News24

Noakes denies 'fixing' claims

2011-10-14 16:25

Cape Town - In a Sport24 exclusive, Tim Noakes has denied accusing anyone of match fixing or any claims that the Springboks' quarterfinal match against Australia officiated by Bryce Lawrence was either 'fixed' or 'bent', as has been reported.

In a letter to Sport24, Noakes claimed that his statements had been misconstrued and taken out of context.

'My motivation to write the letter (to the Cape Times) was most certainly not to accuse anyone of match fixing or to suggest that there was clear evidence that the game in question was either "fixed" or "bent".  For how could I ever possibly have any such evidence?' 

'It was merely to indicate that this particular game would prove a landmark case in the future history of the Rugby World Cup since it appeared as if refereeing decisions determined, in no small measure, the outcome of the game.' 

Noakes said that he accepted that poor decisions were often made, but that this seldom influenced a result.

'Of course this happens in many games but it must be seldom that a team that is so dominant on the field of play and as our captain said wins everything "but on the scoreboard", ends up losing the match.' 

Noakes said he had also been influenced by the statements of Andre Watson who earlier this week had an interview with 567 Cape Talk Radio in which he chastised Lawrence for his woeful performance.

'Certain aspects of the game were "a mess" and a very fair report from Australia stating that even the Australians realised that the Springboks had been harshly treated.'

Tim Noakes said that as a senior exercise scientists in South Africa, the point of his letter was simple:

'Science can offer a solution to this problem.  Within a rugby match there is a normal allowable range of human error that referees would be expected to make.' 

'This can be quantified and is in fact something that happens in the review of the referee's performances after all major games.  This process has produced a gentleman's agreement of what is an acceptable human error rate.  Scientific analysis of these games would produce exact guidelines of what is an acceptable rate of referee error,' Noakes opined.

Noakes said his point was simply that such an analysis needs to be done of the game in question to see if there were more refereeing errors in the game than is usual and if so, did they favor one or other team. 

'If it is found that there was an unexpected number of refereeing errors which favored the winning team, then a problem has been identified that requires correction. The nature of that problem then needs to be identified and the solution applied in future games of this magnitude.'

Noakes said in this way rugby would move forward and than fans would be spared similar events in the future.

Sport24

Comments
  • Left - 2011-10-14 16:31

    x

      Christo - 2011-10-14 16:44

      It should still be investigated.

      Paul - 2011-10-14 16:59

      This could explain the years of inconsistency in citing commissions?

      Llewelyn - 2011-10-14 17:09

      Phew! I had lost my faith in Tim Noakes. It is now restored. I challenge all Bok fans to list the mistakes made by the ref. I'm sure we all have the game taped. List the time and the mistake and let's have a public debate on it. I'm sure I'll be out voted on this forum but that is meaningless. I would like too see how many real mistakes Bok fans can point out to me. Tim says how can a team have total dominance and yet lose? I say simple, "Watch the Wales SA match. Wales was completely dominant and lost. It can happen and often happens in rugby". Wales have just beaten Ireland, yet Ireland had most of the game yet lost. I haven't heard one complaint from Ireland about the refereeing. The AB's in 1995 (Tummy upsets from poisoned food) and now the Boks in 2011 (referee), I think, personally, that expectations were too high and fans looking for excuses.

      Rene - 2011-10-14 17:16

      Good heavens, who cares if he did or did not say this (even if he is a respectable man), the fact is everyone who knows something about rugby KNOWS what happened on Sunday morning 9 October 2011, compliments of Bryce Lawrence, the rugby public in SA have eyes in their heads. CORRUPTIONS!!!!! MATCH FIXINGS!!!!!!

      Skinfaxi - 2011-10-14 17:42

      Exactly Rene there is a point where it starts becoming obvious that the referee is not just “being human” and has an agenda. The game in question went way past that point. Noakes is just trying to suggest a scientific definition of that point. If you are a Sharks supporter then you will know that the referee is a repeat offender. He is pretty famous for crossing this point on a number of occasions including one rather infamous instance where a top-of-the-table Sharks team were beaten by a struggling Brumbies team because the Sharks “got on the wrong side of the ref”.

