Criticism of the referee.

First topic message reminder :

I just want to point out that I think some of the comments made about referees (from all NH sides on here) have been shocking to say the least. The claims that referees are "spoiling" or "killing" the game, the claims that they show bias towards one team over the other, or that they have a vendetta against a certain team, are absolutely ludicrous. I am getting pretty sick and tired of it too.

Yes, referees do make mistakes, some more than others, but they are human and they are there to do a job. They will not be perfect in their job. They will make plenty of mistakes, and plenty of the mistakes they make, you will not like. That is fine, and sometimes it is okay to question a refereeing decision. Referees will obviously evaluate their own performances, and try to have a better understanding of the laws and try to show more consistency. However, the claims that they have "won the game" or "lost the game" for a team, is simply ridiculous. As are claims that they show any sort of bias.

I hope that some people might read this and realise that refereeing isn't such an easy job. If you expect perfection, go watch a different sport. The laws themselves are not perfect. There are a few things I would like to change, particularly at the breakdown, and some players are VERY good at pushing the laws to the limit and getting away with it. However, the referee does not intentionally let them away with it. So please, stop accusing referees of bias, or winning/losing games for teams. They too are professionals just like the players. They want to do the best they can at their job. Give them a chance.

Rory

Just for the record I havn't really ever blamed a ref for a bad performance until the last few weeks where the trend became just unmissable!

not blaming the ref for any results but want to pick on specific differences in consistency,

the breakdown
where wales were attacking and getting pinged for holding on it was fair game, aus are masters of getting over th ball and wales werent agressive enough in the tackle, support play or rucking to deal with the oz defenders. HOWEVER go back and count the time it takes an aus player to roll away compared to welsh players, the oz player is allowed to lay there slightly longer each time but each time does more to slow down the ball, wheever wales did this we were pinged.

the scrum
wales clearly on top and a couple of times in the game where wlesh scrum had gone forward 6metres aussies had wheeled away and ref did nothing. Then the scrum on the ozzie line, Wales had just made them give a penalty away and suddenly it goes round 90degrees, surely couldnt be feeding involed? SH refs do not want to ref the scrum and it gives the AB and Aus in particular an advantage as they are on the whole not as strong there as other teams, and it does impact on the rest of the game,

the only other thing was the decision to penalise for the truck n trailer, tbf some are given some are not but thats what frustrating is the lack of consistency in odd areas like these,

again theres not much in it but in a one point game these subtle differences make the difference.

Lets face it the only way Wales or any other NH team are going to consistantly win is to be that much better than the other tema on the pitch to cut out these erroneous decisions, a la england 2000-2003

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm going to be doing some research on this. Thanks PJ!

However, even if on this occasion Lawrence was proven to show bias towards a team, I do not believe this is a common thing at all. I still think that people have become far too comfortable with blaming the referee for their own teams' performance recently.

Whoa there tiger!!!

I never said he showed a bias towards a team, I doubt he was even thinking straight, let alone in terms of who was doing what to whom, he just had an absolute mare, refused to acknowledge his cackness, "possibly" got POB on side, and they both went, as did Pearson and Barnes... it was a bloodbath.

Still, riddance eh - who cares?

I used Lawrence's performance in that QF as one of the veeeeeery rare examples of when refs do actually have an effect on the result of the game, I didn't level any accusations of bias on any level, as far as I am concerned, he was just pure gash.

PJ

I'd say the final was decided by the 30th man in a much stronger way than the Aus SA game.

31st!!!

Whats wrong with me tonight?!

I know you didn't PJ, sorry if it seemed like I was suggesting you did.

thebluesmancometh wrote:31st!!!

Whats wrong with me tonight?!

Mathematical Dyslexia bud, strong within me is the force.

Took 3 attempts to get my maths O Level - or was it 4?

Took 3 attempts to get my maths O Level - or was it 4?

I'm stealing that one buddy!!!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I know you didn't PJ, sorry if it seemed like I was suggesting you did.

No. that wasn't for your benefit Rory, that was just in case someone did a quick read back and thought I was big on conspiracies.

I don't have the time...

thebluesmancometh wrote:Took 3 attempts to get my maths O Level - or was it 4?

I'm stealing that one buddy!!!

