Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Springbok fans lost their minds over Bryce Lawrence after the 2011 quarterfinal loss to the Wallabies

By Online Editors
(Photo by Alex Livesey/Getty Images)

The 2011 Rugby World Cup quarterfinal will forever go down in infamy as one of the great individual performances of all-time from Wallaby flanker David Pocock, who scuttled the Springbok breakdown with industrious endeavour that played spoiler on the day.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Wallabies, after winning the Tri-Nations earlier that year and proving their mettle as a top team to beat at the World Cup, scraped a 11-9 win that sent the defending World Cup holders unceremoniously out of the tournament.

Pocock’s herculean effort wasn’t met with equal admiration & respect from Springbok fans, who instead turned their attention towards referee Bryce Lawrence. Aggrieved Springbok fans humiliated by the loss felt that Lawrence’s officiating, particularly at the ruck, aided Australia over their side.

Video Spacer

RugbyPass Offload | Episode 12

Video Spacer

RugbyPass Offload | Episode 12

After a blatant forward pass from centre De Villiers was called back costing the Springboks a try-scoring opportunity, the wrath towards Lawrence turned into conspiracy. Wild and unfounded allegations were thrown at Lawrence as Springbok fans reached for any conspiracy theory that would explain the loss.

As Lawrence was a New Zealander, some conspiracies felt that he had planned to gift the All Blacks a ‘preferred’ semi-final opponent in the Wallabies despite the fact the Wallabies had beaten the All Blacks a few months prior in Brisbane.

A full-strength All Blacks side had absolutely hammered South Africa 40-7 on New Zealand soil in the Tri-Nations in Wellington.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Wallabies had also done a number on South Africa, sweeping them 2-0 home and away during the 2011 Tri-Nations, with the Springboks sole win coming at home against a second string All Blacks side in the last round. On form and results, the Wallabies were by all means logically the tougher semi-final opponent.

This was lost however as online petitions gained steam as Springbok fans launched campaigns to stop Bryce Lawrence from reffing again, which reached over 30,000 in just a few days after the match.

ADVERTISEMENT

The anti-Lawrence rhetoric was aided by journalists stoking the fire with harsh criticism of the referee following the match. Mark Reason writing for The Daily Telegrath penned a scathing response.

“Lawrence made a complete hash of the game… and the Springboks will be furious,” he wrote without restrain.

“They identified the breakdowns as a key area before the game, but expected there would be some sort of reffing.

“The South Africans thought the tackler would have to release the ball-carrier. They thought the offside line would be respected. They thought that men would have to stay on their feet. It was a shambles.”

Scribe Brendan Gallagher wrote in a similar vein, saying that Lawrence had “horribly laissez faire control” of the breakdown which saw David Pocock “offend at will”.

The breakdown laws were a contentious sticking point for upset Springbok fans, agreeing with Gallagher and Reason that the Wallabies were able to get away with infringing in every way possible.

Outgoing Springbok captain John Smit was also not in the mood to pour water on the flames, delivering some parting shots as he talked to press after the game.

”Bryce is not difficult to communicate with, he just doesn’t seem to listen very well,” Smit told journalists.

“The one positive (of retirement) is that I won’t ever have to be reffed by him again.”

A different take on the game was made by Kiwi writer Hamish Bidwell, who opined that the Springboks tried to ambitiously play a game they do not have the skills to deliver, and that was ultimately their downfall.

“Rather than pummel the Wallabies into submission, South Africa shifted the ball virtually every opportunity,” he wrote for the Waikato Times.

“It was laudable stuff, just not especially effective.

“Opportunities were created, most notable Jean de Villiers putting Pat Lambie away for what should have been a brilliant try. Only the final transfer was forward, as if to demonstrate how much running and passing just aren’t part of their skillset.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

B
Bull Shark 3 hours ago
Jake White: Are modern rugby players actually better?

Of the rugby I’ve born witness to in my lifetime - 1990 to date - I recognize great players throughout those years. But I have no doubt the game and the players are on average better today. So I doubt going back further is going to prove me wrong. The technical components of the game, set pieces, scrums, kicks, kicks at goal. And in general tactics employed are far more efficient, accurate and polished. Professional athletes that have invested countless hours on being accurate. There is one nation though that may be fairly competitive in any era - and that for me is the all blacks. And New Zealand players in general. NZ produces startling athletes who have fantastic ball skills. And then the odd phenomenon like Brooke. Lomu. Mcaw. Carter. Better than comparing players and teams across eras - I’ve often had this thought - that it would be very interesting to have a version of the game that is closer to its original form. What would the game look like today if the rules were rolled back. Not rules that promote safety obviously - but rules like: - a try being worth 1 point and conversion 2 points. Hence the term “try”. Earning a try at goals. Would we see more attacking play? - no lifting in the lineouts. - rucks and break down laws in general. They looked like wrestling matches in bygone eras. I wonder what a game applying 1995 rules would look like with modern players. It may be a daft exercise, but it would make for an interesting spectacle celebrating “purer” forms of the game that roll back the rules dramatically by a few versions. Would we come to learn that some of the rules/combinations of the rules we see today have actually made the game less attractive? I’d love to see an exhibition match like that.

29 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Diamond demands law change while accusing Tigers of illegal activity Diamond demands law change while accusing Tigers of illegal activity
Search