Bryce Lawrence- Is The Mystery Explained?

Its been a source of wonder to me that Bryce Lawrence has held his job for so long. IMHO, his performances from day one of his refereeing career have been lamentable.

I was shocked to see his name on the list of referees for the RWC. My apprehension was well founded. Lawrence’s appearances were as bad as ever.

What is wrong at the IRB that they are apparently so blind to the incompetence so many others can so plainly see?

Today I came upon this little known fact

Lawrence is of course, the son of New Zealander Keith Lawrence, who is the former boss of referees in the country and now heads the IRB’s refereeing development office.

Well well well…..



Categories: Culture

101 replies

  1. Is bias against South African rugby teams hereditary in the Lawrence family?
    This article from 1999 would suggest that it is:-
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=4302

    Like

  2. Well, after reading that, I’d say there was definitely room for a deeply held grudge. 🙂

    Like

  3. Now that’s truly hilarious, IRB management allowed the appearance of possible nepotism to concern them not one little bit.
    Just as well there are no Indian bookmakers involved.
    Better get the competent Aussie, O’Neil, running the IRB asap.

    Richie has a stand in at training. Ominous.

    Like

  4. Sika – If Richie has a stand-in, then the AB’s have breached IRB rules. My understanding is that the squad consists of 30 players only and before a player can substituted, he has to be declared medically unfit and discharged from the squad (and not be allowed to return) before a substitution is be made…….. But then that’s not as serious as swapping balls or wearing mouth-guards with manufacturers logos on.

    The IRB is a joke.

    Like

  5. All Blacks management played down Todd’s presence, saying the 23-year-old was coming to Auckland to visit his girlfriend and he would not train with the squad tomorrow.
    Mmmmmm……….it sounds like there is a bit of skulldugery going on. Of course the IRB will do nothing as it’s only one of the ‘Old Boys Club’ misbehaving and not a minor Union.

    Like

  6. Ex SA ref André Watson believes that Bryce will make a public statement once he is permitted to, after the World Cup ends. Not sure what he will say or how he can possibly defend his lack of control at the breakdown but kudos to him if he does face the media.

    Should he admit his error then it would reflect even worse on the IRB who have been mum on his performance.

    Like

  7. The IRB are just arrogant unaccountable pricks.

    If there was any justice, Paddy O’Brien would have been fired a long time ago for allowing Lawrence to keep on reffing games when he obviously could not do the job.

    Like

  8. IT is pathic that an incompetent like Bryce can wreck SA chance of being the Champions.
    The moral loss is compounded by the financial loss. What a fool he is. Unforgivable.
    He should be banned from international and provincial rugby reffing.

    Like

  9. Vern…..considering that the Boks couldn’t score a try with 76% of the territory and 56% of possession, I’ve come to the conclusion that they mostly weren’t good enough.

    Like

  10. And Vern….in case you think that Bryce blew up or let the Aussies scavenge every breakdown….the Boks had 15 (yep, fifteen) phase ball on no less than 5 occasions.
    There’s your real problem.

    Like

  11. What does it help if Bryce never refs. a game again? There should rather be a rematch of the game between SA and AUS. Otherwise NZ just proves many suspicions right of people who think NZ were afraid of SA and thus cheated them out the world cup through their referees. To me this world cup just turned out to be one huge bad joke and a farse. Im not gonna waste my time watching any more games if the trophy’s been bought by NZ long before the world cup started. I didnt know NZ wanted that trophy sooo much. That they would sell their souls to get it. What a joke. Rugby now resembles cricket more and more with there match fixing tactics.

    Like

  12. Nah, jp matey.
    No conspiracy, bad ref….. but the Aussies would have beaten you all ends up with a 50-50 share of territory, possession, penalties, lineouts and phase retention.
    Look at their recent record vs the Boks.

    I’ve got another theory.
    Had that old ANC terrorist Mandela been in the stands watching and managed to threatened Bryce with a necklacing, I bet you get your desired result.
    You jappies forgot to bring your lucky charm.

    Like

  13. Mandela an ANC terrorist? You’re a little fucked in the head mate. And your take on the game: do you know anything about rugby?
    I don’t give a flying crap who won as long as it was fairplay. Since there was none of that because of that idiotic ref we’ll never know if Australia actually deserved to go through to the next round. Hollow victory.

    Like

  14. Well, son…..I do know that the Sth Efricens had some wee problems that they’d understandably like to blame on the ref :
    76% territory, 56% possession.
    Won the penalty count with 6 , 4 went to the Aussies .
    Won the lineout count with 14…..the Aussies won 8.
    Held possession for 15 phases on 5 separate occasions.

    And still these clowns want to blame the ref for not scoring a try?
    Its called cognitive dissonance.

    You weren’t good enough even with a huge advantage in all the match stats, suck it up.

    Like

  15. Kangaroo

    Let’s see if I can help us decide who in reality is “a little fucked in the head”
    “Mandela an ANC terrorist?”
    Why yes, mate.
    You had some other ideologically derived political view I take it, Kanga?

    “Amnesty International never accepted him as a political prisoner. Even as the world finally woke up to how wicked Winnie Mandela is, we must face reality about how dangerous and deceitful Nelson Mandela has been.

    The fact is that even Amnesty International refused to take on Nelson Mandela’s case because they asserted that he was no political prisoner but had committed numerous violent crimes and had had a fair trial and a reasonable sentence.
    Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. He had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists.
    South African President P.W. Botha had, on a number of occasions, offered Nelson Mandela freedom from prison, if he would only renounce terrorist violence. This Mandela refused to do.”

    Saint Nelson was banned from entry to the US, without special permission from the Sec of State, on a terrorist watch list, until 2008.

    The truth burns, doesn’t it….mate.

    Like

  16. Sika

    WTF you moron?

    forget your comments about Mandela- talk about conspiracy theories!

    Rugby is supposed to be played within a set of rules and laws. If one team breaks a rule, the other one should be awarded a penalty. the boks should have been awarde at least 6 penalties in front of goal- THAT is how you make your possession, territorial advantage and opportunities count! Tight games like these are almost always decided by penalties (not by scoring tries) – if the ref refuses to award any, you can stand on your head and whistle through your arsehole but you will not win the game!

    BTW- how the hell does a side make 151 tackles but only concede 6 penalties?? (by contrast – SA made 50 tackles yet conceded 4??). Either this wallaby team is the most disciplined rugby team in the history of rugby union, OR ( is it perhaps possible???) that the ref maybe did not enforce the rules at the breakdown strictly enough?

    Like

  17. Australia Bought the Ref over and you cant say anything about it.The games over now,lets move on now.Australia will get their day, just you see.

    Like

  18. Mandela’s actions cannot be polarised – yes he was a terrorist – of course! Everyone acts like he single-handedly destroyed Apartheid or something. It ended because of economic reasons more than anything else if we’re honest with ourselves.

    Anyway, how is it relevant to debate about social and historic phenomena when this thread was started about rugby?

    The truth is that South Africa had all the ball and all the territory but were horrific at using it constructively. On the other hand, it has been put across in earlier posts as if the South Africans magically arrived with the ball in their hands over and over. The truth is that the Australians were deplorable at retaining possession and ended up in a glorified version of tackling practise (which they proved to be good at). The stats show the SA should have won (stats they deservedly earned), the score says Australia did win (mostly because of AMAZING defence and a blunder by SA on their own line). In the midst of this we witnessed some of the worst refereeing I have ever seen.

    So patrioric nonsense, schoolgirl-esque bitching, and endless debates aside – its all done and dusted now. If the IRB allowed such things as re-matches under extraneous conditions in world cups then perhaps this would be a good case but hey, they don’t – move on!

    Like

  19. It is easy to criticise SA and say that they should have scored tries, whilst the truth is their ball was slowed down at every opportunity (mostly illegally), thus allowing Australia to get their defences organised.

    In that lies the problem, no use getting 15 pahses if your opponent may slow down your ball. The whole idea of building phases is to catch defences off guard and slow ball doesn’t allow that.

    That is where the referee must come in and penalise the offending team, if he doesn’t he isn’t doing his job and encouraging the defending team to transgress without fear of consequences for their actions.

    Like

  20. Let us all be honest. Sika, how can you bring Mandela into this conversation. He has got nothing to do with the RWC 2011. That he was a terrorist or not has nothing to do with it. (De Klerk and his cronies according to the same principles followed by Mandela were also terrorists.)

    That Mr (sic) Bryce Lawrence is a terrorist of the RWC is a definite YES. He has proved to have terrorized the total world cup result with his method of Refereeing, and it was allowed by his piers. However, SA players were their own worst enemies as well.

    Bottomline is, we are out of the World Cup. Bad Ref, Bad Play or whatever that may have caused our exit, we must learn out of it.

