Referees take centre stage

The incompetence of the New Zealand referee Bryce Lawrence and a controversial decision by the Irish official Alain Rolland by sending off Welsh captain Sam Warburton for what he deemed to be a spear tackle, almost overshadowed a clinical Black-Out of Australia by New Zealand in the Rugby World Cup on Sunday, and the saga in South Africa about the next Springbok-coach.

Lawrence was under fire after what seemed to be his incompetent refereeing during the quarter-final between South Africa and Australia, which saw the Wallabies scrape home.

During the past week Professor Tim Noakes, head of the University of Cape Town Exercise and Sport Science Department, wrote in letter to the Cape Times it was the duty of the International Rugby Board to provide a detailed response on the actions of referee Lawrence, who failed to issue a number of penalties in Sunday’s match.

The SA public needed to know the truth about what lay behind the lack of decisions by Lawrence, he wrote.

“When science is manipulated to provide a determined outcome, it’s called ‘bent’ science. Such science is usually directed by large commercial interests. When the outcome of a sporting event is predetermined, we call it match fixing,”

In the first semi-final on Saturday, Wales lost after a controversial decision by Rolland in sending off Warburton in the 18th minute.

Warburton upended Les Bleus winger Vincent Clerc. The Wales skipper was guilty of lifting the player in the tackle, and even though he released him as soon as he passed a horizontal position Clerc landed on his shoulders.

It was a clear penalty and probably a yellow card, but few could have predicted Rolland's reaction, which was to brandish a red.

From that moment onwards Wales were massive underdogs, yet they could, and should, have still run out winners.

For the second time in the tournament they were beaten by a single point (the first was against South Africa in the pool stages) and were left to rue missed kicks and fluffed drop-goal opportunities.

Perhaps South Africa should also heed the lessons of the World Cup by not limiting their post-mortem to the display by referee Lawrence.

Where Wales did themselves a disservice by not finishing well, and particularly not kicking well, South Africa would rue their lack of decision-making before and during the World Cup.

Many rugby writers have questioned and even berated Peter de Villiers publicly for not starting with Bismarck du Plessis and Francois Hougaard.

The inability to change their game-plan during the ill-fated defeat to Australia was another factor.

Dan Retief, in the Sunday Times, said the Boks slid into a holding pattern after their supreme season in 2009 and De Villiers and his fellow-coaches lacked the authority, vision and strength of will to imprint new norms.

And it showed in the results. After Hamilton, September 29, 2009, the Springboks, under De Villiers, played 28 matches and won just 14.

Their wins were against the likes of Italy, Wales and Argentina, but up against their keenest rivals, the Wallabies and the All Blacks, their record did not bear scrutiny.

Their latest defeat in Wellington means the Springboks have played the Wallabies six times during this period and won just once. Against the All Blacks, there have been five matches and just one win.

New Zealand, in their 20-6 win against Australia on Sunday to set up a World Cup final against France for the first time since 1987, were clinical and played with the intensity and fire that could make an anti-climax of the final against a very average-looking Les Bleus.

Against the Wallabies the All Blacks handled better, ran better, were more creative, scrummed much better, dominated the collisions, kicked better, caught better and were more disciplined. They were just more intense, more cohesive and they won every 50-50 situation. Ball in air, they won it; ball on the ground, they won it. As Richie McCaw said afterwards: "The intensity was there."

But maybe one should also point out that the South African referee Craig Joubert did not allow the superb David Pocock such carte blanché at the breakdowns as in the quarter-final against South Africa.

Joubert twice penalised him at the breakdowns early in the match, and the South African official was at the breakdown very early to spot the infringements. On one occasion, Pocock’s one knee was on the ground, and he quite sheepishly acknowledged to the referee that he was caught out.

The New Zealand team dominated possession (51%) and territory (62%) and used the pick-up-and-go tactic as well as aerial assaults very well to keep the Wallaby defence humble. They also swamped the breakdowns by committing more numbers. They easily won the collisions and held the upper hand in the scrums.

In Cory Jane and Israel Dagg they had two knockout-specialists. Dagg is arguably the best backline-player on display in the tournament, although Dan Carter and Frans Steyn would have featured strongly if their progress had not beencurtailed by injury, while Hougaard was given too little game-time to impress.

New Zealand did what the Boks failed to do against the committed Wallabies: They converted pressure into points.

By the way, South Africa could learn from New Zealand’s performance in this Rugby World Cup.

The Kiwis were extremely annoyed after they were ‘robbed’ by the English referee Wayne Barnes in the 2007 Rugby World Cup, when he and the assistant line-judges failed to pick up a clear forward pass that led to a French try in the quarter-final.

France won a controversial match, and Barnes was abused and even received death threats from New Zealand supporters on the internet.

The abuse and threats were condemned by the International Rugby Board and New Zealand government officials.

But New Zealand moved on, instead of becoming prisoners of their own bitterness and anger.

South Africa should move on too. Unfortunately, it seems as if coach De Villiers is not keen to do so.

The website www.rugby365.com said De Villiers may have been at his evasive and confusing best this past week - first saying "The journey for me is over”, and then a day later ”'I never resigned” and most recently "I am available".

He might apply for the job again, but the South African Rugby Union is apparently keen to avoid a PR-disaster.

It seems obvious there will be a new Bok mentor next year.

Some unsubstantiated reports have suggested that SARU's preferred choices are the Stormers duo of Allister Coetzee and Rassie Erasmus.

Eddie Jones, a former Australian coach and technical assistant to Jake White at the Rugby World Cup in 2007, indicated to the Sunday Times that he is very keen to take over the Springbok-coaching role.

But he added: “I’m led to believe that the job has already been allocated. I do not want to waste people’s time and effort.”

It is extremely sad that Victor Matfield’s request that a new coach be appointed as soon as possible is ignored by the South African Rugby Union.

If that were done, South Africa could have started the Northern Hemisphere-tour with a new vision, a new broom, a new team and new energy.

Instead, we will have to wait for the Tri-Nations campaign of 2012 to see if South Africa have moved beyond the blemishes of the stale pattern of 2011, and beyond the embarrassing Bryce Lawrence.