Bryce Lawrence retiring

First topic message reminder :

I listened to an interview with Bryce Lawrence this morning on radio NZ sport. Essentially he accepts he has no future as an international ref and has managed to permanently offend SARU. He feels the message is pretty clear from both IRB and SANZAR. Unusually for a referee he freely admits he made mistakes in big games towards the end of his career. His advice to up and coming referees relates to mental training. I.e. condition yourself mentally so you referee the way you always do when it comes to the big games that are important to you. I found it interesting.

I don't really see what's so 'refreshingly' honest about it all. The bloke admitted to not having his best game in the QF, did I really need him to confess that? Him tattling on the big, bad ARU boss (who, as we established in another thread is guilty of perpetrating every atrocity known to man) is also neither here nor there.

Refs should certainly be held to high standards but I don't expect an apology from a ref any more than I do from a player or coach. I don't want a player apologising for dropping ball in a game, I want him to go away and practice and get better or be replaced by someone who can catch. Same with refs. If we as a public demand an apology for every mistake, who's going to ever want to become a ref? Everyone's out there doing their best, for some people that's not good enough. Bryce has looked a bit out of his depth since that QF game, probably for the best he moves on. Especially if he genuinely fears for his life.

Full Credit wrote:Refs should certainly be held to high standards but I don't expect an apology from a ref any more than I do from a player or coach. I don't want a player apologising for dropping ball in a game, I want him to go away and practice and get better or be replaced by someone who can catch. Same with refs. If we as a public demand an apology for every mistake, who's going to ever want to become a ref? Everyone's out there doing their best, for some people that's not good enough. Bryce has looked a bit out of his depth since that QF game, probably for the best he moves on. Especially if he genuinely fears for his life.

Completely agree with this. Yes, we want accountability, but not at the risk of alienating our refs. Genuine human error (and often that isn't clear, depending on your bias) does not require fawning, public apology.

Coaches, players and fans often miss this in the heat of the moment. Apparently it's only refs who makes mistakes.

Full Credit wrote:
Refs should certainly be held to high standards but I don't expect an apology from a ref any more than I do from a player or coach. I don't want a player apologising for dropping ball in a game, I want him to go away and practice and get better or be replaced by someone who can catch. Same with refs. If we as a public demand an apology for every mistake, who's going to ever want to become a ref? Everyone's out there doing their best, for some people that's not good enough. Bryce has looked a bit out of his depth since that QF game, probably for the best he moves on. Especially if he genuinely fears for his life.

Well said FC. I hope both Barnes and Joubert (Joubert to a lesser extent because A I'm biased and B he was nowhere near as bad as Barnes) learned from the big games they did where there was controversy, how to deal with that situation better and become better referees for it.

McCaw learned a lot from Cardiff, and is now one of the greatest leaders the game has ever seen. Did he have to go through Cardiff to get there? I'd say maybe he did-he admitted dropkicks weren't in the gameplan. I wish he didn't have to but that's as a NZ supporter. I hope Barnes has also come out of it a better referee but a few HC 6N and WC games I've seen have led me to believe he hasn't improved as much as I'd like him to have done.

There are still far too many things that are open to interpretation which means the ref will influence the game too much, and refs will also be blamed for pretty much every close game.

Best of luck to Glen Jackson. We make great players but crap referees. Hope he can buck the trend!

Full Credit wrote: Bryce has looked a bit out of his depth since that QF game, probably for the best he moves on. Especially if he genuinely fears for his life.

A number of high profile referees have looked out of their depth, but unfortunately not many (in fact just Bryce) have had the courage to admit their shortcoming. I prefer and applaud this approach of openness and honesty to the closed shop and denial we were presented with in 2007.

Improvement involves owning up to your shortcomings not denying them.

Also Bryce's "appology" has been taken massively out of context and what he said horribly and deliberately in some cases, mis-represented.

The reaction of a lot of SA fans has been unacceptable and frankly after the security and brain lapse that allowed Pieter van Zyl to run on to the pitch and attack David McHugh a few years ago he is probably right to fear for his life, and regrettably has no option now but to stand down. In my opinion SARU should face some sanction over it.

I agree , just ban us. Get it over and done with.

