CrapRefs.com

A careful examination of the scrum exchanges in the first half of the first test shows that the Springbok loose head prop was pushing upwards and inwards at every opportunity.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sore on Mtawarira. In fact, as an ex-prop, I applaud his tactics in the vain of ‘if you can get away with it …’ but he more than got away with it, he ran off laughing with penalties galore from a completely incompetent referee.

Perhaps Lawrence was using Craig Joubert’s performance in the first Bledisloe Cup test as a yardstick (tough on Al Baxter).

From a propping viewpoint, the surprising aspect was not that Bryce Lawrence didn’t ping him for it – Lawrence has no clue about scrummaging – it was that such a vastly experienced (and good-sized) prop in Phil Vickery could not effectively counter-act the strategy.

He did so on 1-2 occasions, approaching the scrum-hit in a downwards direction, allowing him to get on top of his opposite to hold him down, not letting him get upward leverage.

Mtawarira was very effective in getting his head in the middle of Vickery’s chest and driving him upwards with considerable strength.

I’m unsure whether Adam Jones is a better prop than Phil Vickery. He was certainly able to combat the Beast where the Englishman could not but often these kinds of exchanges come down to levels of comfort that one prop can get over another. Sometimes a guy will struggle against one prop and be very comfortable against all others.

This may have been the case for Vickery.

There was so much noise about the scrum following the first test but very little of it was insightful. Unfortunately Graham Roundtree remained silent when he was probably the most qualified to provide a sober assessment – certainly more than referee boss Paddy O’Brien.

Perhaps the biggest tell-tale sign was that it took Chtistophe Berdot just one scrum to stamp out the shenanigans in the front row. He penalised the Beast in the first exchange and that was the end of it – clear evidence that Berdot at least did not agree with Lawrence’s reading of the situation.

If it is a strategy to divert attention from the comments of coach Peter deVilliers then it is quite well constructed – perhaps because it was masterminded by someone other than De Villiers (i.e. captain John Smit and the South African Players Association).

[Originally uploaded by vatland]

The rule that ‘players must be bound when entering a ruck’ was designed to avoid the potential danger that a player charging into a ruck (like a missile) might cause to an opponent.

But it is not a rule that is interpreted in a particularly rigid way.

A great deal of players hit rucks on their own and hit them very hard.

Referees tend to adopt a common-sense approach based upon the potential danger that the lone player might cause to an opponent.

To penalise any player who enters a ruck on their own would dramatically change the nature of the game.

The rules have been changed to create a contest for the ball when a player has been tackled so that a player from the defending team can – and often does – steal the ball.

To adjudicate this law to the letter is (effectively) to place a considerable amount of emphasis on the 4th player to the breakdown. This player will need to wait for a teammate before they can hit the ruck.

[A ruck is defined by 'more than three players' in a post-tackle situation where the ball is deemed to be on the ground]

In a scenario where there is a tackler, tackled player and second defender trying to steel the ball, possession will almost always go to the defenders because the second attacker to the breakdown is going to have to wait for a teammate before they can enter and this will be too late.

It could result in the following
i) a one-sided contest in the post-tackle (in favour of the defenders);
ii) quick (lone) loose forwards (McCaw; George Smith; Heinrik Brousow) getting to a ruck and having to wait;
iii) teams adopting a very conservative approach to attack, sending multiple players forward at a time (a kind of serial rolling ruck/mall)

None of which are wanted.

Players attacking rucks with a little too much vigor do tend to get penalised and this should continue.

Players in rucks can be vulnerable and opponents charging in can get dangerous.

Referees tend to get this call right and should continue to adjudicate in a common-sense fashion. Potential danger should continue to be the determining factor.

On that parameter, Botha was rightly penalised, Adam Jones had to have surgery and will be out for 6 months as a result.

Botha may have been a little hard done by with the subsequent suspension but, while it did not look he hit the ruck ‘like a missile’, the angle and amount of pressure he placed on Jones shoulders at the point of contact could have been interpreted as being designed to injure.

Also, the player’s reputation may have been a factor in the ruling.

Botha is a player who likes to be involved in activities that occur after the referee has blown the whistle.

He attracts attention to himself (holding player’s jerseys, pushing, mouthing off, etc) at a time where people are watching – much like Australia’s Justin Harrison.

