Bryce Lawrence's account.

[Thomond78]

Or accounts. Because there's a bit of a difference, on the evidence.

From the citing hearing:

Mr Bryce Lawrence gave evidence at the Hearing that he was within 2 metres of the location of the incident. He said that he “caught a glimpse” from the corner of his eye of the event which he said was sufficient for a report of foul play to be made to the referee. He said he saw Burger’s hand move from one side of Lions No 11 ’s face to the other side at the eye region. He emphasized at the hearing that he advised the referee that this was at a minimum a yellow card offence. Mr Swart introduced into evidence a copy of the DVD of the game and played the portion involving the incident at the hearing. He asked that the match officials’ voices be audible at the hearing. It is clear from the recording that the words noted above were indeed used by Mr Lawrence in his report to the referee, that is that the offence was at a minimum a yellow card offence. Mr Lawrence stated that if he had seen finger- poking or gouging or ripping at the eyes he would have advised the referee to issue a red card. But, he said he could not say one way or the other if such did occur from his viewpoint. His view of the incident was incomplete and only “a glimpse”.

Now, here's what the bould Bryce said at the time:

"I could see it clearly, clearly fingers in the eyes. Six green"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X__kjEjTNro It's from 0:39 on.

He said at the time that it wasn't a glimpse; he saw it clearly. He said, repeating the word, that it he clearly saw fingers in the eyes. On his own account at the hearing, he should have said red.

Turns out he bottled it at the hearing as well, then.

 

[PaarlBok]

Ag Thomotjie, its a total vokop and we all know it. I for one is sure they need to use the ref rating system whoever plays. You want the best man for the job in the important ones.

At least I saw the IRB will look now at the eye one.

now lets move on to the third test!

 

[Lee Grant]

Agree T78.

Lawrence was weak to say "At least a yellow" and weak when he changed his story at the hearing. I have seen the French guy referee in the Top14 a lot of times and he doesn't have any balls either. I knew as soon as I heard Lawrence say the word "yellow" that he would grab hold of that.

As I said elsewhere: love him or hate him Dickenson would have said red card.

What was Burgers defence? It looked horrible and indefensible. I was sad to see it as I admire his play greatly and personally he seems to be an affable and charismatic fellow. Looks like he is becoming another Bakkies - great player but will be looked on with distaste after he retires.

Except at home, naturally.

 

[cyclopath]

I might be a bit dim, but what difference does it make what Lawrence says at the hearing, apart from making himself look like a twat by changing his story?
Burger was cited, they had ample video evidence, so I fail to see whether Lawrence now only had a glimpse, or seats on the floor is at all relevant as to whether Burger gets banned? If he now says Burger was helping Fitzgerald get an eyelash out would it all be good?
Both Lawrence and M Le Farce (Berdos) need a size 10 up the arse, or an operation to help their balls descend!

 

[Thomond78]

I might be a bit dim, but what difference does it make what Lawrence says at the hearing, apart from making himself look like a twat by changing his story?
Burger was cited, they had ample video evidence, so I fail to see whether Lawrence now only had a glimpse, or seats on the floor is at all relevant as to whether Burger gets banned? If he now says Burger was helping Fitzgerald get an eyelash out would it all be good?
Both Lawrence and M Le Farce (Berdos) need a size 10 up the arse, or an operation to help their balls descend!

Because if the refs are changing their story in the teeth of the evidence at the citing commission hearing, then this whole bloody thing is corrupt and needs a root-and-branch reform.

Starting with getting rid of Paddy O'Brien. Cocking up is one thing; we're all human. Lying about it is different.

Oom - I'd agree. If only they would sack the buggers, we'd get somewhere. When you look at Steve Walsh being rail-roaded for going on the piss - well, hell, give me Walsh over this guy any day. At least Walsh didn't change the story.

 

[naza]

Turns out he bottled it at the hearing as well, then.

A Kiwi choking under pressure ? Say it ain't so !

 

[cyclopath]

I might be a bit dim, but what difference does it make what Lawrence says at the hearing, apart from making himself look like a twat by changing his story?
Burger was cited, they had ample video evidence, so I fail to see whether Lawrence now only had a glimpse, or seats on the floor is at all relevant as to whether Burger gets banned? If he now says Burger was helping Fitzgerald get an eyelash out would it all be good?
Both Lawrence and M Le Farce (Berdos) need a size 10 up the arse, or an operation to help their balls descend!

Because if the refs are changing their story in the teeth of the evidence at the citing commission hearing, then this whole bloody thing is corrupt and needs a root-and-branch reform.

Starting with getting rid of Paddy O'Brien. Cocking up is one thing; we're all human. Lying about it is different.

Oom - I'd agree. If only they would sack the buggers, we'd get somewhere. When you look at Steve Walsh being rail-roaded for going on the piss - well, hell, give me Walsh over this guy any day. At least Walsh didn't change the story.