Fill yer boots sarge.

thebluesmancometh wrote:PJ

I'd say the final was decided by the 301sth man in a much stronger way than the Aus SA game.

Fixed that for you mate.

I'm not sure one performance was worse than the other, they did both have terrible games, I guess the difference for me (on a personal view of justice), was that SA deserved to contest the SF against NZ as the better team in their QF, and that NZ deserved to win the WC as the best team.

Maybe I should be a ref?

I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Although I can't really remember, I did recall the South Africa - Australia game, because I remember Biltong's frustrations on here. Maybe he can also add his input regarding that game. In what way did the referee make it impossible? I think Pocock had a complete field day if I can remember. However, was it a lack of adapting to the interpretation of the laws by SA? What exactly made the game unplayable for SA, but gave Australia the advantage?

These occasions seem rather rare as well, though as you say on here it seems to be every game now.

I'll go over it briefly.

After the loss against Ireland the Australian media made a meal of the performance of Bryce Lawrence who penalised OZ heavily at the breakdown! It is admitted in the media that Lawrence made mistakes, so imagine what his mindset is when he now has to referee the same team in a QF?

Ten minutes into the game SA run ball from their try line, Burger in posession, gets tackled and ruck forms.

Pocock runs around the ruck, from an offside position kicks the ball out of the ruck into the hands of the Wallaby bacline to score a try.

It wasn't even subtle, it was blatant.

During the match Australia defends 115 rucks of which 75% is in their half. during the whole match they only concede only 4 penalties, SA being on attack for two thirds of the game gets penalised on attack 4 times as well. Right at the end, the penalty that won Australia the match, is awarded for Danie Rossouw who supposedly pulls a player down in the lineout, debatable.

sA are turned over 24 times in the ruck, And if they hold on get penalised wheras australia does not give away one penalty in their half, not one.

You do the math.

The most frustrating thing about all of this, was the fact that every one said adapt to the referee. Well after an illegal try and leading the match inspite of not being allowed to play we concede a penalty In the 72nd minute.

I never moan about a referee, but that day Bryce Lawrence was so afraid of what the Australian media was going to say, he decided not to get involved and allowed carte blanche. Remember Brussow got injured in the 24th minute, so he wasn't there.(got hit in the ribcage at the ruck, by a shoulder, if I remember correctly it was the Ozzie captain)

thebluesmancometh wrote:I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Can't argue with either of those statements either - this just isn't right.


Oh! Hang on, I've just had an idea - go feck yourself ya big daft Welsh fart!

That's more like it - your turn.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Although I can't really remember, I did recall the South Africa - Australia game, because I remember Biltong's frustrations on here. Maybe he can also add his input regarding that game. In what way did the referee make it impossible? I think Pocock had a complete field day if I can remember. However, was it a lack of adapting to the interpretation of the laws by SA? What exactly made the game unplayable for SA, but gave Australia the advantage?

These occasions seem rather rare as well, though as you say on here it seems to be every game now.

That's about the nuts and bolts of it Rory, "Pocock had a field day" because Lawrence just didn't see him doing anything wrong, but as soon as SA thought "lets play to the ref then" he pinged them off the park for no more or less than Pocock was allowed to do with impunity.

SA couldn't get quick ball, couldn't attack the gainline and therefore couldn't play the game their way...

Hmm.. that one sounds pretty bad. Wouldn't mind re-watching that. Did he get put under review or anything?

He apologised after a few days or so, never said what he is apologising for though.

John Cregan wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:


The referee and the decisions he makes must be respected at all times. We can all get frustrated at times when things don't go our way, but let's remember that, when we support our team, it is we who are taking a biased position, not the referee. He has no interest in who wins, only that the game is managed and played according the the laws and spirit of Rugby Football.

What is most disappointing about this thread, to me, is that it has had to be made at all. We're rugby people... we're supposed to be better than this. Of course we want our team to win, but where I come from, the game is more important than the narrow self interest of individuals or clubs.

Let's remember who we are, ladies and gentlemen. Or perhaps you may prefer to go over to the round ball game.


.