Victor Matfield is the opposite. Intelligent and more subtle in the ways he imposes himself on matches. His approach is considerably more effective, rarely putting himself at the centre of attention while doing more than enough to make his presence known.

New Zealand’s Sean Fitzpartick was very busy in close quarters, often cheating in subtle ways, taunting opponents to put them off while not shying from those who wanted to get some payback.

Overt actions always attract attention and can place additional attention on a player when they are facing a judiciary. Due to his reputation, Botha was not given the benefit of the doubt.

Dynamic loose forward Heinrik Brousow got involved in 2 post-whistle incidents during the 3rd test. Dumping Lions flanker Martyn Williams and then pulling half back Mike Phillips to the ground from behind – the latter cost his team 3 points.

Brousow would do well to follow Matfield’s example rather than Botha’s.

He wasn’t even on the field for the 3rd test but he had an influence on the game – this time as the TMO denying a try to Springbok flyer, Odwa Ndungane which looked like it should have been awarded.

Even the Times thought it was a ‘perfectly good try’.

The reaction of the South African commentators was surprisingly subdued with phrases like ‘I wouldn’t like to call it’.

If the match was in Australia, Phil Kearns and co would have been screaming TRY!! and criticising TMO Lawrence for taking so long.

The (not) try happened in the 75th minute with the Lions ahead by 19 points so this blunder did not affect the outcome of the match.

Bray: “I admire the fact he saw it, because often these incidents are missed because they happen away from the ball and on the ground, so I thought he did an admirable job of seeing it in the first place.”

Hmmmm … the TV shot clearly showed Lawrence was standing a few short meters from the incident – and the ball was right there.

In the video below, the gouging takes place at the 12 second mark (with an alternative slow motion angle at 1:33).

The mall collapses right on the 5m line.

Schalk Burger and Luke Fitzgerald roll over other players and end up lying about 4 meters from the sideline (possibly less). Burger’s fingers are in the eyes of the Lions wing.

The ball is just on the other side of these two and is retrieved by South African scrum-half, Fourie Du Preez and punted upfield.

New Zealand Linesman Bryce Lawrence is directly adjacent to the action and raises his flag just before Du Preez makes the kick.

So great job Lyndon! Applauding Lawrence for seeing something 4 meters away, during play, right by the ball.

It’s a typical response from the refereeing hierarchy. Paddy O’Brien performs the same ‘back-our-own-no-matter-what’ routine whenever he is quizzed on sub-par refereeing performances.

O’Brien’s take on Lawrence’s first test effort: “an outstanding piece of scrum refereeing.”

What a croc!

Strange that the Beast was penalised in the very first scrum of the second test and subsequently toed the line resulting in relatively steady, even scrummaging for the remainder of the match.

If Lawrence had been truly ‘outstanding’ in this area, why would the Beast have been pulled up when he was rewarded for doing the exact same thing in the first test.

A conspiracy theorist might say that Berdos was told to look closely at the technique of the South Africa loose head who cheated like hell in the first test.
They might say that the refereeing powers didn’t want the second test to be dominated by bad scrum refereeing like the first.

They might also say to look closely at the make-up of the IRB ‘Panel of Elite Referees’ to see if Bryce Lawrence’s name remains on it.

If so, it may be more of an indictment on the second tier or refs.

Or, perhaps Lawrence’s father Kieth, who used to head the referees before Paddy O’Brien and remains part of the hierarchy (as an assessor) retains some influence.

It will be interesting to see if the public persona of ‘backing-our-own-at-all-costs’ is how things are behind the scenes with those who control refereeing appointments at the top level.

Three points about the eye-gouge

1. It would have been unfortunate for such a great and fiercely fought match to have been decided like that
   It is always a shame for the spectacle of test match rugby when a red card influences the outcome – even when it is fully deserved (as it was in this case)
   • Simon Shaw’s red card in New Zealand in 2004 ruined what could have been a great test. Like the Springboks, New Zealand were reeling from an earlier loss – the humiliation of 2003 when the English were down to 13 (with 2 in the bin, defending on their own 5 meter line) and managed to hold the All Blacks out in a deserved victory.[For the record, we do not believe that Shaw should have got sent off for this. Linesman Stuart Dickinson (Australia) got it wrong]
2. Even though it was do or die for the Lions, they would have preferred to have beaten a full-strength Springboks side
   Just like the spectacle, the victory would have been just a little shallow had it been down to the opposition being a man short (and a particularly effective man at that)
3. Bryce Lawrence has had a disasterous series
   After a shocker in the first half of the first test, effectively taking them out of the contest, Lawrence needed to have a solid match from the sideline.
   The gouging was his call to make as the referee did not see the incident. It was right on the sideline in clear sight of the TV camera.
   Perhaps he was scared of earning the wrath of the home crowd.
   Perhaps he was just scared of making a huge call.