Well you haven't actually answered the question I asked. Again, what difference does it make what he says? Surely they have enough evidence from the video - what does his opinion after the fact contribute? As I said before, surely the outcome would be no different even if Lawrence all of a sudden said Schalk was salt of the earth and didn't really mean anything by it?!?
I won't even ask what Paddy has to do with what goes on at a citing.

 

[Thomond78]

Turns out he bottled it at the hearing as well, then.

A Kiwi choking under pressure ? Say it ain't so !

:lmao:

Just occasionally, Naza, you remind us why we put up with you around here. :thumb

 

[Thomond78]

I might be a bit dim, but what difference does it make what Lawrence says at the hearing, apart from making himself look like a twat by changing his story?
Burger was cited, they had ample video evidence, so I fail to see whether Lawrence now only had a glimpse, or seats on the floor is at all relevant as to whether Burger gets banned? If he now says Burger was helping Fitzgerald get an eyelash out would it all be good?
Both Lawrence and M Le Farce (Berdos) need a size 10 up the arse, or an operation to help their balls descend!

Because if the refs are changing their story in the teeth of the evidence at the citing commission hearing, then this whole bloody thing is corrupt and needs a root-and-branch reform.

Starting with getting rid of Paddy O'Brien. Cocking up is one thing; we're all human. Lying about it is different.

Oom - I'd agree. If only they would sack the buggers, we'd get somewhere. When you look at Steve Walsh being rail-roaded for going on the piss - well, hell, give me Walsh over this guy any day. At least Walsh didn't change the story.

Well you haven't actually answered the question I asked. Again, what difference does it make what he says? Surely they have enough evidence from the video - what does his opinion after the fact contribute? As I said before, surely the outcome would be no different even if Lawrence all of a sudden said Schalk was salt of the earth and didn't really mean anything by it?!?
I won't even ask what Paddy has to do with what goes on at a citing.

Cyclo, I'm not talking about the hearing on the individual player. Agreed he's as guilty as sin and they had enough there.

What I'm talking about is more that we have to be able to trust refs, above all others, to give consistent accounts and not change their story before citing commissions. If they're changing their stories in front of citing commissions, in the teeth of the evidence, then we know:

1) We can't trust the refs not to change their stories if pressure comes on.
2) We can't trust the commissions to haul them up on it when the evidence is clear that they're changing their stories.
3) We can't trust a ref who's proven to change his story to get it right again.
4) We can't trust those who don't discipline a ref who's been shown to be changing his story in the teeth of the evidence and his own words - Lyndon Bray has actually come out and praised Lawrence for bottling this decision.
5) We can't trust the ref ranking system if those who do this aren't disciplined.
6) If nothing is done to discipline a ref found changing his story in the teeth of the evidence at a citing commission hearing, we can't trust the head of the refs - Paddy O'Brien.

Basically, this proves that rugby's disciplinary system, refs and commissions, allows an official to change his story to cover his own ass, in the teeth of the evidence, with no sanction at all.

Think about it this way; if this was a court hearing, and a cop came in changing his story like that, in the teeth of the evidence, and got praised for it - could you trust the cops again?

It's a lot more serious than what happens to one player. He's irrelevant now, to be honest. It's about the system.

 

[PaarlBok]

Turns out he bottled it at the hearing as well, then.

A Kiwi choking under pressure ? Say it ain't so !

:lmao:

Just occasionally, Naza, you remind us why we put up with you around here. :thumb

Naza = Neuter. :nta:

 

[cyclopath]

Turns out he bottled it at the hearing as well, then.

A Kiwi choking under pressure ? Say it ain't so !

:lmao:

Just occasionally, Naza, you remind us why we put up with you around here. :thumb

Naza = Neuter. :nta:

Nah, Neuter hasn't written "D'ead s'et" yet!

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Looking at this from a ref's perspective, and remember, I am pretty well as contemptious of them and their system as most of you are;
Sometimes, such as this when you see something, you think, "did I really see what I thought I just saw?"
You are really in 2 minds - wipe the prick off the field or "am I wrong - could I be mistaken - what I think I just saw is so weird - surely a player here wouldn't do that?"
To then remember what you said on the field is another thing. Do you think he is that dumb to change his story knowing all the video and audio evidence is there. He probably didn't even get time to prepare - most of these quick hearings are 'off the cuff' and to remember an incident as it is in the video, remember your words exactly as in the audio is nigh on impossible.
But you are right, he needs to grow a pair as his statement to the ref was clear and on that basis it should have been an immediate red - but take it from me - even when saying those things to the ref he would have been thinking to himself - "am I right, is what I am saying going to stuff this up, what if I am wrong?"
Refs are only human as well.

