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
Ramage says...
@ Wallaroo I support many of the ideas you offer in your posts but I must point out some of the facts regarding the Waikato Springbok game. I know you are trying to add to a point I basically agree with.
In 1981 NZ was split apart with the tour of NZ by the Springboks from apartheid South Africa. Many of us were fed up with playing sport against racially segregated International teams. I at that time agreed that something had to be done I had been involved in many different parts of rugby and was at that time a member of a Provincial Rugby Union. I was opposed to the tour but my opposition was the same as Graham Mourie and that was to have no part of that tour. However there was no way that I could go and disrupt the games. The people who invaded the field in Hamilton were not supporters of Rugby many were members of the Halt All Racist Tours (Hart) and others who did not support that tour. The Springbok players for that game had been brought to the Park early and were under constant police guard. The protestors not Supporters broke into the ground before the game with the sole intention of stopping the game which they did. They formed a cordon on the field which was impossible to break and never at any stage tried to threaten or kill the Springbok players. In fact once the game was cancelled and the police led the protestors from the field it was they who were attacked by rugby supporters wild at their game being called off. Neither team was on the field and neither team was ever in any danger. Much different to the last test in Auckland when the mad pilot bombed the Eden Park pitch with flour bombs hitting both Bok and All Black players.
1981 was a shameful episode in NZ history and as I have said split families apart depending on what side of the fence you sat. Rugby is important to me but there are some things much more important.
1
Posted 13:38 18th October 2012
7ton says...
bokavenger
" 95 WCup was the best there ever was. Maybe one of the best tournaments there ever was in all sports. They even make movies of it. It will go down in the annals of rugby mythology. 2011 will forever be remembered as the Rigged World Cup."
That is in your sad mind mate and. really sums up your complete bias and idiocy
Now I don't believe any WC's were rigged but if there ever was a motive apart from the bookies to rig a World cup then it was in 1995. The possible motive being both political and commercial with many large multi-national companies having a vested interest in the stability of SA.
The Movie you are on about was about politics and how rugby was used to bring together the peoples of South Africa.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invictus_(film)#Plot
Posted 13:07 18th October 2012
Rosbif says...
@Golden_statenba. (always love your posts by the way... and yes, the 16th man is a great docuentary, and sport is political!)
If I may make the assumption that you are from the States... and realising that I am venturing off-piste a little.... bring in a US topic....
I was reading how the Dept of Homeland Security has spent $40bn on airport security since 9/11. Some super smart US professors have since been writing papers about the effects. Is it safer now? How has the experience of passengers changed? Are the spot checks efficient, fair? etc etc.
It seems that, even with the best will in the world, so-called "racial profiling" is one of the only statistically relevant findings. In other words, natural human heuristics trumps any expensive or sophisticated computer algorithmn.
Is it too much for us all to recognise that rugby referees are just human? and that they are the best we have? and that the alternative, some kind of super-computer that never gets things wrong, would be worse?
Final analogy if I may...
Air travel used to be romantic, adventurous, even glamorous. Now we shuffle through airports feeling nervous, all looking like criminals, all looking for suspicious behaviour in others, trying not to be noticed by security staff etc. Do we want our rugby players of the future to shuffle through games, feeling nervous about being penalised, always with an eye over their shoulder in case the super-computer-referee steps in?
Would not be much fun to watch! And we fans would never have anything to quibble about :-)
Posted 13:06 18th October 2012
OzinLondon says...
Hang on a bit...
So an international referee who (1) has been shown the door because of poor performance and (2) now states for the record that he let outside influences affect the way he refereed an important match... makes accusations about a rugby administrator without a shred of evidence to back it up, and everyone accepts it as gospel.
Give me a break. He was poor in the Aus v Ire match (although I dion't think it necessarily affected the result - and I don't recall any Aus squad member or reporter suggesting it did). It was entirely appropriate for the ARU to lodge a complaint if they thought it was warranted (note SA supporters... no FB pages) but if as a result an international referee can't officiate his next game properly, then he shouldn't be in the game.
I'm amazed that with all of O'Neill's apparent power in the game that he then let the semi-final proceed with the biggest home town refereee ever to officiate (and from the country who was crying foul about the previous weekends result). It just doesn't make sense.
As for Lawrence being biased towards Aus... the penalty count favoured SA. Apparently he can't even get that right.
Posted 11:56 18th October 2012
olepete says...