   Either way, not a good position for an international referee.

   Brian Moore  thinks that to have gotten it wrong is ‘scandalous’.

   “If Lawrence, as touch judge, is incapable of linking the vileness of an act occurring two feet away and the proper sanction of a red card, he is not fit to officiate.”

   One wonders how Jonathan Kaplan would have reacted.

Post-match concensus #2: Peter deVilliers is an idiot

He made a very bad, presumptuous decision in the first test to sub off good players who were playing well when the Springboks were going well. Then he made it worse by his ill-conceived comments afterwards, clumsily trying to cover the blunder.

Better to say nothing or make a neutral remark along the lines of ‘hindsight and all that’.

Then, to open his mouth the way he did after the eye-gouging confirms that he is clueless. It remains to be seen whether he possesses any rugby nous at all or his appointment is, in fact, purely political.

It remains to be seen whether he will have a negative impact on the Springboks performances. He doesn’t seem to have so far which is more a testament to the group of individuals around him rather than anything he has done.

Berdos was under some pressure before the game even started

• First test referee Bryce Lawrence had penalised the hell out of the Lions in the first half and made a complete hash of the scrums causing a furore in the British press
• Loftus is a caldron at the best of times
• The Lions had to win to keep the series alive

Key points in the game

1. The first scrum
   Before the game, Springbok great Naas Bortha said “It’s all about the first scrum [] it’s the most important for the Lions.”

   Brian Moore:
   “How did ‘the Beast’ curiously dominate, then capitulate? The previous week he was allowed to cheat with impunity; two days ago he was not; simple really.”

   Berdos penalised the Beast in the first scrum for doing what he had gotten away with all through the first test – driving inwards and upwards. Things went reasonably smoothly from there.

2. Burger eye gouging
   It was clear from the replay what happened. Somewhat uncharacteristic from a great player but he had to go and was perhaps lucky that it was only 10 minutes.
3. Penalty at the death
   Berdos had penalised J.P. Petersen in the first half for going through on Brian Kearney after he had kicked the ball.

   Petersen appeared to be committed but did carelessly leave his arm out.

   O’Gara’s was very similar. He was going for the ball but was a little irresponsible running into the catcher who was in the air and vulnerable.  The call had to be made. It was just unfortunate that the game was decided in this fashion but Berdos controlled things very well – much better than Bryce Lawrence in the first test.

This match would not have been the wonderful spectacle that it was without Berdos’ acute judgement and consistency.

This guy is not a crap ref!

Linesman, Bryce Lawrence had 2 interesting interjections that thows some doubt upon his judgement.

i) Burger eye-gouge

Lawrence told Berdos that while he had not seen it all, the incident deserved “at least a yellow card.”

Does that mean Burger should have been sent off?

If it did, why not just say that?

ii) Video referee’s decision on the Jacques Fourie try in the corner

Lawrence appeared to be advising Berdos to go back up to the TMO for a second look at the Springbok player’s foot and the sideline after Stuart Dickinson gave his approval to award the try.

Lawrence second guessed a TMO during the Super14 season as well, sending the call back for further deliberation.

If a referee has that level of confidence in what happened – then they should make the call that way – if they send it up to the TMO, then it’s their call to make – plain and simple. You didn’t hear Stuart Dickinson say that there was a reason not to award the try but it seemd Lawrence was having second thoughts.

Lawrence did not have a good game in the first test and his interjections were somewhat indifferent in the second. This has not been a good series for Lawrence.

While not a test match, it is being hailed as the ’4th test’ by rugby pundits.

It’s certainly going to be a test for irish referee Allain Rolland after all the talk about officiating during this tour.

If you listen to some, he’s the best referee in world rugby but here at CrapRefs, we can’t see past Jonathan Kaplan for that spot.

The English certainly don’t like him.

This is going to be an interesting encounter.