      J.D. - 2011-10-14 18:46

      @LLwellyn Do not be ignorant to the POLITICS in rugby. The AB's claim to be THE most successful team in rugby BUT they only won one world cup and that was on homeground in1987. So the claim for being the most successful rang hollow in world cup terms. So it is absolutely important for them to win this one on home ground. BECAUSE if the mighty All Blacks cannot win a world cup on HOME SOIL how can they claim to be the most successful rugby team in the world. The best way to help them achieve this was to elimate the team that posed the biggest threat, the BOKS. They used HOMEBOY LAWRENCE to achieve this. Noakes is right, that game will change the officiating of rugby games in future FOREVER,

      Thomas - 2011-10-14 19:38

      JD!! You are absolutely right!!! It is not that Lawrence doesn't know those were illigal infringements, he blows them up when reffing other teams, including the Aussies against Ireland!!! Paddy O Stupid and Lawrence knew the ABs would not stand up against the Boks, something had to be done!! This went way beyond the ref having a bad day!! It is not only South Africans who see this for what it is!! The Kiwis are so desperate to win this cup that some of them in position to help their cause openly did so!! I want this World Cup to be known as the "RIGGED WORLD CUP".

      Llewelyn - 2011-10-14 20:14

      JD the AB's are more wary of facing the Wannabees than the Boks. The Boks came last in the Tri-nations, the Wannabees won the Tri-nations. Everyone in rugby world outside of South Africa knows the Bok players are over the hill. Do not be surprised if you see the two youngest sides in the tournament contesting the final. I don't rate the AB's at all. Without DC they are just an ordinary team. I'd prefer Wales (if they get past France) to play against the AB's rather than the Wannabees.

      gordon.trevorrow - 2011-10-14 21:31

      "JD the AB's are more wary of facing the Wannabees than the Boks. ' We've no way of knowing that , what we do know is that the SBs looked the better WC team by a country mile . Both in the 1/4 and leading up to it. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/springbok-rugby-team/news/article.cfm?c_id=327&objectid=10755833 "The Boks came last in the Tri-nations, the Wannabees won the Tri-nations. " Did you watch it ? SB hardly contested the TN , their focus was on peaking during the WC. 'Everyone in rugby world outside of South Africa knows the Bok players are over the hill. " The fact that they put the hurt on Oz seems to point to everyone being wrong about that. You know what they say about opinions.

      Llewelyn - 2011-10-14 22:11

      To all true Bok fans, please note well, every-time I've mentioned that Div is the real cause of the poor performance of the Boks my post has been deleted, WHY? That is politics, not the nonsense about the ref., this is a smokescreen. I've just watched the game again for the 4th time, I can't fault the ref. There were a few small mistakes but 50 for 50 against. The worst offence was committed on Pocock by Burger and was not penalised. The penalty count was very much in favour of the Boks plus they spurned at least 3 kick-able penalties choosing to play on and one they chose the line-out instead of a very kick-able penalty. The last penalty to the Wannabees was awarded by the touch judge and not by the ref. The Bok problems started with your coach, poor selections and poor coaching and poor fitness levels and poor captaincy on the field. Nevertheless the Boks had their chances but didn't take them. The worst of those fluffed chances was by du Preez.

      Llewelyn - 2011-10-14 22:27

      Gordontrevorrow said, "The Boks came last in the Tri-nations, the Wannabees won the Tri-nations. " Did you watch it ? SB hardly contested the TN , their focus was on peaking during the WC." Who are you trying to kid. In the shortened Tri-nations 2011 the Boks won one game out of 4. In the 2010 Tri-nations the Boks won one game out of 6. What is your excuse for Tri-nations 2010? All this nonsense about the ref results from undue high expectations of the Bok fans.

      gordon.trevorrow - 2011-10-14 23:02

      Every single informed opinion I've seen agrees that BL completely ignored the breakdown. If you can't see it you do not understand the rules or you do not want to see it . 80 minutes of defending and not one penalty for infringing at the ruck ? If you watch any Rugby you'll know how ridiculous that is. Llewelyn said : "In the shortened Tri-nations 2011 the Boks won one game out of 4." In the 2010 Tri-nations the Boks won one game out of 6. " 2011 - They played a B team in the first 2 2010 - Uhmm, it was 2010 ? Seems kind of obvious but here's another : I believe this was the 1st game we played in the 2010 TN . http://www.youtube.com/user/pascops I'm out, have a good weekend

      Pierre - 2011-10-15 03:48

      I also believe there is a case to be investigated. An experienced international referee, and Lawrence is one, cannot make so many mistakes. At some point it is difficult to believe it is not intentional. Tim Nokes, I read that you said you are not accusing anybody of match fixing, but that there is grounds for an investigation. I agree with that point. Stay with it, don't back track. The media off course will make what you said sounds much worse, but take the advice from Shakespeare, “don’t protest too much”.

