyironpaw, you read only what suits your argument.

One of the factors was Frans Steyn. We needed one better break into space, one cleaner offload, one teeny tiny opportunity better than what we had, and it could have made the difference

biltongbek wrote:Miteyironpaw, you read only what suits your argument.

One of the factors was Frans Steyn. We needed one better break into space, one cleaner offload, one teeny tiny opportunity better than what we had, and it could have made the difference

Sorry Biltongbek I was basing that on your statement "The only missing link on the day for that game plan was sitting on a plane back to SA". Perhaps I misunderstood your point.

Personally I don't like the could have, would have, should have line of argument. But maybe that's from being forced to listen to it every year from our neighbours in Wales. England went out with dignity (the only thing they did with dignity some would argue) and rightly turned the spotlight on themselves, instead of for instance, trying to blame Steve Walsh or blame it on injuries.

I think this is how a thread talking about Rattue deserves to end up being: a fist fight about who is better. More symbolic of the original post, you could not imagine!

Regardless of who faced NZ in the semis, as much as Argentina were bruising on defence - honestly, I have never seen so many ABs hurtling backwards. They were absolutely brutal on defence - the quarter final against Australia and SA took far more energy out of that side of the draw. NZ were focused and played their final in that semi against Australia. They looked spent in the next game. We´ll never know how they would've gone against SA but we'll never know how SA would've done against NZ in 2007 so it's not worth putting any effort into hypothesising on something that never took place. If I had met Paz Vega, maybe I'd be married to that Spanish woman instead of to the one I'm quite happily married. I can see the appeal of dreaming about but in the end it's just fantasy and unobtainable because it doesn't mirror reality. What if Suzie were never born, what if that drop goal against Ireland had gone over against Australia, what if Wales were more on their day. You could do yourself a major head injury thinking in what could've been.

Chris Rattue is a pain,just like Stephen Jones,much of your article is factual but in accurate.I will agree that the Boks were THE best team in the World 1937-56,after that it was jointly shared with the All Blacks.On a home and away basis,that the Lions were THE best 1971-74.That the Boks won a series vesus the All Blacks in 1976 only by a politcally motivated Ref in the final test .[The Ref after said to the AllBlacks quote"You`re going home I have to live here"]
Also during the said period of the Glenagles agreement,the All Blacks WERE NOT. the Cavaliers Most of the teams faced were less than tier1 during the period.[Caviliers were a minority in the AB 1987 squad]That after return 1992-1998 they won 2 and drew one out over a dozen versus the All Blacks.Most of there defeats were in SA,since then and neutral Refs.It has been mostly AB`s who have triumphed,that is the reality.
THAT is from someone with the greatest respect for THE BOKS,they are still one of the best two in the World.
Planet Rugby indicates that in the likely event of the Bulls Coach becoming Bok Coach.Matfield would be part of the coaching team.
THAT ALL the players now overseas would return to play for the Boks,Smit maybe excepted.Botha,Steenkamp,DuPreez,Franny Steyn? Which is hardly
going to introduce a change in style.

Good morning folks,havent you lot been busy while I was gaining beauty sleep.
Biltong,I probably should explain,that I dont believe that Chris Rattue wrote this piece merely with the intention of reopening South African wounds that were still subject to healing, but rather,with the 2012 season about to kick off SANZA had just released their reasons for not giving Bryce Lawrence any Super XV refereing appointments in SA, reasons which I personally agree with..
I dont want to get into a circular debate on the SA/Aus quarter final,based on what ifs,maybe's,or any other hypothetical possibility mainly for the reason from experience (2007) I know that it would not change anything anyway.
The 2007 situation with NZ/Barnes has a lot of similarities with the 2011 SA/Lawrence scenario,but there are also some differing factors.
Just a couple of examples being:
In 2007,Richie McCaw the AB captain did not make any public remarks directed at the referee.....In 2011 John Smit did.
In 2007,No New Zealanders threatened to 'Take out" the referee,in 2011 some South Africans(granted a very small number) did in such a manner threaten Lawrence.
In 2007,No New Zealand ex International referees climbed on board and turned on Barnes...Not so Andre Watson???
The main problem with Lawrence has always been perception,I guess he knows that, true he might have missed Rocky Elsom's hand in that ruck under the Wallaby posts, a decision which I understand enraged many passionate South African fans,but not many criticise Lawrence for his decision making.. Its actually his manner that F...ks people off.
Anyway 2012 is upon us,Next week sees the Wellington sevens,and trial games are underway for the Super xv squads prior to their kick off in a few weeks time..When Auckland (Blues) take on Canterbury (Crusaders) and all Aucklanders will for a week agree with all the Northern hemsphere readers that Richie McCaw is a cheat....But thats another story...