Are you being serious?? I've never heard such a condescending contribution. You say "the referee MUST be respected". Not all referees deserve respect...not the ones who haven't the guts to make a fair call (did you see the last 5 minutes of the RWC Final?). Not the referees who are more interested in their own voice than doing their job. Not the referees who allow bias influence their decisions (both personal & bias against particular teams)?? I won't respect them. I WILL RESPECT the majority of referees who do a fair honest job.................

Have you an issue with Football although it so disgusts you that you can't seem to call it "Football"?? There are just as many thugs playing rugby as playing football so down off your high horse............................

I'd thank you to show a few manners, and refrain from dishing out your orders. I'm not your wife.

I've played a fair bit of sport... I've watched a whole lot more and even taken part in the occasional discussion about it too and one of the things I've found consistent throughout the whole panoply of it all, is that it is usually those who have never put a whistle between their lips who complain about officials the most.

Armchair referees.... terrace referees... bar room referees.... All of them know better. All of them are more honest. And of course, none of them have an axe to grind anywhere along the way. Of course they don't. All these people who have never gotten out there and done the job are so much better, so much more qualified.


A little anecdote here, if the group will indulge me.

I watched a "round ball" game during the FIFA world cup in South Africa, in a pub. Of course, being female I'm not supposed to know anything, much less get on any "high horse" or be so bold as to have an opinion. An incident occurred when, at a throw in, the ball was thrown to a player who was in an offside position and the referee called play on, whereupon everybody in the bar started ranting and shouting about how the referee didn't have a f'ing clue... he's bent.... he's a disgrace. The usual bar room referee know it all stuff.

As the tirade died down, I said (a little more loudly than intended) "I thought you couldn't be offside from a throw in".

Could have heard a pin drop.



The moral of that little anecdote is that the people most likely to shout the odds about referees are the ones who are least likely to know what they're talking about, or indeed, to have ever done the job. Indeed, they are the ones who are so biased towards their own team, or on account of their general attitude, would be quite untrustworthy with a whistle in their hands.

Referees are men who are put in a position of trust. I believe they are aware of this and understand the gravitas of what they do. They know they have a duty to the game itself, not the narrow self interest of supporters who only care about their own team's success, and they strive to rise above such things for the betterment of the game.

I prefer to trust to the basic integrity and honesty of men who have worked hard to actually learn the laws of the game that they are officiating in... some of whom have actually played the game at a fairly high level, too..!! (Glenn Jackson, down in NZ springs to mind) and those who haven't, have worked their way up, learning as they go and acquiring the experience, skills and knowledge to handle a complex sport at the highest level. They may be human, they may make mistakes......

But I'd trust them above the saloon loudmouth any day.

.

jennifer- what game was that in?

Jennifer1984 wrote:

John Cregan wrote:

Jennifer1984 wrote:


The referee and the decisions he makes must be respected at all times. We can all get frustrated at times when things don't go our way, but let's remember that, when we support our team, it is we who are taking a biased position, not the referee. He has no interest in who wins, only that the game is managed and played according the the laws and spirit of Rugby Football.

What is most disappointing about this thread, to me, is that it has had to be made at all. We're rugby people... we're supposed to be better than this. Of course we want our team to win, but where I come from, the game is more important than the narrow self interest of individuals or clubs.

Let's remember who we are, ladies and gentlemen. Or perhaps you may prefer to go over to the round ball game.


.

Are you being serious?? I've never heard such a condescending contribution. You say "the referee MUST be respected". Not all referees deserve respect...not the ones who haven't the guts to make a fair call (did you see the last 5 minutes of the RWC Final?). Not the referees who are more interested in their own voice than doing their job. Not the referees who allow bias influence their decisions (both personal & bias against particular teams)?? I won't respect them. I WILL RESPECT the majority of referees who do a fair honest job.................

Have you an issue with Football although it so disgusts you that you can't seem to call it "Football"?? There are just as many thugs playing rugby as playing football so down off your high horse............................

I'd thank you to show a few manners, and refrain from dishing out your orders. I'm not your wife.

I've played a fair bit of sport... I've watched a whole lot more and even taken part in the occasional discussion about it too and one of the things I've found consistent throughout the whole panoply of it all, is that it is usually those who have never put a whistle between their lips who complain about officials the most.