      Jeff - 2011-10-15 06:12

      South Africans are bad losers. Rugby is the only thing you guys have left to cling to but even that is crumbling before your eyes. I will never support and team that is controlled by the anc. They took away the bok badge now they can forget about my support. It's all about principle.

      Dirk - 2011-10-15 07:27

      "Bent science"? So, that is what the "big bang theory" is!

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 09:10

      @llewelyn, agree with your last 2 lines,the All Brats are ordinary without Carter & I also want Wales to take the Web Ellis home, re your comments about the Boks, it must be said, England isn't exactly brilliant either, in fact they really suck at the moment (no offense, just an observation), at least the Boks can behave on tour.

      sam.kaitawa - 2011-10-15 09:10

      @JD, repeat after me.........."Not just rugby but ALL TEAM SPORTS, NZ are the greatest world wide, on the planet bar none." SA doesn't even come close. Whether the Mighty AB's win this WC is irrelevant, AB's will still hold the mantle of the most prolific, dominant successful team in TEAM SPORTS history. Amen

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 09:18

      Bottom line....1) NZ desperately wants to win this one, 2)so desperately that they are making sure that it happens, 3) Paddy & Keith are determined not to let anything get in the way of this result....no one can tell me any of these 3 points are factually incorrect, the question is how far are they (did they) go to achieve this, time will tell.

  • Fourie - 2011-10-14 16:32

    Now you suddenly change your story? Wtf?

  • Fuf - 2011-10-14 16:37

    Has Tim collected all his nuts and Almonds for the winter?

      Corne - 2011-10-14 18:32

      Nice one bru!!

  • Brett - 2011-10-14 16:39

    I can understand that Prof Noakes needs to "correct" our dear beloved South African press, but really...............please.................if this wasn't "fixing" in the worst degree, then shoot me!

      Mark - 2011-10-14 16:51

      Do all you "FIXING" conspiracy theorists realise that if this match was fixed then the Boks had to be involved as well?You can never fix a match with these stats and get a garuanteed result with such a close score.It does not make sense otherwise especially from a risk vs reward perspective.

      jeffery.stokes - 2011-10-14 17:05

      @Mark - if you have the ref then you dont need collusion between the two teams. risk vs reward, you dont know what and the refs or any other individuals prepensity for risky behaviour is. i jump out of planes, whats the risk vs reward for that? if there was match fixing all we need to do is to follow the money.

      Skinfaxi - 2011-10-14 17:07

      I have it on good authority that Bryce was the shooter behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll…..

      Skinfaxi - 2011-10-14 17:09

      Like Al Pacino said… “I’m out of order? Bryce is out of order! The whole IRB is out of order!” No he didn’t.

      Stephen - 2011-10-14 17:19

      If you want to fix a match you don't dominate the game to that extent, there are easier ways to throw a game. Plus they make good money and would gain even more by winning. Noakes was not referring to intentional fixing but unintentional fixing by the referee. He may have a bias in his refereeing that tends to favour certain teams or make certain calls that are always wrong. Stats can help him correct this. He was not referring to the stats of the ref not the game.

  • Zion - 2011-10-14 16:46

    It seems that very many persons erroneously read an ulterior motive into Noak's article. Firstly I wonder why Noakes went to the trouble to even write the article in the first place:Whatever he was out to prove does not fall within the ambit of his profession, Or was he a referee? What I also find so amazing is the amount of persons that read the article and perhaps by virtue of Noakes social position saw a line to support their cause. The referee issue has reached a point where it is no longer can be controlled. With the mentality raging on the issue it will clearly be about for the next 4 years and of course the xenophobic mindset it has created will persist.

