RWC 2011 - Quarter final 3 : Springbokke v. Wallabies CLOSED

[barbarian]

No he didn't, I'm sorry. You can think that all you want but you are just straight out wrong.

Even with the ball slowed down to ludicorus levels (which it wasn't), you had 70% possession and massive territorial advantage and still couldn't score a single try. Even then you couldn't realise the fact and take a leaf out of the Jannie de Beer playbook and slot a couple of droppies. If you had done either you would have won. But you didn't, and it wasn't Bryce;s fault.

Did Bryce make Fourie du Preez drop the ball twice in golden attacking positions? Did he make Danie Rossouw drop the ball on attack a couple of times? Did he make Morne miss his two penalty attempts?

I have seen games where it could be argues the ref cost them the match. There were no decisions made or not made in this game that directly lead to tries scored or not scored. SA simply weren't good enough to win with 70% possession. The early plane home was entirely justified.

 

[whatty]

That is your opinion barbarian good on you I will live comfortably with mine.

Missing scoring opportunities to a game yes we should have one is another aspect and TOTALLY unrelated to the ref discussion we are having!

 

[fatprop]

The Boks should have just drop kicked Aus out of the game, I still don't know why they didn't.

They should have taken the ref out of it.

If Pocock is owning the breakdown, legally or illegally, just limit his opportunities.

Keep it tight, ensure you have blockers, play set piece to set piece and just have Steyn turnover the the score board 3 points at a time.

 

[mark_s]

There was a reaction to Bryce after the Australia-Ireland game, but certainly not to the level seen after this game. No-one suggested Bryce cost us the game against Ireland, but there have been plenty of Saffers who have said exactly that about this game. No-one made facebook groups or mocked up images.

And I do agree with Scotty- he missed a lot of things on our side too. Penalty offences like Habana deliberately knocking down a QC (Quade Cooper) pass (which was ruled mystifyingly as a forward pass), or Morne Steyn moving off his line and shouldering Digby Ioane after he had kicked the ball with no-one in front of him. I am not trying to suggest it all evened out, but I certainly don't think Bryce cost SA the game.

Even the ruck infringements went both ways. Sure we had our hands all over the ball, but there were plenty of instances of Saffers diving over or coming from the side to stop us. I can understand a bit of the outrage in SA, but think it is a bit over the top and not comparable to the Aus-Ireland game.

Bryce also missed SA breaking from their line early on JOC (James O'Connor)’s missed conversion. He should have been allowed to try again.

Why didn't SA maul more? No one seems to be asking that.

The gall of Andre Watson is amazing. Has he seriously thought about what would have happened to his career if England hadn’t of got home in the 2003 RWC final given his scrum rulings. Not wanting to open a can of worms but I find the comments by the SA ref’s associations deplorable.

There is a valid question as to why Bryce was in charge of this game as I reckon atleast 9 out of every 10 rugby fans from all countries would not rate him in the top 10 refs in the world.

 

[Godfrey]

That is your opinion barbarian good on you I will live comfortably with mine.

Missing scoring opportunities to a game yes we should have one is another aspect and TOTALLY unrelated to the ref discussion we are having!

It's not unrelated at all if you're saying the ref cost you the game. Missed opportunities lost you the game, simple as that. One of the try-saving tackles not made or a couple of balls not dropped and you would have won - Bryce Lawrence and all. If SA's ball wasn't slowed down who's to say you would have done anything with it?

 

[No4918]

If Burger hadnt been outmuscled by Genia to lead to the turn over from which we scored then SA would have won. Burger is therefore soft and lost SA the game.

 

[whatty]

It's not unrelated at all if you're saying the ref cost you the game. Missed opportunities lost you the game, simple as that. One of the try-saving tackles not made or a couple of balls not dropped and you would have won - Bryce Lawrence and all. If SA's ball wasn't slowed down who's to say you would have done anything with it?

Quick ball normally wins matches, we had limited/none quick ball because of the way it was reffed. So it goes without saying with that much ball we should have had plenty MORE opportunities and who knows we may not have cocked up some of them.

But I do agree with Fatprop just like the AB's in 2007 we should have taken the ref out of the equation. But a rather big equation to disperse of.

Just my opinion...and still is.

 

[Richo]

Hey, Whatty, if it makes you feel better to think you lost the game because of the ref and not because your team wasted opportunities and played dumb rugby -- well, go right ahead.

 

[Richo]

Quick ball normally wins matches, we had limited/none quick ball because of the way it was reffed. So it goes without saying with that much ball we should have had plenty MORE opportunities and who knows we may not have cocked up some of them.

But I do agree with Fatprop just like the AB's in 2007 we should have taken the ref out of the equation. But a rather big equation to disperse of.

Just my opinion...and still is.

Yep, cos Bryce only screwed one side. He's incompetent, not biased.