Armchair referees.... terrace referees... bar room referees.... All of them know better. All of them are more honest. And of course, none of them have an axe to grind anywhere along the way. Of course they don't. All these people who have never gotten out there and done the job are so much better, so much more qualified.


A little anecdote here, if the group will indulge me.

I watched a "round ball" game during the FIFA world cup in South Africa, in a pub. Of course, being female I'm not supposed to know anything, much less get on any "high horse" or be so bold as to have an opinion. An incident occurred when, at a throw in, the ball was thrown to a player who was in an offside position and the referee called play on, whereupon everybody in the bar started ranting and shouting about how the referee didn't have a f'ing clue... he's bent.... he's a disgrace. The usual bar room referee know it all stuff.

As the tirade died down, I said (a little more loudly than intended) "I thought you couldn't be offside from a throw in".

Could have heard a pin drop.



The moral of that little anecdote is that the people most likely to shout the odds about referees are the ones who are least likely to know what they're talking about, or indeed, to have ever done the job. Indeed, they are the ones who are so biased towards their own team, or on account of their general attitude, would be quite untrustworthy with a whistle in their hands.

Referees are men who are put in a position of trust. I believe they are aware of this and understand the gravitas of what they do. They know they have a duty to the game itself, not the narrow self interest of supporters who only care about their own team's success, and they strive to rise above such things for the betterment of the game.

I prefer to trust to the basic integrity and honesty of men who have worked hard to actually learn the laws of the game that they are officiating in... some of whom have actually played the game at a fairly high level, too..!! (Glenn Jackson, down in NZ springs to mind) and those who haven't, have worked their way up, learning as they go and acquiring the experience, skills and knowledge to handle a complex sport at the highest level. They may be human, they may make mistakes......

But I'd trust them above the saloon loudmouth any day.

.

Or the game dies.

Sometimes refs have bad days, sometimes they have good days, sometimes they're just OK, but in every instance, without them - there is no game.

I can't imagine any of them are "bent".

PJHolybloke wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Can't argue with either of those statements either - this just isn't right.


Oh! Hang on, I've just had an idea - go feck yourself ya big daft Welsh fart!

That's more like it - your turn.

But lets face if either of you lots knew anything about rugby then your teams not get beaten all the time. So maybe trust the Kiwis and the Aussies and their referee more.

you cant imagine any reffs as being bent?

time to imagine - it is the case(probally a very very small %)- but there are bent everything.

However i do think jen is taking a slightly different perspective over perhaps a much more important one.

She is talking about a rule most people dont even know about. Howeveer they were saying bent ref etc- because there are dodgy things going on in football affecting matches- football has made them paranoid- and i would much rather talk about how to rid the game of that over a few drunk fans that didnt know every rule possible(in this case its kind of understandable) and i cant even remember a game were it has even happened( a throw in to someone in an offside position)

I'm not so sure about that.. I would have sworn I saw Bryce Lawerence in Grand West Casino in Cape Town a few months ago spending it up with John O'Neill... could have been a couple of bergies though I can't quite remember.. too many alcopops obviously.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Can't argue with either of those statements either - this just isn't right.


Oh! Hang on, I've just had an idea - go feck yourself ya big daft Welsh fart!

That's more like it - your turn.

But lets face if either of you lots knew anything about rugby then your teams not get beaten all the time. So maybe trust the Kiwis and the Aussies and their referee more.

Yes, perhaps this is fact, but while thinking about this maybe you ask yourselve what it is making you so clever trousers? You are not even having real rugby team - so maybe shutting up? Unfeeling testicles.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Can't argue with either of those statements either - this just isn't right.


Oh! Hang on, I've just had an idea - go feck yourself ya big daft Welsh fart!

That's more like it - your turn.

But lets face if either of you lots knew anything about rugby then your teams not get beaten all the time. So maybe trust the Kiwis and the Aussies and their referee more.

no broken english in that post.

thebluesmancometh wrote:I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Bluesman, what 's your view on Wayne Barnes's performance in the 2007 1/4 final?

TycroesOsprey wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:I totally agree with you on both of those counts, but I would also argue Wales deserved to be in that final, and France deserved to win it!!!

Can't argue with either of those statements either - this just isn't right.