What a wonderful heap of rubbish gets posted at the slightest mention of the RWC! But I agree that the (tryless) South Africans did not in any way deserve to win that quarter-final. And the penalty that handed the game to Australia (converted by the peerless O'Connor) was only awarded by BL on the say-so of the assistant.
Posted 11:30 18th October 2012
tha_mai says...
I have no interest in discussing Bryce Lawrence, except, just this once, why the hell did he go public with this, if he is retiring anyway why not just fade away quietly (blow the whistle issue himself one last red card) and keep out of the media instead of inviting further criticism.
Maybe considering writing an autobiography, that'll be a huge seller for sure. The signing sessions in SA . . .
Posted 11:21 18th October 2012
letsgoboks says...
Look, that game between SA and AUS was painful to watch.... but considering the possession SA had, they only have themselves to blame.
With regards to the outcome of the 2011 WC. The AB's were deserved winners and its shameful to call them unworthy.
Posted 10:28 18th October 2012
Toulousain says...
pls note no French people on this site have taken the bait. we even have an expression for this sort of thing.
c'est la vie!
(usually delivered with shrugged shoulders and protruding lower lip with Gitane cigarette attached for greater effect!!)
Posted 09:48 18th October 2012
Capedcrusader says...
Ha ha Sud Afriiiica had loads of opportunities to win that game. They choked when it really mattered. The AB's would have adapted to the ref like in Soweto 2 weeks ago when they humped the Sud Afriiiiicaaans in their own backyard. Shows their mediocrity in it's fullest. Why - they haven't moved on from 2007 after fluking that rigged final.
Nice to hear O'Neill is fing off from OZ rugby - the fraternity doesn't need aholes like him poisoning the game
Posted 09:35 18th October 2012
bigb6969 says...
What a lot of rot. Equating Bryce Lawrence performance with Wayne Barnes, and the behaviour of NZ and SAF supporters.
The matches stats back this up in a major way. In the respective quarter finals the AB v Fra dominance was another magnitude above what SAF v Aus was. The penalty count actually favoured SAF 6-4, while in 2007 the penalty count 10-2 to France. The whole ref crew was SAF and Eng, of the teams that would have played NZ in the next round. Also Wayne Barnes has refereed now in NZ multiple times, without incident. Lawrence is rightly afraid of the lunatic SAF response and FB and other threats, once again another magnitude above anything in NZ. Also he is now showing he is full of self doubt, while Barnes (backed O'Brien of the "NZ ref hierarchy" that Rugby Phile wants to get rid of) has shown no sign of remorse. Interestingly the win % of NZ has rocketed up since neutral referees were introduced, while SAF has gone down. This is before and after Paddy O'Brien came in charge. How do you explain that ? Supposed NZ bias is belied by the run of zero week bans copped by players who eye gouge Ritchie McCaw.
Many law changes over the history of rugby are specifically calculated to nullify NZ (e.g. scrum law changes in 1931)
New Zealand has less players and even lessor money that the other major nations, yet they still keep winning. Brian Moore NZ bullies, then immediately pointed out we have no money and no real power, LOL, being a bully himself
Posted 08:43 18th October 2012
Golden_statenba says...
@philipjfry
Before you refer to me as one of your body parts watch a documentary called the 16th man
Also tell me with a straight face that sport is not political.
I'm Glad South Africa won the 95 World Cup because if they did not then they may not have had the great man bringing that country together.
Posted 07:50 18th October 2012
Ferdie says...
Wallaroo: "Kiwi supporters rushed the pitch in order to injure (some say kill) the Bok players"
well you are totally wrong there re the cancelled Waikato Springbok match in 1981; the approx 400 protesters occupied the centre of the field well before any teams entered the ground. And to call them 'supporters' shows how little you know of the facts.
But don't let the truth get in the way of your rant.
Posted 07:46 18th October 2012
Mace says...
Man there are some pathetic posts in here! At the end of the day whether you win by 100 points or 1 point, rugby is the winner on the day. You fools can blame the ref and all this other BS your crying about. Just accept we are the BEST and incase you all have forgotten... we are currently UNBEATEN. And for all you cry babys on here you better pray to God that the Wannabies beat us this weekend, because i cant see anybody beating us for a very long time... Suck it up ladies. ALL BLACKS FOREVER....
Posted 05:37 18th October 2012
three6three6 says...
What ever is said after the fact is irrelevant.... the history books in sport can not be rewritten based upon the odious opinions of parochial supporters. There is no doubt that Bryce Lawrence should not have been refereeing that particular quarter final match. Especially after Ireland v Australia. He should have been given one of the other matches. The behaviour attributable to John O'Neil in regards this matter are little short of appalling.... thankfully he has now stepped down as Head of the ARU.
