It affected me: Bryce Lawrence
Related links
Teams
Also see
Bryce Lawrence says his performance in last year's World Cup quarter-final was influenced by complaints from ARU chief executive John O'Neill.
Retired ref Lawrence claims he was hounded out of rugby by South Africa and Australia following his showing in the Springboks and Wallabies match.
"I had four really good games at the World Cup and then I had that," the 41-year-old told the Bay Of Plenty Times.
"There was some pretty nasty political stuff going on about that appointment. I refereed Australia versus Ireland and Ireland had won but behind the scenes guys like John O'Neill were kicking up a massive stink.
"I knew a bit about that and it was enough to affect me, and it probably made me freeze on the biggest stage."
Australia won the game 11-9 which has now led to Lawrence calling it quits and taking up a role as the New Zealand Rugby Union high-performance referee reviewer. He was stood down from the International Rugby Board's elite panel after the World Cup and didn't referee any Super Rugby matches in South Africa.
"It (the reaction) got pretty bad," Lawrence said.
"On Facebook they launched a 'get rid of Bryce Lawrence' site and it was pretty nasty.
"That was absolutely the reason for my career change.
"I got told at the end of the World Cup that I would have a break from Test rugby for the Six Nations and I could totally accept that as there has to be a consequence for poor performance.
"I was told I would be brought back in the middle of this year, as I was ranked in the top three or four referees in the world. But because of the political reaction from rugby unions like Australia and South Africa behind the scenes, they dropped me."
Last month, British & Irish Lions boss Warren Gatland highlighted the pressure Lawrence had been placed under by O'Neill as he outlined the challenges that await his squad.
"They are masters at it and possibly the best one was John O'Neill, as a master of influence in certain things," said 2013 touring coach Gatland.
"I'm not 100% sure, but I think that after Ireland beat Australia in that pool game, certain complaints were made about the referee (Lawrence), subtly and tactfully, and I think that had an impact on the quarter-final.
"We've got to be aware about what sort of things are going to be done on and off the field."
O'Neill is on his way out of his post at the ARU to focus on business interests outside rugby.
Comments
Spartacus says...
Good on you BL for coming clean with this.
Posted 14:59 30th October 2012
7ton says...
bokeavenger says "The difference between 95 and 2011 RWCs is that in 17 years not a single ref has come forward to even hint that he was influenced in any way in that tournament."
Well of course they wouldn't would they. They wouldn't want to incriminate themselves as they were obviously paid far more than just a gold watch from Lois Lluyt. Also they would be in living fear of being poisoned LOL!
Ridiculous? Absolutely! but no for ridiculous than your assertions
Posted 19:39 27th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
new_jay4A-hole: thanks for proving to the world that you're nothing but a bigot.
The editor says.... BOTH of you give it a rest. Back to rugby please.
Posted 19:06 27th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
@new_jay4a: Is that after you've had your way with that inflatable dog?
Posted 17:59 27th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@rockspidersRevenge, no you don't; you just want to talk kak.
Posted 17:45 27th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
new_j_4a: Clearly PR has dropped its standards on these forums enormously that it allows an intellectual dwarf and bigot like you to spew your hatred and bitterness. I just want to talk rugby.
Posted 15:45 27th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@BokAvenger, you say "he [BL] has also been stood down as an IRB first tier ref" I thought you said that the IRB and PoB were part of the conspiracy? If so why did they stand him down? and you say this of Craig Joubert "given his questionable performance " Actually his performance came in for a good deal of scrutiny by knowledgeable refs, second by second, and the only problems found were an error at 4:32 and an obstruction that he missed when unsighted.....these are knowledgeable, QUALIFIED refs, at the top of their profession....and they found that CJ had done an excellent job....on the rest of the stuff you bring up....ask your sister....she'll give you the details (of my dog).
Posted 15:11 27th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
New_J4a: I've just figured out why you have this loathing for rural Afrikaners - because you're really just the pseudonym for the PR editorial team
Posted 12:55 27th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
newj_4a: Sounds like you speak from experience. I have never come across someone as well versed on the incest of rural backwaters as yourself. Thanks for enlightening me. But why do you have this hatred of rural "boers" as you call them? Did one of their little sisters regularly beat you up after school or did you just grow up in Oranie yourself?
But on the serious side. How can you deny that when one ref at a RWC admits that he was influenced that another ref couldn't have been influenced at the same tournament? Particularly given his questionable performance which people like you would prefer to ignore and sweep under the carpet.
The difference between 95 and 2011 RWCs is that in 17 years not a single ref has come forward to even hint that he was influenced in any way in that tournament. In 2011 not only has the ref that everyone said was crooked ADMITTED that he was influenced, but he has also been stood down as an IRB first tier ref. He as been stood down as a Rugby Championship ref and ultimately forced into retirement. How the two of you lovebirds cannot acknowledge that difference is beyond me?
Posted 12:43 27th October 2012
7ton says...
bokavenger
Thanks for making my day I can't stop laughing!!!!
The Logic new_j4a is referring to is NOT HIS BUT YOURS. He is using your logic to make the point as to how stupid your logic is.
So well done mate you have just admitted that your logic is the purest example of complete stupidity you have ever seen.
The laugh is on you and that really sums up pretty well most of your comments including Donalds kick. Simply untrue!
End of Story. Stop wasting time!