    Like

  21. as a school teacher and a rugby coach for 28 years i am totally disgusted at the refereeing of the qf between sa and australia.On watching the game it was blatantly obvious that something was wrong.I have been asked constantly in the past week by both boys and girls why the game was not refereed fairly.I hope that the irb have the moral fibre and guts to make this world cup null and void.Better still replay the quarters giving all an equal chance to progress.Iam an ulster and ireland supporter with no axe to grind other than fairness.The best team at world cup was made to go home to help new zealand win . New Zealand should be seriously embarassed. stephen

    Like

  22. I’ll leave you with a couple of vignettes from Spiro’s column……..whining Bokkies.

    “Watson’s attack is essentially an attack on the Wallabies. The inference is that they could not have defeated the Springboks without the help of the referee.
    Everything about these propositions is wrong. There is a video clip doing the rounds on the internet, for instance, showing Schalk Burger coming in the side of a ruck and twice trying to yank and pull David Pocock , who is in a perfect body position, off the ball. The ball itself is being held between his legs by Heinrich Brussow, who is lying on the ground. There are several penalty infringements here, all them being perpetrated by Springboks players. Several Wallabies are seen throwing their hands up in vain looking for a penalty. So much for Watson’s allegation that the breakdowns were being refereed totally in favour of the Wallabies.”

    “However there was also a deliberate knockdown by the Boks when Australia were deep in attack. This is clearly a cynical, yellow card offence in exactly the same way Smit was yellow carded in the previous match against Samoa. This could also have seen a significantly different outcome in the game.
    Also, those Boks claiming that the forward pass which resulted in the disallowing of the Lambie try are failing to remember that Habana tackled Cooper in the air and then Matfield, Burger, Roussow all went off their feet to secure the turnover. Two very clear penalties before the (marginal) forward pass.
    Yes, Lawrence had a very poor game but the claims of Boks supporters and Andre Watson are myopic in the extreme.”

    “Of all the infringements – on both sides – I thought the worst and most dangerous may have been Samo’s leg taken out from under him in the linout, which caused the penalty, which led to the points, that were the winning margin. I thought at the time it was a yellow card infringement – there was intent from my viewing of the incident, and it was dangerous – yet only a penalty was given.
    The Springboks and their supporters should be grateful they did not play the last 10 minutes down a man. The last part of an epic match may have been very very different had the yellow card been given.”

    It’s impossible to spin the match stats away fellas, you had much more opportunity and blew it big time…….maybe it’s karma due to having a retired terrorist as your #1 supporter?

    Like

  23. Just one more….

    stephen
    “The best team at world cup was made to go home to help new zealand win.”

    stephen is badly informed.
    The Boks were never better than third favourite with as many bookmakers as you want to consult (Centrebet, Sportsbet, Tab)….

    ie. the Boks were judged by the serious money to be the third best team in the RWC.
    It seems even that was overly optimistic.

    Happy delusions.

    Like

  24. Sika, nobody will ever accuse you of being unbiased, will they?

    Like

  25. Really darius?

    Please explain which objective facts I’ve repeated were in any way inaccurate, I guess those facts were beyond embarrassing for a Bok team that choked?

    Like

  26. Sika is a joke. And he/she/it talks too much.

    Like

  27. well, as to being a terrorist, its seems a bit blind sided. Yes, Mandela was a leader in exile, but do you really want the stats on the horrors been perpetrated on the native population of South Africa that caused the “blacks” to rise up in a struggle that included the arm struggle.

    Or are you merely saying that to oppose a government automatically makes you a terrorist. Therefore the Jews and the French that opposed Hitler were all terrorist. Maybe, but the terror was employed with a legitimate reason, to overthrow tyranny and oppression. Same as Nelson Mandela.

    What you seemed to have overlooked is the fact that he insisted on staying in prison because he was making a point, that he would not be free until all the people where free. That he would not accept freedom until the political parties were unbanned.

    Once that had happened, Mandela was ALWAYS an advocate for peace and for bringing all the nations together. or perhaps you missed the part where he got the Nobel Peace prize.

    So, in essence Sika, you show a shocking lack of knowledge, and an incredible amount of blindness or sheer refusal to face facts, and one would tend to wonder how much that spills over in your rugby knowledge.

    A ref is expected to apply the rule, when a set of rules is blatantly not enforced the team that trained according to those rules and still played according to them would be left at a disadvantage. Austrialia was better at playing without the rules, SA should have followed, but they didn’t.

    It is like two boxers going at each other, and then the ref allows kicking and grappling. Yes, one of the boxers might be able to handle it better and win, but can that be considered a boxing victory…

    so yeah, a number of your “facts” don’t ring true…

    Like

  28. Bwaaaa…..
    Denial of straight up facts will eventually render your struggling brain totally unusable.

    “He… pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilizing terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists.”

    QED

    Yep, Nelson was “ALWAYS an advocate for peace” when he wasn’t supervising the MK who killed them, I guess……Hint: you have extraordinary logic issues.

    Like

  29. Sika is an idiot-

    If only you were half the man.

    Like

  30. Half an organiser of murdering terrorists ?
    Phew, guess that’s better than being a complete organiser of murdering terrorists.

    Again, what factual disagreement do you have with my comments re Mandela?

    None you can think of?
    I thought not.

    Don’t misunderstand me, you can worship the Saintly Nelson as you choose, just don’t claim he wasn’t a fairly convicted terrorist.

    Like

  31. it seems you springbok zealots have forgotten that south africa was beaten by 33 points and 19 points by the abs and aus in the tri nations? Admittedly both games away from home but dont scorelines like that ring any kind of alarm bells? Also consider the super 15 where SA only managed to have one team bumble their way into the semis then to be soundly beaten on a home ground. Fact is the springboks went into the world cup tournament on poor form which played out in pool play with a narrow victory over wales and a very unconvincing win over samoa. If you stop and think about it they were never a heavyweight contender for the 2011 rwc and the tight quarter final scoreline is very flattering to them. Blaming the referee for a disappointing exit is for fools who have very little rugby knowledge but plenty of team pride. Anybody with even a little rugby knowledge knows that when brussouw went off in the first half pocock and elsom took control of the breakdown and pushed the rules and the ref to their very limits like professionals. Burger and company on the other hand folded like schoolboys. Every ref in evey game misses things and makes mistakes but this game was not exceptional at all. Lawrence was consistent at all times which was his job. The springboks did not play to the rules as they were presented to them and the wallabies did. As for the conspiracy theorists amongst you, the single worst decision lawrence made was to not even penalise steyn for obstructing digby Ioane in the second half during a movement which could have resulted in a try. Penalty try? Yellow card? Maybe a northern hemisphere ref would have been a different story. Samos dangerous bone crunching lineout landing should have warranted a card too. Fittingly it was the points kicked as a result of this mongrel act that provided the margin. There is no inquiry, there is no sacking, there is no fine, there is no public flogging, there is just a bunch of sore losers who are bringing shame to their team. get over it

    Like

  32. Well I’m shocked richie…..
    You mean the Boks aren’t the World’s best Rugby team and the actual RWC winner…. but for a marginal ref v Aust??

    OMG.

    Like

  33. Richie, your ability to reason is akin to the village idiot being major. You seem to forget that SA sent a second string team to Oz and NZ, did you read the paper? Or have you conveniently forgotten to add that into your argument.

    As much as you want to deny that a team who has been pnealised once every 9 rucks previously in the tournamnet and suddenly get only a penalty evey 45 rucks, tells the story.

    South Africans aren’t blaming the referee for the loss, they are aware of the fact that they should have won in spite of the referee.

    It is biased bitter idiotic people like you that winds them up into a frnzy, because you have to face it, SA was the only team that could stop NZ.

    Wake up for once in your life and clear the fog.

    Like

  34. “South Africans aren’t blaming the referee for the loss”

    It gets even more hilarious if possible, poor ‘ol darius, matey…….

    TRY REREADING ALL THE COMMENTS FROM # 1.

    You aren’t blaming the ref ???……in what universe???

    With an intellect like that no wonder the ANC rolled you.

    Like

  35. Jesus Fucking Christ guys, get over it. To be honest Sika seems to have nothing better to do than try wind you up.
    Yes Bryce was a terrible ref
    yes the Springboks should have but didnt win, and Bryce most certainly did contribute to that.
    No the game shouldnt be replayed, otherwise theres another 100 previous games that should be.
    But maybe there should be a right to view using the video ref, and 3 unfounded strikes and then your ignored.
    And yes Sika i believe your right, South Africa were probably 3rd favorites before the tournament, but to be honest during the tournament Aussie took their place and then some (like maybe 5th).
    And in my honest opinion the All Blacks are the best team in rugby at the moment, and they would have beaten South Africa regardless of them being cheated by the ref.
    And finally WTF has ANC got to do with rugby?
    SIKA get your facts straight and try ot to be a baised prick who thinks he knows it all.Where do you live? Have you lived in Africa or New Zealand or Aussie? Or are you a disgruntled Fiji supporter?
    In my opinion the worst ref decision was the Wales vs France game. And instead of a great final of New Zealand vs Wales we have the lucky crappy French.