Oh! Hang on, I've just had an idea - go feck yourself ya big daft Welsh fart!

That's more like it - your turn.

But lets face if either of you lots knew anything about rugby then your teams not get beaten all the time. So maybe trust the Kiwis and the Aussies and their referee more.

no broken english in that post.

Nah, fractured perhaps - but not broken.

EBOP let me assist this question - It's a riddle it took me some while to work it out.

Bluesman use the word "deserve" to mean "I really wanted it to happen".

After you knowing that - is all clear.

awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

Mystriroakey I am depress. Everyone here was drink too much or eat the wrong mushroom and talk strange riddles all day and now you start too! Is some infectious I think.

I am intrigue to hear about my close miss with this fellow you recommend to me. Maybe he go on the meeting at the Warrington too and I can talk about with him the Haka.

biltongbek wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Although I can't really remember, I did recall the South Africa - Australia game, because I remember Biltong's frustrations on here. Maybe he can also add his input regarding that game. In what way did the referee make it impossible? I think Pocock had a complete field day if I can remember. However, was it a lack of adapting to the interpretation of the laws by SA? What exactly made the game unplayable for SA, but gave Australia the advantage?

These occasions seem rather rare as well, though as you say on here it seems to be every game now.

I'll go over it briefly.

After the loss against Ireland the Australian media made a meal of the performance of Bryce Lawrence who penalised OZ heavily at the breakdown! It is admitted in the media that Lawrence made mistakes, so imagine what his mindset is when he now has to referee the same team in a QF?

Ten minutes into the game SA run ball from their try line, Burger in posession, gets tackled and ruck forms.

Pocock runs around the ruck, from an offside position kicks the ball out of the ruck into the hands of the Wallaby bacline to score a try.

It wasn't even subtle, it was blatant.

During the match Australia defends 115 rucks of which 75% is in their half. during the whole match they only concede only 4 penalties, SA being on attack for two thirds of the game gets penalised on attack 4 times as well. Right at the end, the penalty that won Australia the match, is awarded for Danie Rossouw who supposedly pulls a player down in the lineout, debatable.

sA are turned over 24 times in the ruck, And if they hold on get penalised wheras australia does not give away one penalty in their half, not one.

You do the math.

The most frustrating thing about all of this, was the fact that every one said adapt to the referee. Well after an illegal try and leading the match inspite of not being allowed to play we concede a penalty In the 72nd minute.

I never moan about a referee, but that day Bryce Lawrence was so afraid of what the Australian media was going to say, he decided not to get involved and allowed carte blanche. Remember Brussow got injured in the 24th minute, so he wasn't there.(got hit in the ribcage at the ruck, by a shoulder, if I remember correctly it was the Ozzie captain)

Thanks biltongbek. That makes sense. So basically, it seems Lawrence was more concerned about the Aussie media and how his performance would be evaluated? If so, that is very poor. He cannot let anything like that persuade his ability to officiate a game. However, that is an example of why being overly critical and blaming the referee fixes absolutely nothing and just makes things worse. The fact he was so affected by what the media had to say, that he let it affect his next game..

anotherworldofpain wrote:Mystriroakey I am depress. Everyone here was drink too much or eat the wrong mushroom and talk strange riddles all day and now you start too! Is some infectious I think.

I am intrigue to hear about my close miss with this fellow you recommend to me. Maybe he go on the meeting at the Warrington too and I can talk about with him the Haka.

- wrong mushroom lol.. dude thats quality

mystiroakey wrote:awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

well mist sadly for you I have brought 606v2's borat to the attention of the sites founders since nothing is being done about it by the mods in the rugby section. Hopefull that will start to get people doing somthing about the issue.

anotherworldofpain wrote:EBOP let me assist this question - It's a riddle it took me some while to work it out.

Bluesman use the word "deserve" to mean "I really wanted it to happen".

After you knowing that - is all clear.

Wow, able to understand the subtle nuances of the incredibly complex English language, but apparently unable to conjugate verbs or understand the difference between singular or plural objectives in a simple sentence?!!!!!

In my and many neutral's view. However that is in the past now, My dear friend Bruce no longer travels to SA which I think is wise, not from the perspective that anyone will slap the toffee out of him, but it will be unbearable for him as the verbal abuse he will suffer will be really, really bad.