During the game and immediately after it, I thought the number 1 reason why SA did not win the game was because they played the wrong game plan. Their linking and backing up was not quite right. They made breaks but then lost the ball/went to ground and lost momentum that sort of thing. Mainly I thought that most of the forwards were just slightly lacking in the ball handling skills department. I was not suprised that they ran the ball a bit, but was suprised they did not deal to the convicts up front first.
I think losing Steyn and Brussow were big losses for the team but that the tight 5 needed to be used differently.

Even if everything had gone SA's way, Aus could still have won. They had played some good games that year in the 3Ns and SA had had a terribly disjointed start. I always expected to lose to Aus in the final so was jolly relieved to smash them in the semi so that we could face the predictable French. No wait...

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong,I probably should explain,that I dont believe that Chris Rattue wrote this piece merely with the intention of reopening South African wounds that were still subject to healing, but rather,with the 2012 season about to kick off SANZA had just released their reasons for not giving Bryce Lawrence any Super XV refereing appointments in SA, reasons which I personally agree with..
I dont want to get into a circular debate on the SA/Aus quarter final.

Hi Laurie, thanks for pointing the Rattue article out to me. Yeah, I was also not intending to argue the facts of the quarter final clash with people. There are differing views and it has been discussed to the nth degree already. I simply wanted people to understand the psyche of SA rugby fans and where they were coming from and why some reacted in the manner they did.

SANZAR for deciding to omit Lawrence from the SA schedule and Rattue harping on about things he doesn't really understand and the fact that the more civil reaction of New Zealanders four years ago which has been long forgotten, but being holier than though now isn't going to end this facade. It merely affords opportunities of reliving and rehashing the past.

It is best to be let alone and forgotten. The fact that I mention Lawrence in passing during some threads, often in a sarcastic or satirical manner is my way of getting a slight dig at a man I have little respect for. But for journalists to keep the focus on how a handfull of South Africans reacted and using that as a tool to flog a dead horse is not on.

Someone mentioned earlier that the difference between SA's exit and New Zealand's exit was that New Zealanders didn't threaten Barnes life. I am in disagreement with that.

Here is an exerpt from a news article on BBC on 8 October 2007.

"
Death threats outrage refs chief

The International Rugby Board has defended referee Wayne Barnes after he received death threats in the wake of New Zealand's surprise World Cup exit.
Barnes sent Luke McAlister to the sin-bin and missed a forward pass in the lead-up to France's match-winning try as the All Blacks lost 20-18.

He has been subjected to personal abuse and death threats on internet sites.

"I think it's a disgrace and people have to grow up," IRB referees manager Paddy O'Brien told BBC Radio 5live."

Perhaps people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

In fairness Biltong, Grey Ghost was hammered when he made those phone calls and internet posts and as he can't remember making them, he is entitled to think they never happened...

NZers when they lose rugby can turn ugly like any other country. There is a dark side to us which stems from insecurity that can make us overreact. Like John Hart being spat on, like John Kirwan being booed at Lancaster Park coming on to then field, like hurling invective at Wayne Barnes. Sadly there are a lot of idiots out there, no matter which country you´re from.

Lawrence can't officiate in Super games and I don't think many people, including the man himself, are too upset about that. Referees have an important but thankless task. It´s also very easy to make armchair calls rather than from out in the thick of action. But I agree it's more his attitude that is the problem and for that reason alone he doesn't deserve to be an international referee now. Football had that bald Italian ref who everyone thought was the best. Rugby doesn't have that and that's a problem the sport has: the difference in interpretation and execution.

Lets not forget the New Zeland media whipping up the Nigel Owens hate either.
The fallout from that ( egged on by a player) was pretty grim. Of course it doesnt fit in with Ratoues racist agenda to mention that.

biltong
I never knew that New Zealanders issued death threats to Wayne Barnes,Do you know what they were or were they not released to the Public?

There's a youtube channel which looks like it was put together by a three year old, and a facebook page which describes him as the "irish ref who let france beat new zealand", looks like it was put together by the younger brother of the youtube guy. Both locations featured public threats until they were taken down. I also believe his wikipedia page was polluted with such threats until they were reversed. The facebook page still features an unpleasant "wanted dead or alive" banner reminiscent of the wild west parody of a certain high profile terrorist issued by the yanks.

I wouldnt seriously call that a death threat though...

Laurie, but that is the thing that makes it so hypocritical. These supposed death threats are just empty threats from upset individuals ranting and raving.

If both countries' fans made these ridiculous threats, how could you ignore one group's but yet call the national guard for the other's?

Biltong,to be honest i had not heard about all these death threats made by Kiwis against Barnes,and more surprisingly I cant recall them being discussed/raised the following year when Barnes came out here to ref the ABs Ireland game.
I have always been led to believe that there were only two serious threats made against Lawrence.and all the rest would fall into the as you say,empty category.
Well now that youve got your new coach,2012 can now be something for you to look forward to.