    Like

  36. Sigh, Sika, I guess reading is also a problem for you. I clearly stated that AFTER opposing political parties was unbanned that he was alaways and advocate for peace, but I guess your particular band of blindness is incapable of seeing anything that doesn’t agree with your world view.

    to quote the relevant section
    “That he would not accept freedom until the political parties were unbanned.

    Once that had happened, Mandela was ALWAYS an advocate for peace and for bringing all the nations together. or perhaps you missed the part where he got the Nobel Peace prize.”

    And yes, he was involved in an armed struggle, and the MK was the military wing of the ANC, the apartheid government (and Israel) classified that as being terrorist.

    But what would you do Sika, if you were denied a vote in your own land, denied ownership of land in your own country? Denied a right to seek work in your land, forced to carry a pass which if not on your person would make you subject to prison and a beating? Being kicked out of your home and told that you are not a citizen. Being forced to the back of the bus, etc… ??? Would you humbly bow the leg, tug the forelock and say, “yes baas” , despite the fact that you, and others oppressed like you are by far the majority in the land.

    (and this is not to mention the real terrorist war waged in South Africa, by the racist apartheid governemt, that included detention without trial, ie, no need to prove guilt, if they don’t like you they can lock you up forever, like my father, who was locked up for the crime of being the chairman of our School’s Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA)). Our school was Harold Cressy High School, the first Black matriculant to attend varisty. Or the fact that to gather in a group of more than 3 people was illegal. yes, soccer and rugby was illegal. he was kept without trial in a cell for 6months. Due to the fact that the association of parents, teachers and students were more than 4 people. I was in grade 8 at the time.

    A friend of mine was pulled into a police van, beaten up, and chucked in a cell, released the next day, no explanation was ever given… he was mixed race. All allowed and in fact encourged by the state.

    And would you just sit and twiddle your thumbs while your people starved, you probably wouldn’t, yet you have the gall to call the people that rose up to fight that system terrorist. We called them freedom fighters. and yes, many of them stepped on to the gravy train and now exploit their struggle credentials, but Mandela was never one of them. He fought for all the people and in fact deliberately moved away from a hardline stance towards his previous oppressors.

    anyone calling him a terrorists is willfully blind. And yes, I am not turning a blind eye to the policy of making the country ungovernable, called terrorism by the racists, or the fact that the ANC had a military wing (which only made sense as we had the numbers), but I am looking that at the fact that when they were made redundant and an actual road to peaceful negotiations existed, that the peaceful option was exercised.

    This could never have happened while we we still politically banned and our people being assassinated, but it could and did happen when a blanket pardon was given for uprisings, parties unbanned and real negotiations taking place. Then peace was pursued, and you yourself can not name any act of terrorism after that which was santified by Mandela.

    And just getting back to the point on rugby. Yes, SA lost, yes, they could have overcome the fact that they weren’t playing according to the accepted rugby rules, yes, everything worked out in the favour of NZ, both potential challegers being removed by suspect reffing, but life goes on….

    You can not say that there wasn’t an unfair advantage to not applying the rules.

    Like

  37. Hehe …yeh what he above says too.

    Like

  38. So the new Bokie commenters have now done a 180 compared to the comments of their compatriots at the beginning of this thread and have backed down or highly modified their ref claims of the Boks alone being disadvantaged by the ref.

    See how you make good progress when you open both eyes, kiddies.

    Like

  39. And thanks Justin….for your long concession that Mandela is a retired terrorist.

    Like

  40. Sika is still an idiot

    Freedom fighter. Take it u view apartheid as a good thing.

    Like

  41. Lol @ Sika. Thanks for proving that you have nothing worth saying or responding to.
    In your view anyone who fights against an oppressive regime must be considered a terrorist.

    But to all the other people that are less of an idiot than Sika (ie, the rest of the world) I will note that the reffing was consistently unfair in a way that penalised SA more.

    Would they have won if the ref blew by the rules of the game, probably, AUS was not impressive and needed the SA attack to be slowed to prevent tries. This was shown by their dismal showing against NZ when they had to play by the rules.
    Could SA have defeated NZ, we will never know.

    Before this match I was rooting for NZ as they play exciting rugby. The Boks are plain boring.

    But it seems to me that people other than the 30 on the field have decided to make this a NZ cup, finally.

    And that doesn’t go down right.

    Like

  42. Poor Justin.
    So Nelson is a self confessed murdering terrorist but it doesn’t matter?……..noted.
    Nelson admitted to “signing off”, as leader of MK, on the Church St bombings while in prison.

    Here’s a long bit of history, the bodies are civilians, they won’t mind tho….Nelson’s a “freedom fighter”, you see.

    http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

    Like

  43. Sika, firstly I don’t want to get into politics, but Nelson Mandela fought the struggle for equal rights for the majority of people in SA. He did what has happened many times in world history, labelled as different things in different times during history.

    Since his release he has always advocated peace. And has meant much to our country.

    As far as the rugby.

    If some South Africans are calling for a rematch, then that is but only their opinion. If some are blaming the referee then once again that is their opinion.

    The reality is this. The referee never regulated what Pocock did at the breakdown, where as the contrast of his effectiveness was clear when Craig Joubert regulated not only him but also Richie McCaw from early on in the game.

    This made the breakdwon a fair contest.

    New Zealand had 11 turnn overs conceded, Couth Africa 24. Two main reasons. Brussow’s injury and BRUCE Lawrence.

    It is not about wanting it all to be replayed, it is about recognising the fact that Bruce Lawrence had an impact on a match that should not have happened.

    Just a little education whilst we are all busy.

    Bok is the singular term.
    BoKKe is the plural

    Hence it is Bokkie and not bokie..

    Like

  44. Sigh.
    So much verbage!! I don’t think people outside South Africa appreciate how much the Springboks are venerated as icons of Sporting excellence. Justifiably, I think.

    If a Rugby fan looks at the history of rugby union, the Springboks shine through as feared and prolific practioners of the Sport.

    Along with the All Blacks, the Springboks are statistically the best team over the last 50 years.
    As current World Champions we are naturally disappointed that the Boks lost to Australia, especially given our dominance of the possession.
    I would have liked to have seen a Northern hemishere referee in charge of that game which would seem to be a logical thing to do to stop any inference of favouritism.
    Alas, it is all over and we will move on!!
    But we won’t forget Bryce Lawrence for a long time!!

    Like

  45. Jeeez…..is it something they put in the water, darius?
    Your’s is psychiatrist grade cognitive dissonance.

    “since his release he has always advocated peace”……try reading my link http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enemy.html

    Nelson is an unreconstructed Marxist and was recently on his way to Libya to present a “Freedom Medal” or some such to Qadaffi before the subject of Nelson’s affection got zapped by those he was trying to visit his “freedom” on.

    No wonder your professional / technical class are fleeing the SA cesspit at the speed of light .

    Like

  46. Sika, you are as ignorant as you are arrogant and opinionated.

    The speed of light is of yet not attainable to us humans. Perhaps you read one Superman comic to many. It is only a character dreamt up for entertainment purposes.

    This cesspit as you call it is still one of the best places on earth to live.

    Many of those people leaving our shores leave for more reasons than what they tell you. The fact that you guys speak to people that have left the country and provide you with their account of why they left is about as reliable as your comments.

    The quality of life here for those who have just a smidgeon of ambition is high, comfortable and with the climate we have great for outdoor acticities.

    Sure we have problems, but there isn’t a country out there who doesn’t have their issues.

    Your opinion about Nelson Mandela is about what you read in the papers and hence like a little sheep you follow popular opinion. And that is about as original as a grain of sand.

    Like

    • Bwahahahahaha, lol Sika, you crack me up… Inability to respond to issues raised, inability to reason…

      Lol, darious be very careful about arguing with Sika, remember the old adage, “Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

      Note, he never answers the points raised nor does he bother to respond to different viewpoints, all he does is sling mud, the equivalent to sticking his fingers into his ears, sticking his tongue out and shouting “Your mama is fat”, despite having seen your mother and knowing that she is the hottest milf in the neighbourhood.

      And his opinion is not from the papers, but from far right conspiracy theorists, it wouldn’t surprise me if Sika is a a dyed in the wool white supremacist. If Austrialian he is probably advocating more abuses for the Aboringines and further curtailing of their freedoms.