Posted 11:43 27th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@7ton there is no point in arguing or even talking rugby to an inbred citizen of the boerstaat Oranje. They use the same logic in rugby as they used to govern South Africa during the fascist years...."the kick was wide" "the prisoner shot himself in the back" "the ref was biased against my team, so I tackled him." And as far as sibling relationships are concerned in the boerstaat Oranje, if you want to find a virgin, look on the wing of the woman's team where you may find a little girl who can run faster than her brothers, her father, her uncles, (her grandfather is likely to be the same person as her father)......so it is with preserving the Boer identity....ultra pure.
Now I am off to watch rugby and talk about sensible things.
Posted 09:51 27th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
@new_j4a: HA, HA,HA, HA. ha ha ha ha ha. Your pathetic attempt at reasoning and logic is the purest admission of complete stupidity I have ever seen. So according to your er.."logic"... If A = B and the existence of C requires B then B must = C. Let me repeat: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. You're right, every country has it's share of inbreds and new_j4a is the prime example of what happens when siblings copulate.
@7ton: Donald's kick was wide
Posted 06:06 27th October 2012
7ton says...
bokavenger
Read my "clarification" of the question in the previous post and you may understand although I doubt it
To spell it out.
I'm not asking if you think 95 was rigged I am asking if could just possibly consider it within the bounds of possibility TAKING ACCOUNT OF YOUR VERY OWN COMMENTS on 06.36 20 October where YOU SAID THE FOLLOWING "It beggars belief the people on this forum live under the delusional belief that rugby is immune to match fixing etc. Look around you at other sports. Soccer, cricket, cycling, the olympics .. everything is rotten to the core. And you clowns think rugby has somehow miraculously escaped the influence of the $"
We can come up with just as many silly assertions as to why 95 was rigged as you do with your ridiculous and illogical assertions as to why 2011 was.
In regards to new_j4a. I have read many of his posts over the years and found that he is pretty fairminded and has a very good knowledge of the laws. If he agreed with any of your assertions eg. "diabolical refereeing " he would say so.
Posted 01:08 27th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@7ton, no need to explain. I guess that all countries have their share of inbreds
Posted 15:13 26th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
@7ton: And stop flirting with new_j4a. He already has a boyfriend.
Posted 15:12 26th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
@7ton: Please restate your question as I cannot distinguish the one you are referring to from the rest of your rhetorical ramblings
Posted 15:11 26th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@BokAvenger who says "but at least I submit a coherent argument" Please point out where this occurred.....not in any PR threads....falsehoods passed off as facts (e.g. Donald's kick)....bizarre leaps of illogical drivel (e.g. any of the assertions you make and conclusions you draw). As I said, you are an embarrassment to South Africa and a poor excuse for a human being who knows nothing about rugby.
Posted 15:07 26th October 2012
new_j4a says...
@BokAvenger The assertion that you are a Loftus Neanderthal who knows nothing about rugby and who worships the ground that EugeneT walked on is simple to make and defend. Using exactly the same system of logic that you use to make all of your "RWC2011 was rigged" claims, I make the following logical assertions and draw, according to your own system of logic, the following valid conclusions:
Proposition: A person would have to be incredibly stupid to believe that ET was a great leader:<-true
Observation: BokAvenger is incredibly stupid.<-obviously true
Conclusion: BokAvenger believes that ET was a great leader.<-so must be true?
Now that is exactly how you argue "logically." For example, you make the following assertion: "Contrast that with 2011 where a year after the final we've had a ref ADMIT that he was influenced by "senior rugby people" behind the scenes BEFORE a quarter final. If he was influenced, then it stands to reason that Craig Joubert was also influenced, particularly when you consider his one sided performance...." Look at what you wrote..."If he was influenced, then it stands to reason that Craig Joubert was also influenced"....THEN IT STANDS TO REASON? Does it? Only in your somewhat flawed system of logic....which i am beginning to like....it lets me say anything i like....If the mielies grow tall, it causes rainfall. If people like you are allowed to breed, then there will always be stupidity....this is fun...I like your system of logic.
Posted 14:55 26th October 2012
BokAvenger says...
@new_j4a@ Please explain to me how you make the connection between me asserting that the 2011 RWC was rigged, and that ET was a great leader? Please provide evidence, sourced from my comments, to support this assertion. Since, we both know that you will fail to do so as ET was not a leader at all but a political caricature,then the only conclusion that any sane and rational person could reach is that it is you who is in fact the idiot as you make bizarre assertions that have absolute no connection to either reality or my comments. I have no problem with you challenging my views, or even in fact, calling me names but at least have the intelligence to provide meaningful evidence to back up your utterly bizarre claims. You seem to think that my belief that the 2011 RWC was rigged is absurd/bizarre but at least I submit a coherent argument to explain why I believe that: ie. Bryce Lawrence's ADMISSION that he was influenced before a crucial quarter final. You on the other hand make bizarre claims - such as claiming that I supposedly thing ET was a great leader when I have never so much as ever uttered his name on any forum - without any argument to support your assertion. Sorry mate, but I think you are out of your league when it comes to intellectual conversation. Rather stick to ranting at the pub in Wandesworth, trying to fit in with your newfound and no doubt short-lasting, Antipodiean `mates'...real argument doesn't suit you.
Posted 22:33 25th October 2012
7ton says...
bokavenger
You have not answered the actual question I asked at all. Neither here or before
Instead you have just wasted your time with another stupid rant
new_j4a
Thankyou.
I haven't actually meant to bait him but sought to reason with him and maybe ease the bitterness that must be torturing his mind. Sadly it appears I am wasting my time and I fear your descriptions are quite correct
Posted 21:06 25th October 2012