Biltong wrote:I agree , just ban us. Get it over and done with.

At risk of devaluing 2015 Biltong, sadly I have to agree. Another 10 years in the wilderness ought to teach you guys not to question a referee publicly after a defeat

anotherworldofpain wrote:

Biltong wrote:I agree , just ban us. Get it over and done with.

At risk of devaluing 2015 Biltong, sadly I have to agree. Another 10 years in the wilderness ought to teach you guys not to question a referee publicly after a defeat

10 years is a cop out, if you are going to do it, then do it.

For me it was an interesting example of human nature.
Reality is SA rugby was in a state of confusion since its 07 win and glory year of 2009.

Losing the test to oz was final confirmation of this. SA were officially now not going to be world champions.

I think the validation of this fact brought the last two years to a head and the valve burst.

And SA fans, rather than take an objective approach to the reasons they lost, the fact that many factors, and only one of them, arguably not the main one, being BLs performance, chose to take the emotive approach.

Anger. And who best of all to aim it at. One single person, not of their own, they decided, would bear the collective brunt of all this anger.

Why? Because it somehow provides pain relief in a way that no objective analysis of the gameplan, the selection policy etc despite being the more likely and constructive approach possibly can.

Easier and more satisfying to pin the blame on the man in the middle. No need for logic, reasoning. He can wear it all...at least for a while till we all calm down and get through this.

Needless to say same with Barnes. For us the shock of losing a match we were not supposed to added to the fire. But mainly it was the twenty years of frustration of not winning the thing. Plus, other than possibly rotation, not drop goaling, our analysis other than the ref didn't give us a lot. Most of us still think today that if Barnes had been anywhere near competent, we would have won. We were the best performed side at the event up to that match, had the right team, were the fittest side etc etc.

Like I said...an interesting examination of human nature, where emotions overrule the ability to be objective.

Based on the above, do either BL or Barnes deserve to wear this collective way that they have. Of course not.

That's one of the resons I don't normally overly criticise refs.

The barnes episode largely taught me two things.

1. Refs don't generally go out and favour one side or the other deliberately. They just have bad days, as we all do.
2. This is one of the toughest jobs in the sporting world to excel in, and I've every respect for them even being there.

However you sugarcoat it, people that threaten refs are just bad losers with no integrity and do not belong in rugby; that's not what the sport is about.

Nothing worse in life and sport than a bad loser.

Too right mowgli... just as I wonder how your generally negative tone towards things on these boards serves you in those moments...

Perhaps negative is too strong...ironic perhaps...

Taylorman wrote:Too right mowgli... just as I wonder how your generally negative tone towards things on these boards serves you in those moments...

Perhaps negative is too strong...ironic perhaps...

and that's not negative at all is it? oh dear there's always one.

No...its not...negative...Never.

Taylorman...i am glad you keep tabs on all my posts....rather like this one i find yours rather unmemorable.

Great point Taylorman!

I think it took SA some time to get introspective and positive after that. The continued relentlessly with this game plan that didn't work in a state of denial and now only just coming to the ideas of modern rugby with Goosen and Lambie and a more dynamic back row.

NZ similarly post 2007, took more than 2 years and the 3-0 drubbing by SA to realise it wasn't just Wayne Barnes that was wrong with All Black rugby.

I often wonder how much Australia's consistent success is down to their calm approach to losing, sense of perspective and ability to laugh at themselves and change tack dynamically.

Not sure I agree AWOP.There are a lot of variables in rugby. In terms of Barnes.it fair to point the stick. It's the lowest penalty count ever awarded in international between 2 major nations (2 penalties against the French). You are right in saying the AB's could have done more. The AB's struggled, in 2009. There are a number of reasons. Two of the reasons are the focus of referees and injuries (the same could be sad for the Wallabies this year). The AB's had major injury concerns in 2009 and lacked depth in some areas. The IRB gave guidance to referees later that year to alleviate the perceived issues relating to a perceived bias towards kick and hope.

I think there should be a boundary in the criticism of referees (i.i.e death threats and abuse to their face is obviously wrong). Tha has to be balanced by criticism. The other point raised by Lawrence is the issue of influence by unions. We may have seen it in the SA vs AB match. I watched the SA feed and there a fair amount of comment about the criticism of the referee leading into the game. That 's bound to have an effect. It may be why the penalty count was so one sided. Look for more of the same in November.