      And really quoting from a propaganda piece like terrorist watch, please. And by the way, it is no surprise to anyone that Mandela was a communist. Heck, there is still an alliance with the South African Communist party so the fact that that article thinks that South Africans don’t know that, shows the level of knowledge of the writer, which is to say none at all.

      But lets give Sika the benefit of the doubt, lets pretend he is not the idiot that he has so far shown himself to be and lets attempt to get him to pull his fingers out of his ears and raise a logical argument. Lets see if he will actually tackle the issues and respond to questions addressed to him.

      If you were placed into the situation of a black south african at the time, deprived of home, citizenship, basic human rights and often life, not just for you, but all your friends, family and children. Deprived of a decent education being forced to attend at buntu edcuation schools which only teach you enough to be a better source of slave labour.

      You had tried peaceful protest, for more than 20 years, but were expelled for a peaceful strike at college, detained for belonging to an organisation that was found a South African court of law to be peaceful. you started a peaceful campaign in 1949 “1949 – On 17 December the Youth League’s ‘Program of Action’ to achieve full citizenship and direct parliamentary representation for all South Africans is adopted by the ANC at its annual conference. The program advocates the use of boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience and noncooperation.” For that your members get shot, tortured, detained without trial, letterbombed, etc… and meanwhile your people are still oppressed, still starving and their dilemma still ignored by the world at large, (see USA policies at the time support the Oppressive SA regime).

      So in 1952 Mandela starts actively recruiting people to resist unjust laws. no violence, and this can be seen in the arrest and subsequent court case of Mandela in December 1956 and which continued to 1961. In this trial, Mandela was acquitted of all charges and the ANC was found to be a non-violent organisation. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Trial & http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/mandela.html .

      At that stage, seeing that they were getting nowhere with a non-violent protest and more and more inhumanity were practiced on our people, the leaders of the struggle, and not just the ANC, started to discuss other options to on-violent struggle. As you can see, a rather lenght and ultimately fruitless time of peaceful struggle, though it clearly shows that violence was not the first option and reluctantly undertaken.

      After this trial, and their release from detention, yes, they were kept in prison though 6 years for the trial, that the military wing of the anc was formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela

      So, my question to you, Sika, would you have kept on with the non – violent protests, despite clear evidence of it not going anywhere and the state merely making it more unbearable to live, after trying it for a decade without success and with no support from the international community. What would you do Sika… ???

      Maybe try a mass action, where it is shown that the people will not abide unjust laws. How about burning your pass books, (see pass laws @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pass_laws).

      it was organised, not by the ANC, but by the PAC in 1960, while mandela was still being detained while on trial. The objective was to burn the passes en masse and allow themselves to be arrested. (This was the same tactic employed by Ghandi while he was in South Africa (but I guess Sika considers Ghandi a terrorist as well). Instead of arresting the cops opened fire with live ammo, against men women and children, Sixty-nine black Africans are killed and 186 wounded. Most have been shot in the back, ie while running away.

      So faced with the this and other actions to peaceful protest, what would you do Sika, what would you do?

      In the trial that you speak about , with a lot of glaring inaccuracies, for example, he did not plead guilty to 156 counts of terrorism, he was in fact found guilty by an South African court in racist South Africa of 4 counts of capital sabatoge, which he admitted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivonia_Trial)

      Where did you get your info, or was it just an inflammatory remark? Below is a direct copy of paste from wiki.

      :In his statement from the dock at the opening of the defence case in the trial on 20 April 1964 at Pretoria Supreme Court, Mandela laid out the reasoning in the ANC’s choice to use violence as a tactic.[52] His statement described how the ANC had used peaceful means to resist apartheid for years until the Sharpeville Massacre.[53] That event coupled with the referendum establishing the Republic of South Africa and the declaration of a state of emergency along with the banning of the ANC made it clear to Mandela and his compatriots that their only choice was to resist through acts of sabotage and that doing otherwise would have been tantamount to unconditional surrender.[53] Mandela went on to explain how they developed the Manifesto of Umkhonto we Sizwe on 16 December 1961 intent on exposing the failure of the National Party’s policies after the economy would be threatened by foreigners’ unwillingness to risk investing in the country.[54] He closed his statement with these words: “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

      My next question to you, Sika, is in light of the above in what way is he wrong in the decision that he took? It should also be noted that the sabatoge was in the first two years of the military wing did 200 acts of sabotage will be carried out by Umkhonto, targeting power supplies, pass offices and other government buildings. (no civilian targets, which is more that could be said of the SA government of the time, whose targets were 90% civilian and indeed their racist and oppressive policies were aimed at ordinary civilians).

      We love mandela for the fact that he refused freedom to only reject the violence. Why should the corrupt racist government be the only people to use violence. Why shouldn’t we use violence to gain our freedom. (yes, people, Sika considers William Wallace (Braveheart) to be a terrorist). The fact that he would remain in prison not to show support of the armed struggle is an inspiration, we must fight for freedom.

      You should also note, that the time period of Nelson starting the military wing to his next imprisionment was less than two years, therefore, the targets while he was leader of the wing where all valid targets to destabilize the racist regime.

      Which brings us to the next question, seeing the targets that Mandela chose, why would you consider this terrorism, rather than a warrior fighting for his freedom?

      That Church street bombing was done while Mandela was in prison and his name is not linking to it according to wikii, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Street_bombing. Can you advise where you get your facts. Please quote page number of the long walk to freedom.

      Compared to the targets of the SA military and SA Police, the church street bomb also seems a legimate military target, more so that the prevalently civilian targets of the racist regime. see the wiki article. at least 84 of the injured by the bomb were SAAF members or employees.

      well, leave it there for now, but answer those four questions and I will happily engage with you, as you can see, I am more than willing to back what I say with other sources.

      However, this is your last chance to raise above the level of an idiot and properly engage on the subject matter.

      Why am I doubting that you can??? Oh wait, yes, everything you said previously….

      Like

  47. Jeeeeeeeezus Sika ur such a boring fucker.
    you really just trying to argue that black is white, and when you are stuck or find you have nothing concrete to add to the topic then you diversify and change the subject until you exhaust that too!!!
    What next? Russia landed on the moon 1st?
    Please Sika …. destroy your computer then yourself and have done with it……please.

    Like

  48. Richie- Yes the boks were beaten by 19 and 33 points in the Tri nations away from home.. records reflect as much. Well done. However as you should know 22 players were left at home and it was indeed a B TEAM. There was outrageous comments made when this happend. Has your memory escaped you or do you just like stating headlines without actually knowing the facts, you sir are an idiot. According to your principle then.. 2 weeks later the “MIGHTY ALL BLACKS” got smashed by 13 points by the BOKS and then went on to lose to Australia. When last did the All Blacks lose by 13 points?? Its been a few years, so in “Richie theory” we should then then go on and beat the AB’s.

    Get a grip you fool.. Bryce lawrence should never have been allowed to referee that match, according to IRB rules, where the winner goes on to play the country of his birth. When that morgan Spiro from SMH first questioned the legality of the choice of BL in that QF, he was sent a stern letter from the IRB demanding he take back his statement as the county/ref rule had been relaxed at this worldcup!! WHY? Ill tell you. The referree panel is manged and influenced by NZ, where the worldcup is held.. Conspircy threory?? NO, Currupt, YES.

    Why did Rowland get the Wales V France match when he is half French?? Why did Craig Joubert get the ALL Black V Wallaby match when he was South African, having just gone through the dissapointment of the week before… Simple, POB and BL Senior decided putting Joubert in would aid the AB’s as he was likely to blow AUS out of the game.. If the IRB chose Rowland for that game i would just agree that BL had a bad day and was biast like his racist dad.. But considering those obvious facts which remain oblivious to Kiwi supporters, Its hard to agree that this Worldcup has been anything but rigged.

    Sorry Kiwi’s.. Its hollow , the sad thing is you never needed this to win the worldcup anyway, you could of and probably would of done it on merit.. now we will never know, or so the world will think anyway.

    Sika- you are a retard

    Like

  49. Mmmmm……to be honest the All Blacks probably were not worried about winning their away Tri Nations games like the Boks were not. I think they were both looking at the big picture….like the World Cup. The All Blacks would probably have been happy not to participate in the Tri Nations, as they have won it a few times in the past, and its the World Cup that they want this year. I mean what are people gonna remember most…..Tri nation winner 2011 or World Champs?
    But again we diversify LOL.

    Basically ….. BRYCE LAWRENCE is a crap ref, and should not be allowed to ref again in fact he should be made to live with Sika the idiot!

    Like

  50. I can imagine sika and bryce living on a remote island, nah, in the arctic with nothing to occupy them but their vast knowledge on politics and rugby.