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-14 16:58

      ...the referee issue has reached a point where it can no longer be tolerated.. is probably a more accurate conclusion to your sentence

      Brett - 2011-10-14 17:45

      @theprodigy..........................have you read this? http://www.pharside.co.uk/rugby/the-petition-to-stop-bryce-lawrence-ever-reffing-another-game-of-rugby/

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 08:18

      @ Bret, thanks 4 the link, interesting read, it says everything that we have been articulating from Paddy O Brian & the NZ influence in the IRB, to rugby being the loser here.

  • Shadho - 2011-10-14 16:46

    hahaha!! Timmo

  • Albertus - 2011-10-14 16:47

    Just print the letter we will decide - we are all adults here

  • Jos - 2011-10-14 16:47

    Folks, we have lost and it hurts. Let's move on. We are starting to be an embarrassment now....

      Brett - 2011-10-14 16:59

      @Jos..............if you have followed the comments over the last week, you will understand our rage isn't about the fact that we lost, but about the competence of Bryce Lawrence and more so if such a blatantly incompetent ref should be given a whistle at such an important competition. He has tarnished the credibility of this Cup. The problems run far deeper and will have far reaching consequences for the IRB in future if it looses it's credibility. Once supporters have lost faith in a governing body the financial losses will be huge for Rugby internationally.

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-14 17:00

      seems you are happy to continue losing (unfairly), sorry but Im not.

      Skinfaxi - 2011-10-14 17:46

      The IRB is telling us that it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck but is actually a giraffe. Some of us just aren’t buying it.

  • Stephen - 2011-10-14 17:04

    I agree with him 100%. What he is saying is that matches can be "fixed" unintentionally,. by referee bias. If a referee is biased in a certain way it is likely this will continue in future games and a pattern can be identified. It may not be intentional but subconciously it is happening. This way refs can identify what they are doing and correct themselves. In most cases the result should favour the dominant team and stats can identify if the result was skewed.

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-14 17:19

      match fixing is not the correct term, it is, as you say a subconscious bias, that has been allowed to develop & flourish within the IRB to the detriment of the game. While for some, this discussion might be a short term venting of frustration (or gloating depending on which side of the fence you are on) over last weekends loss, but for most of use this is about the future of the game, this is a reasonable concern & anyone that refutes this is part of the problem

      Andrew - 2011-10-15 03:17

      @Theprodidy.Spot on, very well said.

      lindsay.amner - 2011-10-15 07:17

      So how do you explain Wayne Barne's performance in the 2007 quarterfinal? The All Blacks dominated the French far more than SA dominated Australia last weekend, the statistics were something like 80/20% yet he gave no penalties against the desperately defending French in the second half and only 2 penalties against France in the whole game! Overall penalties were something like 12-2. In this game Mr Lawrence gave more penalties overall to SA and missed a deliberate SA knockdown which should have resulted in a SA yellow card. He also didn't award the penalty that O'Connor kicked to win the game - it was given by the touch judge. How can these errors in South Africa's favour fit the model you're talking about?

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 08:25

      @lindsay, not sure where you have been for the last week, but we has discussed Wayne Barnes in 2007 as nauseam. Your assertion that this in an emotional & unsubstantiated outburst is wrong, the problem is the IRB has permitted a long history of incompetence or bias or both (call it what you want) in the officiation of rugby (particularly against SA teams) & the rugby world is getting tired of their conduct which is ultimately diminishing the value of the game.

      gordon.trevorrow - 2011-10-15 18:10

      Lindasy a knock DOWN is not illegal a deliberate knock ON is . The 2007 match was not played with the current laws at the breakdown . "more penalties overall to SA" - is meaningless more meaningful would be to say he awarded us only a fraction of what we should have been awarded. "He also didn't award the penalty that O'Connor kicked to win the game it was given by the touch judge" - what does it matter ? The touch judge also works for the same boss?

      gordon.trevorrow - 2011-10-15 22:05

      @llindsay , By the way the figures are 66% possession and 60% territory in that match but I have to say having read a little more about the stats on that match it does seem very dodgy : "Their" (AB) "performance was analysed by Palmerston North based company Verusco who had analysed 1,500 games since 2000. They discovered that the All Blacks made 57 tackles to France's 269, and they had 66 percent possession and 60 percent territory. The playing time, that is time the ball is in play, was the longest of any game Verusco had ever recorded.[56] An 'Independent Review of the 2007 Rugby World Cup Campaign', conducted by Russel McVeagh lawyers and SPARC (Sport and Recreation New Zealand), found that Barnes and the touch judges had a significant impact on the result of the match. The report states that "The penalty count was 10-2 against the All Blacks, with none awarded in the second half, despite dominance in territory and possession (which statistically should result in penalties awarded to the dominant side). On anyone's account the referees and touch judges made mistakes which worked against the All Blacks."