Posted 04:29 18th October 2012
Rugbyphile says...
It wasn't just O Neil etc and no doubt his pressure was fed down through O Brien and the ref hierarchy and mr Lawrence admits it influenced him-/- the print media in Aus and NZ before the game were full of warnings to BL not to blow against the Wallabies. In the second half in particular while SA dominated territory and possession the Aus scrum was being slaughtered but popping up was not penalised high tackles were not penalised and it was clear that no penalty was going to be awarded to SA. This was a lengthy consistently biased period-- BL lost his job but so did poor old PdeV . Looking at all the posts it is clear that most think there are refereeing problems. O Brien's outburst against Dickson showed his total bias and the IRB should have removed him then and there. In the professional era there should be no lapses and no leeway. Get rid of the NZ ref hierarchy and replace them with carefully selected members from different countries. The ABs will still win most of the time --they will play more within the rules though and the game will look so much cleaner
Posted 03:36 18th October 2012
Wallaroo says...
@MacTavish - get stuffed.
Posted 03:05 18th October 2012
Wallaroo says...
@gungehammer
You wrote "The reason Lawrence is moving to another job while Barnes and Joubert continue lies solely in the disgraceful behaviour of the Bok supporters. Yes NZ kicked up a fuss about Barnes, but since then he's been welcomed to NZ to do his job."
Absolute nonsense.
Lawrence is moving on by his own admission because "he was hounded out of rugby by South Africa and Australia following his showing in the Springboks and Wallabies match". So why both? Simple, he no longer wanted to be put in a position where his integrity was at stake.
If the Bok supporters behaviour was disgraceful then so was the AB's supporters, don't kid yourself their were as many Kiwi's after Barnes's blood at the time. Here's 2 irrefutable example that his safety due to this was never in doubt - 1. the ref,David McHugh, that the idiot, van Zyl, tackled has refereed since in South Africa. He is also not the only ref that Saffas have been aggravated by yet they all continue to ref there. Lawrence isn't that stupid or easily intimidated.
Following the 2007 WC SF, don't kid yourself Barnes was received but never "welcomed" back to NZ.
In 1981 in Hamilton some Kiwi supporters rushed the pitch in order to injure (some say kill) the Bok players. Does this mean the Boks should have never played in NZ again for fear of their safety?
All countries have their fanatics, everyone knows this and these refs are properly informed and protected.
Posted 03:00 18th October 2012
Wallaroo says...
Well done Mr Lawrence for having the fortitude to admit that you were pressured into making unjust calls. At the time I felt we didn't deserve to win, thanks John O'Neill for now putting Aus in a category we should and never have been placed in - won by intimidation. I am so glad to see the back of this "Hilter". As a proud and patriotic Aussie I am ashamed by this, Australia is a great nation built on hard yakka, integrity and national pride.
To all those saying Joubert cheated in the final and France should have won. Have a look at the game again, yes France played well but if Joubert had penalised them for their off the ball stuff France would have had half their scrum missing. No team in the world would beat the AB's with 3 or 4 men off the park.
@BokAvenger, mate there is more to life than rugby, I know you venting but there are much better ways of going about it. You are doing neither yourself or your country any justice, I strongly suggest you read "Emotional Intelligence" by Daniel Gorman it's very insightful..
Posted 02:30 18th October 2012
7ton says...
bokavenger
To answer your question "Who says Aus were a bigger threat in 2011"
Answer = A very large amount of pundits, fans, and Journo's and most likely many of the officials that you accuse of being corrupt.
The reason probably being that Aus had won the 3N and SA had finished last. Also SA finished bottom in 2010. Australia were seen as an up and coming team while SA seemed to be going through a bit of disarray.
The idea that NZ would have a better chance of beating Aus than SA is ludicrous
But really it is a waste of time going through stats with you as just dismiss the ones that don't suit SA as the result of crooked refereeing.
Many of your comments here are unbelievable. In a way your even implying that O'Neil was in cohorts to rig the cup for NZ to win. What a joke!
Now before you go on again could you please answer the original question about the 95 WC I asked you.
Posted 01:44 18th October 2012
7ton says...
phillipfry
Likewise the final was a year ago but as to the 2011 1/4 and the 2007 1/4 there are similarities and we probably think along the same lines that the losing teams did not have a definate right to win
Posted 01:06 18th October 2012