    Like

  51. @ Richie, yep, my thoughts exactly. And I was one of the All Black supporters before the game. Can’t blame the team, but there is definitely something suspect about the way this tournament was run.

    Which is a pity, because I had thought that the AB’s were the best team before the tournament started and I was rooting for them to finally win the world cup.

    Its disappointing that the powers that be decided to do it this way.

    Like

  52. Wow Sika
    I’ve been reading the crap that you’ve been posting for the last few days and I thought this was about Bryce Lawrence. Bottom line is that Lawrence blew one way, the rest of the world saw it, nothing fair about that contest. What the agenda was I don’t know, but mistakes, they were far too numerous and one sided to be those. Now please if you’ve got anything to say that does not wind people up, say that rather.
    WTF are you going on about Mandela for? While you are lets put some things into perspective. You really sound like one of the white radicals that created and upheld apartheid for the years that it was able to survive. How fair do you think a trial for a black man in South Africa would have been in those days? The apartheid regime would have known about 160+ acts of terrorism and got him to confess to every single one of them – WILLINGLY? God but you are a naive prick. As far as I know he was charged with sabotage and subsequently convicted of treason in front of a white apartheid judge with a white apartheid prosecutor. Before you decide to say anything why don’t you think about it and you may not end up looking like a total idiot.
    I certainly hope that you are not from New Zealand! If you are please emigrate to Australia so that you can do both our countries a favour.

    Like

  53. Sika is the biggest idiot ever.-

    consensuses is that sika and bryce lawrence are the village idiots.

    Like

  54. So the self confessed organiser of the MK and final approver of the Church St bombings and many other barbarities…….is not a terrorist. Sure he isn’t, you must be right.

    So the Bokkies are persecuted and need 90% of the territory and what? 80% of possession to score a try against Aust? You must be right again.

    My bad.

    Take $1.10 on the ABs, see if you can’t salvage something from the Bokkie disaster….otherwise known as their RWC campaign.
    Bring back Jake, I say.
    Bwwaaaaa……..

    Like

  55. Seriously? when SA was beaten by the wallabies in the tri nations they set a record for the highest number of test caps to start a match! 801 or something like that. Also when the boks beat the all blacks there was no Dan carter, no Kieran read, no mils muliaina, no brad thorn, no richie mmcaw, no maa nonu, no conrad smith plus more and on top of that colin slade at first five eight/flyhalf in his 2nd start. So B team is a bullshit excuse. The boks folded in the wrc. It can happen to any team as it has happened to the all blacks plenty of times especially on the world cup stage. Seems bok supporters just cant admit that.

    Like

  56. http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/001591.html

    But it gets worse, here’s more of Nelson the Humanitarian Non Terrorist…..

    Bwaaaaaaa…..

    Like

  57. Richie: You are either naive, forgetful, ignorant or all three, ill let the readers make their own mind up on that. I quote your previous comments above

    “seems you springbok zealots have forgotten that south africa was beaten by 33 points and 19 points by the abs and aus in the tri nations? Admittedly both games away from home but dont scorelines like that ring any kind of alarm bells? Fact is the springboks went into the world cup tournament on poor form which played out in pool play with a narrow victory over wales and a very unconvincing win over samoa. If you stop and think about it they were never a heavyweight contender for the 2011 rwc and the tight quarter final scoreline is very flattering to them.”

    Did you say that or did somebody else post that? What a silly statement arisen from some headline I expect you stole from from Spiro an co at SMH.

    Maybe im blind to the computer programme which hides invisible read between the line words but nowhere in your textbook statement does it mention that the boks fielded an offical B-TEAM in both those away tests. No less than 18 players were left at home! We also fielded 6 new caps on that tour. Yes our B- TEAM were beaten by full strength Wallaby and All Black sides in their own backyard but this was a true dirt tracker side. Im presuming you didn’t actually watch the matches based on your uneducated statement above so ill spell it out for you. Based on your logic above, surely the BOKS would be able to Australia in a QF if they lost to a side ranked outside the top 10 before this worldcup, yes Australia got hammered 33-20 by Samoa! Do I believe that made them weak, no because I actually have a brain. Australia fielded a B-TEAM Richie therefore the result doesn’t mean anything but a black mark on a countries test record.

    The following players( whom all played in the QF and group stages of the worldcup as a part of the BOK S full strength team, did not go on that tour where the B team boks lost by 19 and 33 points)

    backline

    Bryan Habana( Played the QF)

    Fourie Dupreez (Played the QF)

    Jean De villers( played the QF)

    Jaque Fourie( Played the QF)

    JP Pieterson( Played the QF)

    Frans Steyn- injured during the pool stages, but the Boks best player before injury

    Francious Hougaard( played the QF)

    Forwards

    Jan Du plessis

    Bismark Du Plessis ( Played the QF)

    Heinrick Brussow( Played the QF)
    Victor matfield( Played the QF)

    Bakkies Botha- injured during the pool stages

    Schalk Burger( played the QF)

    Piere Spies( played the QF)

    Willem Alberts( played the QF)

    Guthro Steenkamp( played the QF

    The Beast- Injured during pool stages
    Francious Louw( played the QF)

    Now there only 3 players that are not on that list that played the QF and that is John Smit, Morne Steyn and Pat lambie. Those three players were the only ones that were taken overseas in that Tri nations. So if Richie you are saying the BOKS played an A team and lost by those big margins with only 3 first team players then you are a fool. The full strengh team that played Aus and lost in the last 5 min in Durban had only played 80 min of rugby together in 8 months, compared to Aus who had played 240 min. The term is called RUSTY!

    Now in comparison this was the All Blacks “B_TEAM” that Lost 18-5 to a full strength BOK team in Port Elizabeth which you mentioned in your very last comment. Lets draw some comparisons shall we, bearing in mind the BOKS were missing 16 players from their full strength staring 22.

    1. Tony Woodcock (74) ( Played the QF and Semi final)
    2. Keven Mealamu – captain (84) ( played the QF and semi final)
    3. John Afoa (32)
    4. Samuel Whitelock (16) ( played the QF and Semi final)
    5. Ali Williams (64) ( on the bench for the Semi final and QF)
    6. Jerome Kaino (40) ( played the Semi final and QF)
    7. Adam Thomson (20) – Injured in the group stages
    8. Liam Messam (8) –
    9. Jimmy Cowan (46)
    10. Colin Slade (4) – (played the QF and was back up to carter before getting injured)
    11. Hosea Gear (7) – (Draghted in to Henrys squad and played the QF)
    12. Sonny Bill Williams (6) – (played the QF and Semi Final)
    13. Richard Kahui (11) – Played the Semi final
    14. Isaia Toeava (30) – played the QF
    15. Israel Dagg (6) – (played the Semi final)
    RESERVES:
    16. Andrew Hore (53) – played semi
    17. Ben Franks (10) – played the semi final
    18. Jarrad Hoeata (2)
    19. Victor Vito (6) _ on the bench for semi
    20. Andy Ellis (19) – played the QF and Semi final
    21. Piri Weepu (47) – Played the QF and Semi final
    22. Cory Jane (23)- Played the Semi final

    So looking at this All Black B team then.. Who are we missing considering 16 players on that list played and 1 was on the the bench during the QF and Semi final stage of this worldcup for NZ out of 22 players. The players missing are:
    Mccaw, Carter, Nanu, Smith, Thorn, Reid. That is a MASSIVE 6 players who did not tour to that 18-5 loss to South Africa. Now I’m not pedantic to think that 6 players missing still constitutes a full strength team, especially with the mighty Mccaw and carter not there but I do know that 12 starting players missing( 3 on bench)( south Africa) v 6 players missing( NZ) is allot worse, hence the score line difference. So your comments above offend Rugby, and I suggest you look up facts before making silly headline comments.
    One further point to leave you with Richie.. Have a look at the factual account of mishaps, Bryce Lawrence made against the springboks verse the mistakes against Australia.. 21 against SA and 4 against Aus. Ill let the readers decide if fowl play was not at work here.

    Facts/Mistakes

    Kickoff:

    1.20 min – 1st scrum – Early engagement by Australia – Allowed to play on ( should have been a short/arm free kick to SA )

    1.30 min – Australia going off their feet at the breakdown on attackDEFINITIONS

    A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground. Open play has ended. Players are rucking when they are in a ruck and using their feet to try to win or keep possession of the ball, without being guilty of foul play.

    (e) Players must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
    Sanction: Free Kick

    3.10 min – Australia no1 Loose head prop scrumming in at an angle ( clear view on spidercam – ( the only requirement for ref to see this would be to be taller than 3ft )

    7.34 min – Horwill (5) high tackles Brussouw (7) around the neck ( No Penalty awarded )

    10:36 min – Pocock (7) enters the ruck from the side – then from an offside position kicks the ball back – Australia score a try from this

    At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team.