  • David - 2011-10-14 17:09

    The mother of all u-turns.

  • Charl - 2011-10-14 17:32

    Agree with prof. it could be match fixing who knows?

  • Skinfaxi - 2011-10-14 17:35

    If I was working in commerce and industry and I kept making “human errors” that were so huge and so numerous that I was losing clients for the company, then the fact that I kept being promoted might lead my fellow workers to suspect that I was being favoured by the boss because I’m his son.

  • adrien.mcguire - 2011-10-14 17:49

    I think the point here that concerns me most is that as it is a professional game and huge amounts of money is made or lost depending on results. It is totally unacceptable that situations of this magnitude are swept under the carpet. The IRB is becoming more and more like FIFA where certain individuals are controlling the sport without any for of transparency. Rugby belongs to the public , and if that is ever forgotten then you can say goodbye to the sport. The IRB did not invent the game, they are merely caretakers, nothing more , nothing less. When there is an international outcry as there is after the OZ/ SA match the IRB needs to act swiftly and transprently to ensure there is no repeat. Paddy O'Brien has said that they will not make statements on individual referees, but has admitted that Bryce Lawrence will take no further part in the World Cup. Well, in my opinion that statement and stance is unacceptable from the caretakers of the sport. Too much money has been lost in terms of sponsorship, advertising etc etc for him to brush it off with that sort of statement. In my opinion the Facebook campaign is mis-directed. It should be calling for the resignations of the powers that be at the IRB, especially Paddy O'Brien. Here are the facts........ 1) Bryce Lawrence had already had a shocker in the pool stages.He should have been cut then. Simple 2) The shocker also involved OZ and there is no reason that SA should have suffered when BL over compensated to repay the Ozzies.

      adrien.mcguire - 2011-10-14 18:19

      3) A neutral referee should have been appointed for the match as the outcome would have an effect on who played the All Blacks in the semi finals 4) Bryce Lawrence , Paddy O'Brien and Bryce Lawrence's father (a member of the IRB refereeing committee) are all New Zealanders so no wonder the conspiricy theories abound. 5) there has been continual disbelief over the different punishments handed out to New Zealand offenders compared to those from other countries, when in front of the disciplinary committee. The point I am trying to make is that I do not like the way the sport is administered and feel that we have another FIFA on our hands and that is not good. So let's not just campaign to get rid of Bryce Lawrence but also that arrogant Paddy O'Brien and demand that our sport is managed in a transparent manner as demanded by the public.

      Brett - 2011-10-14 18:20

      You are right Mr. McGuire.............they should all be fired. It isn't possible to select a ref as incompetent as this one without there being some motive. But unless we stand up and demand an answer, for the sake of Rugby's future, this will just be swept under the carpet.

      Blip - 2011-10-15 09:49

      NZ have far more to fear from OZ than the far-easier and one-dimensional Boks.

  • Philip - 2011-10-14 18:17

    Threats can make people change their mind

  • bradleylyle.n - 2011-10-14 18:19

    Would News24 be so courteous to publish Dr Noakes letter in full instead of once again selecting excerpts, possibly out of context again. It's not an 'exclusive' if your reporters have sensationalised the viewpoint of South Africa's most esteemed sports scientist, forcing him to send a letter of correction.

  • Clifford - 2011-10-14 18:28

    Guys, reading all the comments on the Bryce Lawrence affair, I would like to add my comment to this. I regard myself as South Africa with an above average understanding of the rules of rugby. I am not going into detail of the "mistakes" made by Lawrence. The one point that I would like to point out is: Whoever the side is that wins the 2011 RWC - will they be accepted as true champions in the world of rugby - after the debacle with Lawrence? During the years of isolation from world sport the All Blacks (after winning the RWC) made a comment- "you cannot be world champions until you have played the Springboks" I REST MY CASE

      Marcelo - 2011-10-14 19:20

      Australia has won, south africa has lost. Get over it, mate!. Rugby does not belong to south africa alone!!. That's why it's called Rugby "WORLD" Cup. RUGBY BELONGS TO ALL THE NATIONS. AND NO COUNTRY IS UNIQUE. Get it into your OVERRATED head!!!!!. And please do me a favour and come down to Planet Earth. Oh wait, the Aussies did that!!!!