 

[Scotty]

I see there are two issues here that are greater than Thomos jumping on the NH bandwagon to have a go at Lawrence (while ostensibly talking about 'the system'):

1. We shouldn't have a mix of english language and non first language english referees officiating in games. This was already proven in the first game.

I would have expected the likes of Dickenson to ask Lawerence, 'you say at least a yellow, would you recommend a red'. When Lawerence presumably would have said 'yes'. Lawerence may not have been clear/strong enough in the first place, but the main referee also played a big part in this.

2. The judiciary system is extremely inconsistent and often weak in handing down sentences. IMO if found guilty of a clear cut gouge, a player should not be playing for at least half a year, but I wouldn't care if they don't play for 1-2 years. Surely a penalty commensurate with the performances enhancing drug ones is fair (and would bring to a halt this practise pretty damn quickly).

 

[Scarfman]

Honestly, I hate all this. I reckon play the whistle, move on. I believe that BOD should have been yellowed for his hit on DR. But they didn't even get a penalty. That kind of shit happens every game.

T78's talk of corrupt is way over the top. BL is a pretty good ref. It's a pretty tense environment out there. Players drop the ball, refs make small mistakes.

If it was up to me, there'd be no video ref, or hawk-eye, either.

 

[Moses]

As I said elsewhere: love him or hate him Dickenson would have said red card.

Great Dickinson quote during 2001 Tahs v B&I Lions when the ref asks for his recommendation after a small bruhaha "4 yellow cards".

 

[Lee Grant]

As I said elsewhere: love him or hate him Dickenson would have said red card.

Great Dickinson quote during 2001 Tahs v B&I Lions when the ref asks for his recommendation after a small bruhaha "4 yellow cards".

small?????????????? It was a donnybrook - no offence T78.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Deary me oh my,
I heartily recommend you ALL go and do your Smart Rugby and go and ref (if you can) an under say - 14 game, west sydney, pretty working class atmosphere and see how you all come out.
I can guarantee you will ALL be emotional wrecks, scared for life and vow never to ref again and whatsmore, you will have far greater tolerance for these poor chaps and what they go through.
I know they make mistakes, everyone does - but until you have walked in their shoes be very mindful of what they might be going through.

 

[Thomond78]

Looking at this from a ref's perspective, and remember, I am pretty well as contemptious of them and their system as most of you are;
Sometimes, such as this when you see something, you think, "did I really see what I thought I just saw?"
You are really in 2 minds - wipe the prick off the field or "am I wrong - could I be mistaken - what I think I just saw is so weird - surely a player here wouldn't do that?"
To then remember what you said on the field is another thing. Do you think he is that dumb to change his story knowing all the video and audio evidence is there. He probably didn't even get time to prepare - most of these quick hearings are 'off the cuff' and to remember an incident as it is in the video, remember your words exactly as in the audio is nigh on impossible.
But you are right, he needs to grow a pair as his statement to the ref was clear and on that basis it should have been an immediate red - but take it from me - even when saying those things to the ref he would have been thinking to himself - "am I right, is what I am saying going to stuff this up, what if I am wrong?"
Refs are only human as well.

They played the video evidence at the hearing, in front of him, RW. And he still changed his story.

 

[Thomond78]

As I said elsewhere: love him or hate him Dickenson would have said red card.

Great Dickinson quote during 2001 Tahs v B&I Lions when the ref asks for his recommendation after a small bruhaha "4 yellow cards".

small?????????????? It was a donnybrook - no offence T78.

Enemy ground, Lee. Of course it should be associated with the worst sort of random thuggery...

 

[rugbywhisperer]

Looking at this from a ref's perspective, and remember, I am pretty well as contemptious of them and their system as most of you are;
Sometimes, such as this when you see something, you think, "did I really see what I thought I just saw?"
You are really in 2 minds - wipe the prick off the field or "am I wrong - could I be mistaken - what I think I just saw is so weird - surely a player here wouldn't do that?"
To then remember what you said on the field is another thing. Do you think he is that dumb to change his story knowing all the video and audio evidence is there. He probably didn't even get time to prepare - most of these quick hearings are 'off the cuff' and to remember an incident as it is in the video, remember your words exactly as in the audio is nigh on impossible.
But you are right, he needs to grow a pair as his statement to the ref was clear and on that basis it should have been an immediate red - but take it from me - even when saying those things to the ref he would have been thinking to himself - "am I right, is what I am saying going to stuff this up, what if I am wrong?"
Refs are only human as well.

They played the video evidence at the hearing, in front of him, RW. And he still changed his story.

Then if he has changed his story even with the evidence in front of him he is a goose - but that is not the way I read it.
he testified on 'memory' then they brought the DVD into it.
I may be wrong, but thats the way I read the report at the head of this thread.