 

[whatty]

Hey, Whatty, if it makes you feel better to think you lost the game because of the ref and not because your team wasted opportunities and played dumb rugby -- well, go right ahead.

Na still feel shyte

Rico NOT Fair DUDE at no time have I called him biased to one side or the other!!!!!!!!!!!!

He refused to ref the breakdown and award hands in etc look at the stats, lowest penalty count for just about any knock out game. Why, possibly did not want to award some controversial penalty?

Who suffered? The team with ball in hand looking for quick ball.

 

[Brisbok]

Hey, Whatty, if it makes you feel better to think you lost the game because of the ref and not because your team wasted opportunities and played dumb rugby -- well, go right ahead.

Richo - maybe slightly off topic, but if it makes you feel better that your team won because of courageous defence and players putting their bodies on the line rather than the opposition absolutely dominating, but playing a stupid brand of rugby and allowing far too many 'unforced' errors...then go right ahead.

I don't think your opposition this weekend will be as wasteful as the Boks were.

 

[Godfrey]

Yep, cos Bryce only screwed one side. He's incompetent, not biased.

Exactly, how well would SA have gone with 1 red card and two potential yellows.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think any of us consider ourselves anything but lucky that we won that match. We did defend courageously but that shouldn't have won us the game.

South Africa should have won with all their possession and territory but didn't. It was like you had 15 Herschelle Gibbs out there.

 

[Brisbok]

I don't think any of us consider ourselves anything but lucky that we won that match. We did defend courageously but that shouldn't have won us the game.
South Africa should have won with all their possession and territory but didn't. It was like you had 15 Herschelle Gibbs out there.

I think it is the equivalent in football (soccer) of one team having 20 strikes on target, all straight at the goalkeeper, with the other team having 1 strike on target and scoring - winning the game 1-0. Fair play to the goalkeeper for making those saves, but in reality, since they were straight at the keeper they should be regulation saves for any keeper worth his salt.

 

[Jnor]

I don't think any of us consider ourselves anything but lucky that we won that match. We did defend courageously but that shouldn't have won us the game.

South Africa should have won with all their possession and territory but didn't. It was like you had 15 Herschelle Gibbs out there.

:lmao:

 

[Richo]

Na still feel shyte

Rico NOT Fair DUDE at no time have I called him biased to one side or the other!!!!!!!!!!!!

He refused to ref the breakdown and award hands in etc look at the stats, lowest penalty count for just about any knock out game. Why, possibly did not want to award some controversial penalty?

Who suffered? The team with ball in hand looking for quick ball.

My comment was meant to be somewhat flippant. You might not say he is biased, but you do say that his APPROACH to refereeing favoured one side. As Godfrey points out, though, slowing down the ball was not the only thing Bryce missed so to suggest that THIS is what lost you the match isn't fair either. If he'd picked up on Burger's eye gouge, you'd have been playing with 14 men. And what if he been calling incorrect entry... or interference with the conversion attempt... or... or... or...

Bryce didn't lose the Boks the game. The Boks lost the game. But I'm guessing we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[whatty]

If he'd picked up on Burger's eye gouge,

Good grief and know it a definite DELIBERATE Eye Gouge.

Cheers /ignore

 

[chasmac]

If Burger hadnt been outmuscled by Genia to lead to the turn over from which we scored then SA would have won. Burger is therefore soft and lost SA the game.

I have a theory that starts with Burger and ends with Cooper.

The Yarpies are giving Burger a big wrap for what he achieved in the QF loss. I partially agree. He was good, he didn't make many mistakes, he was committed, he got through alot of work.
Where I disagree goes back to their gameplan. While he didn't make mistakes, wasn't overpowered etc..... he was still reasonably contained. He challenged the Wallabies defense but he didn't challenge them enough to make them crack. He carried the ball alot at 1st and second receiver, it should have been Habana or Lambie or a player who can create holes.

The Wallabies need Cooper to be at first and second receiver purely for the reason that he challenges the defense more than any other player in the team. It would be ignorant to think that the Wallaby big forwards will break open the Kiwi defense simply through rugby league type hitups.

A qualification though; We still need the hitups, but don't expect them to result in linebreaks and tries. They are to set up further phases and to manipulate defensive structures.

 

[Scarfman]

I find Watson's comment very very surprising. OK, Bryce was crap, and perhaps RSA copped most of the bad stuff. But it's amazing to hear the head of South African refs (and I thought - the next iRB head of refs) lose his cool like this.

Is Watson (a) just losing his cool as a South African rugby fan, or (b) having a go at Paddy O'Brien for ever appointing him.

 

[No4918]

With players like Houggard and Lambie in the halves they have guys there that can challenge the defence. For some reason rhey stuck with the same old game plan though. Thank god it didnt work or we would be stuck with it for 4 more years. Hopefully the new Boks coach recognises this and utilises those guys with the likes of deJongh, Fourie, Aplon and F Steyn they have all the size, speed and skill you need to run the ball.