      Brett - 2011-10-14 19:31

      @Marcelo...............I suggest you go sleep off your Friday after work booze, come back and follow the comments, find out what the debate is all about and then post your views on the "issue". And you from where and actually attended a school?

      John - 2011-10-14 20:51

      Considering that Wales was robbed against South Africa, then if they win the World Cup surely it would apply that they are the champions of the World. The only other team that has desreved to win all their matches is New Zealand.

      lindsay.amner - 2011-10-15 07:25

      So, Clifford, what you're saying is that South Africa can't be considered champions of the last 4 years because the All Blacks were robbed by the ref in their quarterfinal in 2007?

      Blip - 2011-10-15 09:54

      You have no case. The Boks -- 3N wooden spooners two years in a row -- were never going to win RWC2011. Especially not in Auckland, where their last victory was in 1937.

  • andrefreyCT - 2011-10-14 18:31

    "Tim Noakes said that as a senior exercise scientists in South Africa, the point of his letter was simple"

  • Ryan - 2011-10-14 18:42

    Ref reports need to be made public, and the rules of the scrum/breakdown need to be simplified. Its easy to defent a decision in the heat of the moment, when the laws governing the game are so varied and complex. There will be an interpretation in any game, and one can use that to "massage" an outcome. Further, as I mentioned, the refs reports should be made public, and northern and southern refs need to be on the same page. The IRB should have refs attending training sessions TOGETHER from all over the world, and refs should be policed into calling everything clean and by the book. If the refs start letting things go, the players start taking advantage, and then you get the case of who did what first? And to all those people saying "You need to play to the ref" What a load of crap. Your essentially saying that rugby is all about the refs, and that they are the ones who control everything, even the outcome. Australia had Lawrence 3 times in this WC, how can SA know what Lawrences latest tendancies are if Australia were the ones getting him all the time. No, the refs need to play to the game, not the other way around. This is a PROFESSIONAL sport now. No more amateur tactics, or amateur governing bodies. Refs should be paid an international wage, and be required to be available for constant training, and international travel, to get exposure to all teams, and the IRB needs to have all refs calling all points of the game the same way.

      Brett - 2011-10-14 18:58

      Brilliant. As you say this is now a PROFESSIONAL game and it should be run as such and more importantly founded on strong business principals, because the current leadership clearly have no idea what they are doing, let alone have the wisdom to know that ultimately it is the fans that "pay" their salaries. If we allow another Sepp Blatter mess to develop here, Rugby will be lost.

      Andrew - 2011-10-15 03:14

      Ryan we should arrange that you go with Brett to Ireland to go state our rugby fans case.

  • Wesley - 2011-10-14 19:28

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/John-Mitchell-for-Springbok-coach/284346408250779

  • Marcelo - 2011-10-14 19:56

    @ Brett. Stop crying like a sullen baby. Australia has beaten the living crap out of the sorry springboks!. Get over it, mate!!!

      adrien.mcguire - 2011-10-14 20:01

      a 2 point win is hardly "beating the living crap out of the Springboks" You need to get a life or spend some time thinking about what you post, Try and add value to the discussion.

      Gerhard - 2011-10-15 01:48

      @Marcelo, I used to be a Bok supporter. Because I chose to leave South Africa and come and live in Aus, and given the fact that I'm a fierce Western Force supporter, and that David Pocock is my hero, it is natural for me to barrack for the Wallabies. I'm glad we are through to the Semi's. I am glad we won the game, but ashamed at how we won the game - with BL's help. I don't believe we contracted him into being incapable. During the Super15 I regularly wrote to the NZ referees board to complain about his inability to be consequent or objective in his refereeing. The reply was that I'm the only one complaining (I am wondering where all the SA supporters were then), but please, don't be an idiot. We all saw the game. We all know BL does not deserve to be there.

      Andrew - 2011-10-15 03:10

      Same here Gerhard, it was scandelous that a ref of this calibre was allowed onto the field.