Incidentally, after recieving his "New Zealand referee of the year award" his performances have only gotten worse.

There is also a little anecdote of his Father in 1999, which the conspirator enthusiasts here in SA love to add to the conicidence.

TycroesOsprey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

well mist sadly for you I have brought 606v2's borat to the attention of the sites founders since nothing is being done about it by the mods in the rugby section. Hopefull that will start to get people doing somthing about the issue.

tycoes mate serioously doint get on your high horse- his posts generate some pretty good debate anyway- he is doing nothing wrong- get over it- you love banter and started a very decent thread based on it!!!!

TycroesOsprey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

well mist sadly for you I have brought 606v2's borat to the attention of the sites founders since nothing is being done about it by the mods in the rugby section. Hopefull that will start to get people doing somthing about the issue.

that is of course based entirely on you opinion

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Although I can't really remember, I did recall the South Africa - Australia game, because I remember Biltong's frustrations on here. Maybe he can also add his input regarding that game. In what way did the referee make it impossible? I think Pocock had a complete field day if I can remember. However, was it a lack of adapting to the interpretation of the laws by SA? What exactly made the game unplayable for SA, but gave Australia the advantage?

These occasions seem rather rare as well, though as you say on here it seems to be every game now.

I'll go over it briefly.

After the loss against Ireland the Australian media made a meal of the performance of Bryce Lawrence who penalised OZ heavily at the breakdown! It is admitted in the media that Lawrence made mistakes, so imagine what his mindset is when he now has to referee the same team in a QF?

Ten minutes into the game SA run ball from their try line, Burger in posession, gets tackled and ruck forms.

Pocock runs around the ruck, from an offside position kicks the ball out of the ruck into the hands of the Wallaby bacline to score a try.

It wasn't even subtle, it was blatant.

During the match Australia defends 115 rucks of which 75% is in their half. during the whole match they only concede only 4 penalties, SA being on attack for two thirds of the game gets penalised on attack 4 times as well. Right at the end, the penalty that won Australia the match, is awarded for Danie Rossouw who supposedly pulls a player down in the lineout, debatable.

sA are turned over 24 times in the ruck, And if they hold on get penalised wheras australia does not give away one penalty in their half, not one.

You do the math.

The most frustrating thing about all of this, was the fact that every one said adapt to the referee. Well after an illegal try and leading the match inspite of not being allowed to play we concede a penalty In the 72nd minute.

I never moan about a referee, but that day Bryce Lawrence was so afraid of what the Australian media was going to say, he decided not to get involved and allowed carte blanche. Remember Brussow got injured in the 24th minute, so he wasn't there.(got hit in the ribcage at the ruck, by a shoulder, if I remember correctly it was the Ozzie captain)

Thanks biltongbek. That makes sense. So basically, it seems Lawrence was more concerned about the Aussie media and how his performance would be evaluated? If so, that is very poor. He cannot let anything like that persuade his ability to officiate a game. However, that is an example of why being overly critical and blaming the referee fixes absolutely nothing and just makes things worse. The fact he was so affected by what the media had to say, that he let it affect his next game..

Biltong that is a very conspiratorial view to be express so openly for a moderator!

Bryce Lawrence actually just mention that on reflect to the game he thought his idea to let the knock out games "flow" more by applying the consistent a less "technical" approach to the collide zone would help making the normally turgid phase of the tournament introduce some better entertainment was too liberally. He did never apologise about cheating SA or bow to Australia media or some nonsense. And he never say anything about being bias. I watch this game and apart from miss the side entry that led to Australia first try (single mistake) he was consistent to the breakdown. But Australia adapt better.

Time to move now and relax or you will serious get yourself an ulcer my friend! Nobody call into question the Springboks for make the exit at QF. They just not get the rub on the green this day! It is knock out! Is always some factor.

I post my opinions as a poster AWOP not as a moderator.

anotherworldofpain wrote:EBOP let me assist this question - It's a riddle it took me some while to work it out.

Bluesman use the word "deserve" to mean "I really wanted it to happen".

After you knowing that - is all clear.

Ah, I get it, thanks AWoP. Because when you use words like 'deserved' it insinuates the better team didn't win. Was gonna say, because France and Wales weren't the better teams in their respective games.

