Kiwi ref set for Springbok fail mark

[Flamethrower]

Kiwi ref set for Springbok fail mark
Yahoo!Xtra Sport / Neil Reid in Perth - July 20, 2008, 1:24 am

The Springboks look set to pass on their concerns over New Zealand referee Bryce Lawrence to the IRB in regards to his handling of the 16-9 loss to the Wallabies.

Lawrence did not cover himself in glory in the Tri Nations clash at Perth's Subiaco Oval.

He has a checkered past with South African fans and teams, and some of his decisions on Saturday night will only have soured his standing in the republic.

De Villiers had unsuccessfully sought a pre-test meeting with Lawrence. In the light of the refusal, he called on the International Rugby Board to bring back the meetings between match officials and coaches as accepted protocol.

And now his coaching team looks set to formally protest at the nature of parts of Lawrence's handling of the match, making it clear he was less than impressed with the officiating.

"There are a lot of things that went wrong that you can't discuss here (and) bring yourself in trouble again," de Villiers said.

"But then again, we will put something together and address it in the right places."

When asked further if it had been frustrating watching on and seeing some of the inconsistent rulings, he said: "It is always frustrating if there are inconsistency.

"But we had to live with it."

Springbok captain Victor Matfield was also coy..................

Full Story: Kiwi ref set for Springbok fail mark Sports news - Yahoo!Xtra Sport

[laura]

I cant help but wonder if this is a case of sour grapes...they were the favourites and they lost. Our defence stopped their tries when they were close to the line, not the ref's decisions.
Will have to watch again to see if his decisions were that dubious, but better team won on the night. Plain and simple.

[pieter blackie]

sour grapes??? We lost because we played shit!!

just my two cents worth

[laura]

I dont deny that, but for the article to begin stating

The Springboks look set to pass on their concerns over New Zealand referee Bryce Lawrence to the IRB in regards to his handling of the 16-9 loss to the Wallabies

I read it that they are blaming the ref's calls for the loss.

[Woody]

Lousy title, but not a bad article. Matfield and de Villiers conceeded they were beaten. Typical media spin bullshit.
SA were not at their best and they know it, long hard road trip. Makes for a very interesting next few weeks.

[gotheforce]

The ref didnt have too bad a game. What the biggest mistake was really the coaches's choice of the bench. Wallbies were way too mobile for the boks's physical unit. But with a bench of 3 front rowers and no outside backs, it lacked any mobility against the wallabies pack. So in the end, the wallabies ran them ragged. And with Burger and Habana off, they took with them 2 of the bok's biggest attacking threats. No outside back to cover Jantjes who didnt do well all game. If one would go for a 5-2 bench split, u'd put in 2 loose forwards rather than 2 props! De Villiers, what were you thinking my man?!

[James]

Peter de Villiers is a dickhead. First you hear him say "There are no excuses for the Springboks losing" and then its pretty much "We lost because of the referee".

That one is almost as bad as the crap he spouts about Australia having "much less talented rugby players than South Africa". So how did we win the Peter? Especially when we didn't sell ourselves out and bring back any overseas based players. Just because they aren't all 7 foot tall, 115-120kg monsters doesn't mean they are any less talented.

[tic]

I thought that was one of the best refereeing performances for many years.

[tragic]

If the Boks think they have any grievances, they should take them to the IRB by all means, even if they think that the refereeing did not substantially contribute to their loss. It will not change the outcome of the game.

[greenandgoldrugby]

Jeez, actually I was pretty disappointed in the ref from an Aussie point of view, due to his pedantic reffing of the breakdown.

Also, wan't "not through the gate" a free kick in the S14? He had it as a full arm.

[NTT]

i thought that having two hard tests against the all blacks and a huge travel load played against the boks more than some perceived refereeing vendetta ...

[gotheforce]

not through the gate is an offside violation, thus a full arm. Cos i know they penalise a full arm for coming in through the side in grade rugby. Correct me if im wrong Ecky!

And just wondering is it an IRB rule that overseas layers arent allowed to come back and play, or jsut each nation to itself? If NZ and Aus dont allow it, why shld SA be allowed to do it? Just because they badly want to win and know they cant if they take away Smith, James, Matfield and Montgomery?

[GIGS20]

I thought (sitting at the game) that he was pretty fair. He gave as many against as for where I was wondering why he stopped the game.

The only specific they could come up with was his interpretation of obstruction in the lineout, saying they were being mauled in the air. I would have to say, he let a bit go but let's face it, we didn't get a hell of a lot out of the defensive lineout, neither did they. if his interpretation was consistent.......deal with it and mop up your tears princess! that was certainly not an issue which affected the outcome of the match, and, as Gagger said, he interpreted the breakdown in a way that didn't help us....interpretation of the rules is something the Boks have relied on to win matches for frigging DECADES remember the Springbok definition of offside in the last ten years, it has been pretty much if the whistle hasn't blown you left too late, try going earlier until you find the line.

shut up De Villiers and grow a pair!

[GIGS20]

not through the gate is an offside violation, thus a full arm. Cos i know they penalise a full arm for coming in through the side in grade rugby. Correct me if im wrong Ecky!

And just wondering is it an IRB rule that overseas layers arent allowed to come back and play, or jsut each nation to itself? If NZ and Aus dont allow it, why shld SA be allowed to do it? Just because they badly want to win and know they cant if they take away Smith, James, Matfield and Montgomery?

It's national policy GTF, SA could name an entire squad from players in France if they wanted to, otherwise Argentina, The Pacific Nations, and most of eastern europe would be buggered!

[gotheforce]

It kinda destroys grassroots rugby. Doesnt give ppl an incentive to stay.
But then again, if i was offered a million dollars a year to play overseas, i think id take it up.