      Benmica - 2011-10-15 08:33

      Yes, and the Boks won every part of the game. They won the 5 Australian line outs. They won the own line outs. They destroyed their scrum. The attacked all the time. The only thing that the Australians won was their defense....and 2 points.... Did you and I see the same game....I am just asking.

      Blip - 2011-10-15 10:11

      Bryce reffed the first two tests of the British/Irish Lions tour to SA, which the Boks won. The UK press criticised his reffing but John Smit, Peter de Villiers and Oregan Hoskins ALL rose to his defence and found no fault with his reffing. Well, after all, they'd won! Connect the dots!

      Hannes - 2011-10-15 12:06

      Marcelo,alwaysed love theA's and still like them.Unforunately i cannot say the the same of you.Period

  • emile.eley - 2011-10-14 20:27

    Nuh uh, I listened to the Prof on Capetalk this morning where he did imply that the match was fixed, I must confess that I was stunned to hear it was Noakes being interviewed because his opinions are usually not this irresponsible.

  • emile.eley - 2011-10-14 20:27

    Nuh uh, I listened to the Prof on Capetalk this morning where he did imply that the match was fixed, I must confess that I was stunned to hear it was Noakes being interviewed because his opinions are usually not this irresponsible.

  • Norman - 2011-10-14 20:49

    I'm saying it's match fixing, any body with brains can see that they want us out of the world cup, the springboks was the only threat to the all blacks. They can say what they want it's MATCH FIXING.

      lindsay.amner - 2011-10-15 07:36

      So why is it that most Kiwis are far more worried about Australia? I actually paid Mr Lawrence $20 to ensure that South Africa won because they are a predictable team in attack and less solid in defence. Now because he forgot I'd bought him, the All Blacks have to play a team unpredictable in attack and solid in defence that beat them the last time both met at full strength. I doubt you'd find many Kiwis who agree with you that SA was the only threat to NZ. Also the $20 I paid is about all anyone in NZ can afford for bribes so I'm not sure who it was you think paid him. The other point to note is that corruption is virtually non-existent in NZ. NZ tops the UN list of corruption free countries. Nobody even gives tips. When the ref dumped NZ out of the 2007 RWC no New Zealander considered corruption as a possibility at all, but when a ref dumps SA out, corruption is the first thing everyone in SA thinks. I'm not sure what that says about South African society.

      Benmica - 2011-10-15 08:38

      Lindsay, you don't have to bribe a NZ referee to get him to fix a match so that his country can play against a weaker team in the semi final. For them this is not corruption. For the rest of the world it is. Read remark here above "If I was working in commerce and industry and I kept making “human errors” that were so huge and so numerous that I was losing clients for the company, then the fact that I kept being promoted might lead my fellow workers to suspect that I was being favoured by the boss because I’m his son."

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 08:45

      @ lindsay, having browsed NZ media, I agree that most NZ'ers regarded the Boks as an easier opponent, if this would have been the correct assessment or not we will never know, so its pointless discussing this, what is worth discussing however, is whether or not the IRB is impartial in the officiation of games. We argue not, we are not claiming that NZ or the IRB is corrupt, what we are saying is that we have over the years been given a raw deal, that there is evidence of certain officials exerting influence (Bryce, Paddy & Keith Lawrence) conscious or unconscious that is detrimentally affecting the game. Read this link, it will hopefully shed more light on the matter..www.pharside.co.uk/rugby/the-petition-to-stop-bryce-lawrence-ever-reffing-another-game-of-rugby/

  • Marcelo - 2011-10-14 20:55

    When the Springboks happen to lose a game, some South Africans fans start off jumping up and down in disbelief claiming that the referee has done this or hasn't done that, and those SA fans will never ever give credit to the opposing team. I've heard people saying that some South Africans fans are so arrogant and full of themselves to such an extent that I could make a fortune by buying up those South Africans fans for what they they're really worth and selling them for what they think they're worth.!

      Brett - 2011-10-14 21:03

      Here is my advice to you then...........if you find us so repulsive, why don't you go back to where you came from. Don't live off our country and knock us, specifically if you don't know what the conversation is all about. Just to remind you that Pocock is actually another "product" of Southern Africa, and if I read these comments, nobody is knocking the Wallabies, we are questioning the incompetence of the ref at this level.