Laurie, be it as it may, it is all just empty cowardly rants.

As far as the new coach, it does provide some confidence.

biltongbek wrote:Laurie, be it as it may, it is all just empty cowardly rants.

As far as the new coach, it does provide some confidence.

The problem with empty cowardly rants, is that some young excitable person with a few beers (or whatever) in him might rashly do something stupid on a spur of a moment and create a tragedy, that could change the sport for all of us. Remember Pieter Van Zyl? (Sorry Biltong, not picking on SA fans here - it's just the best example I can think of)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl8S2bJN2pY

Have to say though, both open sides showing great form to get their first

miteyironpaw, van zyl was drunk and tackled a referee, he got what he deserved.

However stupid that may have been, it doesn't get close to threatening a referees life. Just his own bank balance.

Richie was first to the breakdown as usual and again and gave Van Zyl a bit of claret around the nose. It was the feeblest attempt at a tackle I have ever seen. All he had to do was bumper car hit him with that huge gut. On reflection, maybe his gut impaired his vision when he got close to him.

There are idiots everywhere. Journos, fans, posters. The best thing to do is not give them what they want: an audience. The best way to do that is ignore them.

Interesting chaps. Funny thing is like the food poisoning/ illness- loss, the barnes debacle/ loss it was only kiwis who were left to cop the get over its while bok fans continued to celebrate. Both times we were warm to hot favourites to win both.
Fair enough.
But now it happens to someone else theres a need to 'compare'?
Why? When before this no one gave a toss.
Now ref injustices are 'worth' discussing as its now somehow important when for us we really thought no one else cared.
And SA were not favourites and for my part would habe been dealt to.For the ABs they are predictable, were missing steyne and brussouw for the semi and had a tough fight with australia. They were meeting an ab side at peak, at eden park where SA had never beaten them and were desperate to end all previous attempts, regardless of whose fault it was. As mitey mentioned, it showed with an 80 minute performance of an ab at its peak.
SA simply wouldnt have come close in my opinion and thats all it is. An opinion. Mine and any bookie.
Too many factors against SA to wn that one.

Appreciate you think differently biltong but its still the same issue coming up again and again.

SA did have a limited gameplan, selected the wrong players and after winning a couple of tight clutch matches that could have been losses suddenly have 'reasons' primarily beyond their control for losing the oz one.

At least the abs were demolishing their foe in previous matches before their demise- more evidence to suggest the likelihood of something genuinely out of place.

The difference this time, might have been that BL make the mistake of publicly admitting he would have behaved differently if he were to do it all again. I think WB in 2007 didn't, and was rigorously defended by the IRB on his performance. Rightly or wrongly.

I'm not sure what is the best thing to do later. By admitting to failings, BL opened a can of worms.

All I know, is that if you watch older games, there are far more dubious decisions and far less fuss made about them. I commented on another thread that in a recent long haul flight I watched the AB's historic test series win on SA soil in 1996 (? apologies, I think it was 1996 ?). Virtually none of the points scored were valid and by today's standard everyone would have been crying foul. The bar is being raised for what we expect from our refs, and on the whole the performances are getting better. Maybe we should just look at the positives and remember it's a game, played and controlled by humans and that occasionally there will be errors and perhaps they're part of the game.

Yes thats true. BL also was one factor. Of several. Its the blowing of that one thing, which happens to be the one uncontrollable by thr boks, out of context.
Not getting at biltong but the forward pass, the inability to catch balls were also just as contributory to the loss- more so probably as they represent things that actually happened and were controllable by the team- skill levels- Id suggest primary lacking because SA were not familiar with the level of skill in back play at that level- top 3 test rugby.
Why is it that jdv for the pass, pdv for the selection of smith over a clearly superior hooker and those responsible for crucial dropped passes are not subject to the same level of criticism 'death threats' even?

They made mistakes not acceptable at that level- BL the same. But its more appropriate that he cop it more than most. Is their top two inches also not as relevant?

Mate, you touched on too many points to comment on at this time of the evening.

Suffice it to say, The South African psyche is unique. I learned a lot about it at the bottom of rucks playing there for a year in the late 1990s and when I went on tour there later. It is tough, uncompromising, and has high expectations. A lot to respect. Confounded by politics, the Boks/SA Rugby need to find a way through that quagmire. My sympathies, mate.

Actually you went out in the QFs because your head coach and coaching staff were dolts and did not have the what it takes to help you through to the next level. This is one of the main purposes of coaches: to elevate talent, get them through the tight spaces, and in general prepare a team to have the best chance to win. Failure.

Forget JDV. Forget Francois Steyn. Forget 'em all. Not the reason. Absence of leadership, absence of preparation in the coaching booth.