Biltongbek - thanks for the input mate.

AWOP - what he says makes a lot of sense to be honest.

biltongbek wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

well mist sadly for you I have brought 606v2's borat to the attention of the sites founders since nothing is being done about it by the mods in the rugby section. Hopefull that will start to get people doing somthing about the issue.

that is of course based entirely on you opinion

Actually no its based on your statement that we should just ignore it and hopefully the trolls will go away, That is the definition of doing nothing when you dont actually do anything, you see, you didnt even have the courtesy to respond to my pm you just copied a post you had made to maes which neither answerd my questions nor addressed my concerns. Thats doing nothing you see,

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Biltongbek - thanks for the input mate.

AWOP - what he says makes a lot of sense to be honest.

To me sounds just like NZ grizzle about 2007!

Like I said, no answer is good enough.

Tycroes - maybe ignoring AWOP instead of obsessing over him is the answer? Seriously like.

biltongbek wrote:Like I said, no answer is good enough.

courtesy costs nothing biltong, allow the concerns to be discussed rather than trying to censor anyone who raises the issue then you wont look complicit,

TycroesOsprey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

well mist sadly for you I have brought 606v2's borat to the attention of the sites founders since nothing is being done about it by the mods in the rugby section. Hopefull that will start to get people doing somthing about the issue.

that is of course based entirely on you opinion

Actually no its based on your statement that we should just ignore it and hopefully the trolls will go away, That is the definition of doing nothing when you dont actually do anything, you see, you didnt even have the courtesy to respond to my pm you just copied a post you had made to maes which neither answerd my questions nor addressed my concerns. Thats doing nothing you see,

This stupid discuss is ruin the site today. I am sick about it. Some poster here are paranoia and haunt by some shaddow. You are upset about lose the series and look to make the anger on someone. It is child like and unuseful. I advise let it go because whatever criminal you thinking I am is not. You confuse and bitter. So be restful and focus concern to rugby and not be cyber vigilante.

EBOP wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:EBOP let me assist this question - It's a riddle it took me some while to work it out.

Bluesman use the word "deserve" to mean "I really wanted it to happen".

After you knowing that - is all clear.

Ah, I get it, thanks AWoP. Because when you use words like 'deserved' it insinuates the better team didn't win. Was gonna say, because France and Wales weren't the better teams in their respective games.

Come back Morcambe and Wise, all is forgiven.


What do you mean they're dead?

sorry

Well I am off have wasted enough of my time and effort here tonight.

biltongbek wrote:Well I am off have wasted enough of my time and effort here tonight.

whilst doing nothing to address concerns raised by numerous posters yeah great job.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:

TycroesOsprey wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:awop Legend hows it going pal?, nice to read your posts again mate.

You are a kiwi i take it?

There was a lad called mitey who was a decent poster on here who was a big time England fan- but he seemed to know alot about the haka(very protective of it) and then he ended up just leaving the site- it was possibly a day before you joined, shame you didnt meet each other.. You two would have really got on!

Anyway no dramas, just nice to read your insightfull posts and stuff- its why i come on the rugby section..

Dont worry aboot the rest of em they know zips, keep it real bro? dont want to see you going anyway- borat was allways my fav sacha character

well mist sadly for you I have brought 606v2's borat to the attention of the sites founders since nothing is being done about it by the mods in the rugby section. Hopefull that will start to get people doing somthing about the issue.

that is of course based entirely on you opinion

Actually no its based on your statement that we should just ignore it and hopefully the trolls will go away, That is the definition of doing nothing when you dont actually do anything, you see, you didnt even have the courtesy to respond to my pm you just copied a post you had made to maes which neither answerd my questions nor addressed my concerns. Thats doing nothing you see,

This stupid discuss is ruin the site today. I am sick about it. Some poster here are paranoia and haunt by some shaddow. You are upset about lose the series and look to make the anger on someone. It is child like and unuseful. I advise let it go because whatever criminal you thinking I am is not. You confuse and bitter. So be restful and focus concern to rugby and not be cyber vigilante.

Quite right, its almost as bad as the reaction of certain people to wayne barnes after new zealand messed up that semi final