Our call: expect to see some heavy-handed refereeing early on to try and establish a baseline of respect for the rules and the ref.

Only when a referee has the respect of the players can he even contemplate smiling on the field.

Problem is, a player’s respect comes from the ability of the ref to see, make calls and communicate …

French coach mark Marc Lievremont struggled to fathom some of referee Marius Jonker’s decisions around the ruck in France’s narrow loss to the All Blacks in the second test in Wellington.

The All Blacks played a lot better than they did in the first half, taking it to the French at every opportunity and actually looking like they had a game plan.

The All Blacks probably had a greater claim for a harsh call when a try was disallowed in the right hand corner. The ball looked like it was over the line but the doubt was given to the visitors by video ref, George Ayoub.

__________________

The Lions felt they were hard done by with a high penalty count early on and difficulty in scrummaging. Both captain and coach were quick to point the finger at New Zealand referee Bryce Lawrence.

They thought they had ascendancy in the scrummage with the Boks choosing hooker John Smit on the tight head and Andy Sheridan having destroyed every tight head he had come up against to that point. But there are 3 relevant points to note here:

1. Andy Sheridan destroyed all before this match but is now injured;
   
2. The Lions asked referee before the match to ‘reward the stronger scrum’; and
   
3. The Lions did not seem to factor in ‘the Beast’

Vickery was out played and out muscled rather than hard done by.

Bryce Lawrence wouldn’t have a clue about scrums – it’s not an area of the game that the Southern Hemisphere put much emphasis on and even Lawrence’s home side the All Blacks struggle with it but all reports from respected English journalism allude to the fact that Vickery had no answers to the Beast and should probably have been subbed earlier to give the Lions a better platform.

Breaking from his captain and coach, “[Graham] Rowntree [] said that he had no problem with any of Lawrence’s decisions.”

It took the Lions a while to get going, some of which could have been down to interpretations as they were being penalised quite heavily early on.

Referee Lawrence settled when the Lions settled (after replacing Vickery with Jones) and then  it was game on. A brave effort that could be remembered as much for coaching decisions as turning points.

• (McGeechan) Leaving Vickery on for so long; and
• (de Villiers) Changing so many good players to upset the rhythm and nearly cost the game

It will be interesting to see how the Lions media machine work on squaring up the penalty count on the days between the tests and what effect this will have on the scrum in particular.

A huge emphasis is being placed on refereeing interpretations going into the first test between South Africa and the Lions.

The Lions tour seems to be as much about refereeing interpretations as it is about playing styles – and the latter are certainly influenced by the former.

Super14 matches are refereed in a different manner to European club games. Neither group of refs are all that good. The European’s seem to like the sound of their own whistle (and voices) while the Southern Hemisphere have an extreme lack of consistency (compare Jonathan Kaplan to Matt Goddard).

Europeans do not put much stock in the quality of play in the Super14. It offers high scoring entertainment but without the Crusaders and Brumbies leading the way tactically, it remains to be seen whether it offers much else.

The French convincingly beat the All Blacks and the Lions would account for both New Zealand and the Australians at the moment.

The World Champions are the only team capable of challenging the Lions. They are big, strong, skillful, quick, confident and they have home advantage. That said, the Lions are also big, strong, skillful and building in confidence and cohesion with each game. They also have the better scrum.

So will it really come down to the referee? Hopefully not.

The International Refereeing Panel are giving New Zealand’s Bryce Lawrence an opportunity to grow on Saturday but it remains to be seen whether he has the strength of personality to withstand the mounting pressure and the sheer scale of the occasion.

In part of his criticism of the inconsistent calls at scrum time by referee Wayne Barnes, Brian Moore pointed out that “the successful penalty by James Hook in the 49th minute, awarded for the Cheetah’s front row standing up, turned out to be difference between the teams. Cheetah supporters will, rightly, point out that in that scrum Barnes allowed the Lions to push early and feed crookedly before the Cheetahs stood up.”

Barnes didn’t seem to have a clue in the scrums and it was the Cheetahs who bore the brunt on this occasion.

It is unusual to have an objective viewpoint from a British press source (especially during a Lions tour) but the England hooker has considerable insight. He goes on to present an insightful perspective on the looming loose forward battle with advice on how to combat the great Schalk Burger and how to best utilise the Lions options – all without subliminal advice for the referee. Most refreshing!