    . (c) Players in opposition to the ball carrier who remain on their feet who bring the ball carrier to ground so that the player is tackled must release the ball and the ball carrier. Those players may then play the ball providing they are on their feet and do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or a tackler closest to those players’ goal line. Sanction: Penalty kick

    Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents’ side, or in front of the hindmost team- mate, the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player is not otherwise offside. Sanction: Penalty kick on the offending team’s offside line

    JP Pieterson charges the conversion attempt before the run up is started – Rules state

    . If the kick is unsuccessful, the kicker may take another kick and the opposing team is not
    allowed to charge.

    O’Connor should have been given a 2nd attempt – Not given = Bad Call

    15:17 min – SA Correctly penalized for hands in the ruck. Although Pocock(7) was diving over the ball O’Connor(14) scores 3 points

    Score Australia 8 South Africa 0

    19:15min

    a – Pocock (7) off his feet at the ruck holding the ball into Brussouw slowing making SA ball unplayable .

    (a) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.
    Sanction: Free Kick

    . (b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    . (c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    . (d) All players forming, joining or taking part in a ruck must be on their feet.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    b – Samo not rolling away slowing SA ball – 2 penalties not awarded – scrum to SA

    . (h) After a tackle, any player lying on the ground must not prevent an opponent from getting possession of the ball.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    c – In full view of the Assistant referee. Dan Vickerman (4), enters the Ruck and deliberately takes out Brussouw, cheap shot knee in the head – thus taking SA’s most effective player off the field for the rest of the Match – this was not cited after the match either. – 3rd Penalty not awarded

    20:18min – At least 2 Australians in frame ( Ione and McCabe offside )

    . (a) The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal line. No Penalty Awarded

    At the Australian Try line – Schalk Burger carries the ball up.

    20.23min – Burger is not released in the Tackle – No Penalty Awarded

    20:26min – Hands in the Ruck In full view of camera and referee – No Penalty Awarded

    . (a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    . (b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    24:40min – Pocock(7) enters the SA ruck after it has been formed plays the ball with his hands – referee allows him to steal the ball – No Penalty Awarded

    26:30min – Offside play by Australia on the halfway line – SA’s Finally Gets The Penalty

    30:34min – Vickerman hits the ruck with his shoulder first aimed at Morne Steyn –

    Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
    Sanction: Penalty kick .

    (b) A player joining a ruck must bind on a team-mate or an opponent, using the whole arm. The bind must either precede, or be simultaneous with, contact with any other part of the body of the player joining the ruck.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    No Penalty Awarded ( BTW if that had been Bakkies Botha, without any doubt, would have been a yellow card )

    31:29min – Pocock(7) holds SA ball against SA player at the ruck – Finally another penalty advantage to SA

    32:43min – From the line out – 5m out from Austalia’s goal line – Australia start driving in against SA maul before Matfield gets to the ground – No Penalty Awarded

    32:48min – Australia play the ball on the ground – Turnover allowed – No Penalty Awarded

    33:14min – Australia (12) McCabe not rolling away slows SA ball – No Penalty Awarded

    33:45min – The same player 12 not rolling away – repeated infringement. Finally referee gives SA advantage – BUT allows play to continue…..

    34:04min – JP Pieterson penalised for holding on to the ball 5m away from Australia’s try line

    JP Pieterson was never released and allowed to place the ball – should have been a new advantage to SA and the question is what happened to SA’s previous advantage – in 19 seconds? should have gone back to original penalty – potential 3 points again taken away from SA

    35:51 min – SA demolish Australia scrum

    35:57 min – Genia loses the ball forward – referee says play on

    36:05 min – Australia dive into the ruck

    36:49min – Radike Samo – shoulder charge on Bryan Habana – dangerous – No Penalty Awarded

    37:18min – Moore first looks then turns himself over and rolls from the ruck into SA Scrumhalf again slowing SA ball – Schalk was penalized for this in the game against Wales – No Penalty Awarded

    (c) No player may fall on or over the players lying on the ground after a tackle with the ball between or near to them.

    Sanction: Penalty kick . .

    (d) Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck. Sanction: Penalty kick

    (e) A player must not fall on or over a ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    37:29min Finally a penalty to SA – Pocock – SA get first kickable 3 points after 37 mins of rugby

    40:14min – In Injury time another penalty to SA from the half way line just in from the left hand touch line

    Australia entering from the side of the ruck

    Half time

    43:30min – Morne Steyn shoulders Digby Ioane into touch – Should be penalty to Australia – No Penalty Awarded

    43:52min – Ref says ball went forward first before Habana knocks the ball down – no real attempt at intercept – No Penalty Awarded – should at least be a scrum to Aus?

    47:43 min – Jaque Fourie to Habana – Forward pass called – NOT forward – BAD CALL

    50:26 min – Scrum penalty to SA –

    51:55 min Pocock leaning on SA players again not supporting his own bodyweight and holding the ball against Bismark in the ruck – No Penalty Awarded – But scrum to SA

    53:53 min – Australia (18) Nathan Sharpe – clearly pulling Matfield down in the air – No Penalty Awarded – this is no different to penalty awarded against Danie Rossouw/70:16min

    54:05 min penalty awarded to SA for offside at driving maul – M Steyn kicks 3 points to SA

    Australia 8 – SA 6

    57:22 min – Pocock holds ball against SA player body in the ruck, not allowing placement of the ball – slowing ball down again.

    . (a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick

    . (b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    57:42 min – Penalty awarded to Aus for SA not releasing the ball – Fair call, would be nice if this was called the same both ways

    59:39 min – Steyn Kicks drop goal SA

    Australia 8 SA 9

    65:47 min – SA on attack 5m form Australia’s try line – Australia never allow the player to place the ball and hands in after the ruck is formed and steal the ball – No Penalty Awarded! (a) No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick

    . (b) No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it.
    Sanction: Penalty kick

    70:16 min – Danie Rossouw penalty for holding Samo’s leg O’Connor puts Australia back in the lead (missed by the Ref, a touch judge call )

    Australia 11 – SA 9

    74:01 min – Aus players lying on the wrong side of the ruck making no attempt to roll away – No Penalty – Awarded scrum to SA

    74:20 min – Australia crabbing – walking around in the scrum – No Penalty Awarded – minimum of a free kick to SA

    75:33 min – Willem Alberts tackled around the neck again by Horwill (5)- No Penalty Awarded

    As the ball was coming out on SA side and as du Preez was about to play – referee instantly blows scrum to Australia – no advantage to the attacking team

    77:10min – Bismark holds O’Connor in ball in tackle, a maul is formed and ball goes to ground Austrlia awarded the scrum – exact same decision as last play at 75:33min – Complete opposite and poor decision

    DEFINITIONS – A maul begins when a player carrying the ball is held by one or more opponents, and one or more of the ball carrier’s team mates bind on the ball carrier. A maul therefore consists, when it begins, of at least three players, all on their feet; the ball carrier and one player from each team. All the players involved must be caught in or bound to the maul and must be on their feet and moving towards a goal line. Open play has ended

    78:30 min – Quade Cooper high tackle on Francois Hougard – Again No Penalty Awarded

    End Result: Australia + Gollum 11 / Springboks 9

    In some cases, yes the referee could let the game play on and flow, but he made at least 25 bad calls by not blowing for the offense, and often where he would blow for something and a short while later not allow the exact same transgression.

    Like

    • Bwhahahaha, Lol at Sika, trying to get a rise out of his betters, ag shame, poor little baby.

      Give it a rest chump, everyone here knows you’re a tool and unable to communicate beyond a 5 year old level, let alone someone who can enter into reasonable discourse.

      Have to ask a question though. Were you born when your mother decided to take an anti-birth pill but mistakenly took a laxative instead???

      And to @ Riche the fool, wow, thank you for the break down of the match, it may be easier if people can point out if anything was wrong there and then we can debate the point whether this was incompetency or malice… certainly the history indicates malice, imho….

      @ Richie, where does poor management come into what he said?

      also, I like the fact that he quoted the rule, are you stating that at any of the incidents mentions above, Pocock was on his feet AND another players had not joined? If so, can you specify the incident to distinguish it. The incidents mentioned in the blow by blow above clearly show an infringement of the ruck as define below.

      As soon as at least two players, one from each side, are in physical contact together with the ball on the ground, a ruck has formed.[21] This physical contact, or binding, is generally by locking shoulders while facing each other. Additional players may join the ruck, but must do so from behind the rearmost foot of the hindmost team mate in the ruck;[22

      If you differ, please substantiate…

      Like

  58. PS mils was a second choice to Dagg!

    Like

  59. Oooooh nooooo……
    Justin, comrade, Nelson’s gonna need some grief counselling…..his admired friend and fellow supporter of violent terrorists is now dog tucker.