Taylorman wrote:For me it was an interesting example of human nature.
Reality is SA rugby was in a state of confusion since its 07 win and glory year of 2009.

Losing the test to oz was final confirmation of this. SA were officially now not going to be world champions.

I think the validation of this fact brought the last two years to a head and the valve burst.

And SA fans, rather than take an objective approach to the reasons they lost, the fact that many factors, and only one of them, arguably not the main one, being BLs performance, chose to take the emotive approach.

Anger. And who best of all to aim it at. One single person, not of their own, they decided, would bear the collective brunt of all this anger.

Why? Because it somehow provides pain relief in a way that no objective analysis of the gameplan, the selection policy etc despite being the more likely and constructive approach possibly can.

Easier and more satisfying to pin the blame on the man in the middle. No need for logic, reasoning. He can wear it all...at least for a while till we all calm down and get through this.

Needless to say same with Barnes. For us the shock of losing a match we were not supposed to added to the fire. But mainly it was the twenty years of frustration of not winning the thing. Plus, other than possibly rotation, not drop goaling, our analysis other than the ref didn't give us a lot. Most of us still think today that if Barnes had been anywhere near competent, we would have won. We were the best performed side at the event up to that match, had the right team, were the fittest side etc etc.

Like I said...an interesting examination of human nature, where emotions overrule the ability to be objective.

Based on the above, do either BL or Barnes deserve to wear this collective way that they have. Of course not.

That's one of the resons I don't normally overly criticise refs.

The barnes episode largely taught me two things.

1. Refs don't generally go out and favour one side or the other deliberately. They just have bad days, as we all do.
2. This is one of the toughest jobs in the sporting world to excel in, and I've every respect for them even being there.

You seem to be impying that S Africans were happy with the PDV/John Smit old boys club & all the blame was directed at BL which wasn't the case. Lawrence's performance was just the proverbial straw that broke the camels back after 2 years of a build-up of anger.

I'm actually agreeing with you there I thought.
The emotional valve was finally released and BL copped it all.

Humble apologies then, it's a bit early in the morning for me to read such a long post & remember it all.

The SA v NZ game last is a good example though. SA were not pinged once in the first half. NZ got some pretty rough calls at the break down. Especially the penalty against Hore who seemed to have won the ball well early on.

Right on the note of half time Rolland penalised the ABs twice in quick succession, the second being a perceived scrum infringement after he had spent the entire first half patiently resetting scrums with both sides at fault.

The moment that sticks in my mind was when Pienaar came into the 10 meters before a lineout near the Springbok line had completed. Rolland coached him through it, saying "ok, you need to go back, and remember next time not to come into the 10 before the lineout completes". Now this is very unusual for a guy who was pinging NZ for every technical infringement in the book.

I noticed also that near the end of the game he suddenly began to issue a lot of penalties against SA when the result was no longer really in doubt.

Was he "evening it up" on the penalty count such that he didn't have a large biased penalty count on his books?

woa that's a hell of a conspiracy theory there awop.

To be fair sometimes home sides do get the rub of the green when it comes to penalities I think, on those 50/50 ones, and coaching does happen, it is when players ignore the warnings, and how many times have we all moaned at out own players for giving away penalities dispite hearing the ref say go back go back or whatever.

One things for sure, and has always been the case, referees have the ability, potential and, unfortunately, presumably the choice to influence our sports results in ways that no other sport has, sometimes whether the ref himself wants to or not.

I mean fans get angry when a ref blows things up too much- that's called stifling play, over controlling, applying the laws too strictly. Then, equally as much when they don't blow it up enough- losing control, letting players dictate the game.

All of course, depending on whether ones team won or lost on the day.

Who'd be a ref if at the top they're all potential victims of harrassment. There's not a lot of support for refs in comparison to the flack they receive. That is the biggest yet least discussed issue here. There's definitely an imbalance here.

We need to be more supportive or we'll certainly have more and more to moan about once the spirit of the game gets well and truly knocked out of them all, and we end up with robots prepared to do it for minimum wage and go home afterwards.