    Stay strong and brave Nelson.

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/02/nelson-mandela-loves-colonel-gaddafi/

    Like

  60. I dont know who spiro is or what SMH stands for. But i think i get your point. youre saying poor management also contributed to SA bombing out of the wrc?

    Like

  61. sica.first of all your name says it all,short for {sick of your own face}2nd ,you need glasses.no idiot not for drinking, for seeing .watch the replay of the game and see how many times the ausies cheated right in front of ref,which by the way would have been tries ,and if penalties were given would have been score on the bord.it is obvious the ab’s would rather face aust than the boks.
    you cant compare trinations because sa wasnt in to it this year so they could concentrate on world cup.to think i actually support the all blacks and they then dissapoint me in this way .the question is whether bryce did it through pressure from ab’s or on his own accord.the reason why i think it was a setup ,is because the linesmen were in on it.

    Like

  62. PS your understanding of the rules is letting you down too. you realise in a ruck if the ball is off the ground its fair game? in fact if the ball is off the ground then its not even a ruck? Also the tackler, if on his feet is allowed to play at the ball wether its on the ground or not until another player joins? So if the tackler releases the tackled player then grabs the ball and gets it off the ground before the ruck forms then its his? Hmmm… David Pocock is a master at that… Burger could learn a lot from him if he wasnt diving off his feet into the side of rucks then demanding a penalty

    Like

  63. @ Richie, That is not my interperation of the rules, it happens to be the laws of the game, as listed on the IRB’s website. If you are saying the law makers are wrong, please email IRB@IRB.com and tell them that yourself.

    Like

  64. Richie is not saying that your rules are wrong, he is saying that Pocock was not in contravention of the rules because the ball was off the ground when Pocock played it.

    Richie will have to tell us in which situation and we can look at the replays.

    Otherwise it is just an attempt to take our attention away from the actual argument.

    Richie, please note that nowhere did he state that a ruck was formed when the ball is off the ground.

    Like

  65. I understand your embarrassment Justin, baby.

    We have a Nelson who “signed off” on the Church St bombing from prison as leader of MK.
    Tho the certain shredded flesh of women and kids would probably have stopped me from “signing off” on the murder………he’s Nelson, so that doesn’t matter, especially if you’re Justin.

    We have a Nelson who “loves” an A grade murdering terrorist called Gaddafi, whom Nelson was to award a Medal of Freedom to before Gads was killed by his constituents.

    Nelson…. a scumbag icon……?
    You be the judge.

    🙂

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/02/nelson-mandela-loves-colonel-gaddafi/

    Like

  66. Amazing to see that so many people write about the match between Australia and South Africa, and you would think they know something about rugby. What nonsense did I read? Facts are;- politics and Mr Mandela for those ignorant few, have absolutely NOTHING to do with rugby or the world cup. Must we now go back to how the Australian people got to that beautiful country? No, what is past must stay in the past.

    South Africa hurts and rightly so. Were they cheated by Brycy? I don’t think so. Did he do a good job on the day? Certainly NOT. Few genuine rugby followers will argue that if another ref officiated, SA would have won. But, Bryce Lawrence did and SA lost. Period. Just as NZ lost against France in 2007 with a blatant forward pass by the French. Just as France could have lost against Wales had the penalty in the dying minutes been successful. That would have been a serious mistake as that penalty should have been AGAINST Wales. Referees do make mistakes. The IRB is to be blamed just as Sep Blatter has to take blame for all the errors at 2010soccer world cup. Technology is available to address those poor reffing decisions but the IRB choose to ignore that. Shame.

    When looking at matches the last upteen years, real rugy followers would have noted that SA has always been on the receiving side of poor referee decisions. But South Africa must also realise that their attacking game is far from wheer it should be. SA now needs a coach in the mould of Deans or Carel du Plessis to play 15 man rugby.

    Strange though that if you look at the current AB side;- they are playing the kick and chase game for which the entire world criucified South Africa in the last few years.Strange. If NZ or the Auzies play a certain style, it is great. If we do that, we are just playing poor footie.

    Gene

    Like

  67. No. Obviously you have copy and pasted those rules from somewhere so it would be a bit foolish to disagree with them even if i did think they were wrong. I wasnt arguing the rules of the game. Its your interpretation that I am questioning. Im pointing out that every time David Pocock wins a ball legally at the breakdown you state that no player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball and its automatically presumed to be illegal and a refereeing crime to not penalise him. If that rule was applied as you seem to apply it, no team would ever lose possession. Ever! Nobody would contest at the breakdown. It would be rugby league with unlimited tackles. I must give credit to you though. Your detailed ANALysis of the game is very impressive.

    Like

  68. Richie, your response does not add anything to your argument. All you are doing is stating something while giving no proof to back it up.

    He gave very specific examples of when Pocock and others infringed and he certainly did not cite everytime pocock touched the ball as being illegal.

    Your statement that Pocock got the ball legally everytime is ridiculous as commentators around the world were unanimous in their citing that the ball was gained illegally.

    You have lost credibility by refusing to address the issue on its specifics and throwing out generalities.

    And it was plain childish to call the blow by blow an ANALysis. Its sets out the case of exactly why we feel it was an unfair game to SA and why we feel that they would have won with decent reffing, (but hey, they should have won it even with that ref) and allows you and others who believe different to look at the specific incidents and say, @ 24min40 pocock did not illegalluy steal the ball because the ball was off the ground hence a ruck had not been formed.

    That would be logical and can be put to the test, but it would fail the test as the ball was on the ground and a ruck had been formed.

    But just saying that Pocock gains the ball legally everytime he ever plays the ball because it is always off the ground is plain ludicrous.

    Someone already did all the hard work of setting up the specifics, the fact that you can’t argue him on those specifics renders your argument invalid.

    Like

  69. You musta missed it, justin, baby….

    So I’ll post it again…..
    Tho I sympathise with the post traumatic stress that Hero Nelson must be experiencing…..another dead murdering scumbag matey comrade of Nelson’s…..the world just isn’t fair if you’re a terrorist.

    “I understand your embarrassment Justin, baby.

    We have a Nelson who “signed off” on the Church St bombing from prison as leader of MK.
    Tho the certain shredded flesh of women and kids would probably have stopped me from “signing off” on the murder………he’s Nelson, so that doesn’t matter, especially if you’re Justin.

    We have a Nelson who “loves” an A grade murdering terrorist called Gaddafi, whom Nelson was to award a Medal of Freedom to before Gads was killed by his constituents.

    Nelson…. a scumbag icon……?
    You be the judge.”

    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/02/nelson-mandela-loves-colonel-gaddafi/

    Like

  70. sika u suck ass!

    Like

  71. …..asshole

    Like

  72. LOL, look at Sika, so depressed with his own life he can only get justification for his miserable waste of skin if his betters acknowledge his existence, even if the acknowledgement is universal disdain.

    Shame Sika, it must be pitiful to have no meaning in your life, no friends, not even your neighbours caring whether you live or die so that the only spark in your life is stirring up contention.

    But you’re wrong, the fact that people respond to our comments should not be taken as them caring about you, merely the fact that it is an involuntary reaction, such as we would get when we recoil from a cockroach when discovering it. But you have to recall that later we stomp the cockroach and it immediately becomes inconsequential.

    That is the role you perform, Sika, someone who tries to cause discord, is stomped down, (as per all the previous arguments to which you could not and still have not responded) and then disregarded as insignificant, something you merely depose of in the garbage and forget about.

    Which is why I see your vain attempts to get recognition, begging for a glimpse of my attention, double posting, being ignored.

    so, go away, you won’t get the attention you crave here

    Like

  73. Please stop bashing Sika. It’s not his fault he is like this. His mother never breastfed him.

    Like

  74. Bwaaaa…….now, care to address Nelson’s murdering terrorist past.

    Of do you get arrested or sacked if you say that in public in Sth Efrica?

    Like

  75. After all the posturing of NZ and their deprecation of France’s talents, they only won by one point?

    if france was such and unworthy opponent and should not have been in the Finals, what does this result say about NZ chances of facing a full Wales squad or the South Africans?

    France barely beat Wales, and that was with Wales being a man done for the majority of the games, and we all know what Bryce did to South Africa.

    Not to take anything away from France, they played hard and well, but if we consider the NZ’s comments, it seems that the only logical conclusion is that they Themselves consider themselves not to be worthy of the cup, as they barely beat the unworthy (in NZ’s opinion) France…

    Like

  76. Now here’s an idea whose time has come….
    Nelson will be up for it for sure, being a humanitarian and Peace Prize recipient and all.

    What about begging the Saint to intercede with the ANC to stop their thugs murdering white farmers?
    He’ll jump at the chance boys, he just doesn’t know about it yet…….

    Like

  77. So, you are saying NZ didnt actually win the cup? I saw them present it after the game on sunday. What an embarrassing mistake! You should have spoken up earlier

    Like

  78. Errr, no Richie, what I said was, ” if we consider the NZ’s comments, it seems that the only logical conclusion is that they Themselves consider themselves not to be worthy of the cup, as they barely beat the unworthy (in NZ’s opinion) France…”

    Apparently you can not understand nuance nor implication (or logic).

    Please note that I never said that they did not win the cup, but that by their actions and words, they should consider themselves unworthy holders of the title.

    To put it in simpler terms for you. The pro-AB commentators, NZ media, AB staff etc went into a whole spiel about how the French team was lousy and not worthy competition and should never be in the final. The Fact that the AB only beat them by one point would lead to the logical conclusion that the Pro-AB commentators, NZ media, AB staff etc should now consider themselves being unworthy of the cup, as they could only beat the opponents they maligned so badly by one put.

    Compare this to Wales, who only lost by one point to the same team, despite being a man down for most of the match…

    Maybe next time the AB’s and friends can keep their arrogance in check and treat other teams with a bit of respect.

    But their performance in the final does beg the question, were they the best team in the tournament? We will never know, but it certainly seemed that someone behind the scenes and off the field (except the NZ ref Bryce was actually on the field, no doubt by a decision of his NZ father despite the fact that it had contravened made it as easy as possible for NZ to win the coveted cup. Not saying the team cheated, I always gave them way too much credit for that, but the road to victory paved for them was extremely suspect. Someone high up decided that NZ needed to break their drought by any means necessary.

    At the 1999 RWC, the IRB created a rule to the effect that a referee was not to be appointed to a match in which the winning team might next play a team from his homeland. The panel selecting referees in this RWC tournament has inexplicably disregarded this ruling. One of the reasons the Samoan player and lawyer, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu, has been so outspoken against the IRB is his anger that Samoa’s match against South Africa was refereed by the Welshman Nigel Owens. If Samoa defeated South Africa, Wales were out of the tournament. Although the appointment did not come strictly under the IRB’s rule, it violated the principle of a clear, perceived neutrality of the referees.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/irb-drops-the-ball-again-by-ignoring-its-own-rules-20111007-1ldj2.html#ixzz1bmAyQSzi.

    http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/rugby-world-cup/irb-drops-the-ball-again-by-ignoring-its-own-rules-20111007-1ldj2.html

    http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/RugbyWorldCup2011/No-IRB-action-against-Lawrence-20111011

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=4302

    Like

  79. @ richie.. You did not deserve to win that final. The South African referee handed that match to you and cheated the french, End of. Hollow as they come my friend, 2011 will go down as the Worldcup NZ stole, never earned. The corruption at the IRB was for all to see, 11 people on the referee panel at the IRB and 6 of them are New Zelanders, 2 of which are the top two in the panel.

    Disgusting

    Like

  80. @richie.. Just to back up my point for the above statement, look at this. The video evidence which has just come to light, shows Donald missed that winning kick

    http://www.rugby365.com/tournaments/rwc/news/2814564.htm

    Like

  81. think that was photoshopped, the touch judges and the french players accepted the call with no disbelief

    Like

  82. Wonder if Nelson ever gets his sleep disturbed by a tiny, niggling worry.
    I mean, the Hague International Court trials of Milosevic etc happened a long time after the criminal murdering that Slobodan “signed off” on……Slobo never pulled a trigger himself…..just like Nelson….now there’s a co-incidence..

    Food for thought.

    Like

  83. Great comments..mostly..the dumbass excluded. It made me watch the entire game again to review the specific incidents. I would have to say that he was mostly spot-on. He did miss 2 incidents where south africa got away with infringements. In rugby as in any sport there will be errors in officiating. The problem comes in when after a game there is no accountability. Players and coaches are accountable and have to explain to the world at large when they make mistakes, yet a wall of silence surrounds referees and this is not limited to Rugby. All the public wants is some transparency. If Mr Lawrence or the IRB owned up I for one would feel a little better about the whole situation. You cannot change the outcome but you can see to it that the quality of future refereeing improves.

    lastly…Sica Please, pretty please come to South Africa and spout your garbage to anyone white, coloured or black. I can guarantee you will still get a klap.

    Like

  84. So no objection to the basic facts concerning Nelson ? I see…Jacqy.

    Like

  85. you made your point. your not a nelson fan. who cares? move on

    Like

  86. Careful, sui, cherub ……

    The ANC Bureau of State Security might be very interested in the details of Sth Efricans posting on an NZ site that blasphemes the political history of St Nelson…….no censorship re Nellie is a clear and present danger to the State.

    Knocks on the door late at night for interviews with enemies of the ANC State ever happen…..much?

    Just call Nelson, he’ll be appalled and fix it….quick time.

    Bwaaaa…….

    Like

  87. @ Jacques , don’t try reason with Sika, he is just here for negative attention He has no point to make and will refuse to respond to any communication. He will only harp on and on about nothing, despite any amount of time spent by others addressing the issues.

    He is a lonely desparate person with nothing of value in his life so he seeks any form of attention elsewhere. Hence him posting things that he knows is incorrect just to get a reaction, so that he can assure himself that someone, somewhere knows that he is alive. That he has come into contact with someone elses life, even if that contact is just to piss the person off.

    You can only feel sorry for him, but you can not reason with him. Any attempt to reason and invite him to discourse with you will be only met with silence on the issues and / or taunting.

    Don’t cast your pearls before swine. it is useless to discourse with him…

    Like

  88. “He will only harp on and on about nothing….”

    Of course, the dead and mutilated from the Church St bombing are as “nothing” according to Nelson’s apologists……the same Nelson , who as head of MK “signed off” on that bombing.

    Denial is a coping mechanism for Nelson’s murder approving groupies, eh Justin matey?

    Like

  89. Congrats to NZ on a great event and on winning the cup. Definitely the best team in world last 4 years.

    Keith Lawrence’s comments in ’99, and his son then being the ref that helps Aus is definitely suspiscio
    us. Only wish NZ and Aus supporters were willing to stand-up and acknowledge this.

    As for the actual match – SA should have won, we did not take our chances. Aussies cheated. Bryce made glaringly-obvious mistakes. IRB (aka – NZ rugby board) will never admit this, you’ll see.

    Like

  90. Oh Sika, you sad, sad pitiful little man I addressed all your issues throughly. There was no denial, merely pointing out your errors and outright lies. You are the one that can not face issues or answer points put to you. See all previous correspondence. Answer those points raised and we can talk. Otherwise you will remain the pitable Sika, who can not answer simple queried and harps on an on about points that were already rubbished. Can you do it Sika??? can you be a man and actually address issues raised and points that refute your entire line of argument. As before, I don’t think so 😉

    Like

  91. Alas, justin, matery, more strife for your worldview……..Nelson has long since confessed to “signing off” on the Church St murders from prison in his capacity as leader of MK….you didn’t know?

    Care to address it?

    I didn’t think so.

    Like

  92. Shame, poor Sika, obviously either delusional or a man in love with faeces, because it is obvious you love listening to yourself and only yourself. And since everything you say is crap you must be in love with sewage.

    If you bothered to try to debate, you would have noticed I that I addressed that and all your other so called terrorism and murder issues comprehensively in the posts above. So much so that you couldn’t reply to any of it.

    Where do you get your facts that he admitted to it. I already proved you wrong, with links, to your wild accusation that he pleaded guilty to 156 counts of terrorism, I even quoted from the trial transcript.

    And poor old Sika did not what to say and all he could come up with was repeating the exact same tripe I just refuted and could give no answers to the questions I raised.

    Hence, your argument is invalid.

    Maybe you should try addressing the issues I raised instead repeating the issues I refuted.

    Not going to repeat it, just scroll up and read. You can read, right???

    Like

  93. So Nelson didn’t sign off on the Church St bombings.
    Of course not.
    He recently had a 91st birthday, pity about the poor bastards he approved the hit on, who celebrated no more birthdays.

    And as Head of the Terrorist Operations wing of the ANC, you remember MK, Nelson was not involved in Terrorist murders……of course not, that’d cruel the narrative……

    Like

  94. Thank you for admitting that I am right.

    Like

  95. Of course you are , cherub.

    No blood at all………

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Bryce Lawrence- Worst Referee In The RWC | TrueblueNZ
  2. SA vs AUS QF - Page 2

This is not a forum for the left, so if you're a commie please go elsewhere. New commenters automatically moderated until cleared.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s