      Marcelo - 2011-10-14 22:55

      My advice to you Brett. Stop finding the so-called incompetence in the referee. The Sprinboks were the ones who were incompetent by not scoring at least a try and finishing the Wallabies off if they happened to be so dominant. I'm a South African citizen and I was rooting for the Sprinboks, but one thing is being objective and a completely different thing is being blind and fanatical. I'm staying in South Africa, boet. I'm not going anywhere. I suggest to you to go back where you came from, which is the moaning room. Do some crying in order to get it off you chest if that makes you feel better. But for goodness sake, stop going back in time to find out whether the the ref was at fault or not. You're depressing me!. Move on. boet!. The Rugby World Cup hasn't stopped because South Africa or Argentina (where I was born) got knocked out . I was rooting for Los Pumas but the All Blacks were so dominant and proved to be a better team all around despite the fact that Argentina put up a fierce and aggressive resistance. However as far as South Africa's game was concerned, the dominant Springboks were not able to deal the Wallabies the final blow because the Aussies defended like demons being possessed, pushing the boundaries at the rucks and breakdowns and slowing the ball down. That's the reason Australia won. I might come from a football-mad country but Argentinians do know their rugby and they don't blame the ref. Enjoy the rugby tomorrow!!

      Francois - 2011-10-14 23:14

      @Brett. Forget this foreign oke. He hasn't got enough upstairs to follow this debate. You are right, we should deport these people if they slander the country that feeds them. But to move on to the debate and it is very important what you are trying to drive home here. Money is all that matters at the end of the day and if the IRB is blinded by the outcome of this particular World Cup, then they won't have computers powerful enough to calculate the losses they will endure ultimately. It is us the fans that buy the products the companies advertise and a financial expert will come up with a staggering sum if all the future losses are calculated. Now this is a joke, it would only be a Jew that would be so worried about the money that the IRB might loose in future! Good for you!

      Brett - 2011-10-14 23:43

      @Francois..............Thank you and having a good laugh here about the "Jew" bit. Without money there will be no game.

      Francois - 2011-10-15 01:18

      @Brett.Why don't we send you off to Ireland,seeing you see the big picture, and you take some Big Guns with you, like Steven Koseff of Investec and Brian Joffe of Bidvest. You Yiddische Boys can then explain to these IRB thick sculls how money works. I promise you if those men get behind this ridiculous ref issue, they will sit up and listen. Someone needs to turn the lights on for them. If you need help, contact me on Facebook, I've got some contacts that can take this further.

      Andrew - 2011-10-15 03:03

      Very good plan Francois. Looking at his picture on facebook I'm sure he is in law. LOL. If we can convince him I'm sure he will put a compelling case in front of the IRB and if he takes Mr. Moneybags with him they will listen. I don't live in SA anymore so my loyalty lies with my new country, but this was a blatant disgrace for all of rugby.

      Robby - 2011-10-15 04:52

      I work in the advertising department of an auto manufacturer and I will certainly make waves on Monday. If all of us stand together and start applying pressure because there is no way that companies like Mercedes Benz, Investec, Bidvest and BMW will link their brand names to a scandal of this nature.

      Robby - 2011-10-15 04:57

      Guys we should connect on facebook to convene to set up a daily report meeting on our progress.This rubbish concerns all the nations.

      Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 08:54

      @ Marcelo, pare el ser un idiota inculto, this is not Espania

      Marcelo - 2011-10-15 20:18

      @Theprodigy. Oh dear!! And I thought that my Spanish was quite bad, I must admit. However your Spanish is way too terrible. I'm sorry but I just can't make out what you've just said. Who are the flipping illiterate idiots, the ones living in Spain or the sorry lot still debating the ref's performance here in South Africa?. I guess you should have said in Spanish the following: " Sud Africa no es un pais para los idiotas incultos que vienen de Espania" which means in English: "South Africa is not a country for the illiterate idiots coming from Spain". I reckon this is what you meant to say. Please don't make a fool out of yourself and I would suggest to you to brush up your Spanish if I were you!. For your information most Argentinians about 60% come from Italian, French, German, Dutch, English, Welsh, Irish, Scottish, Russian extraction. I have no idea why on earth you came up with Spain!!

  • marco.tomaso - 2011-10-14 21:02

    Somebody should investigate the IRB like an Independent Commision of Inquiry or something similar.No Organization is above and beyond reproach.If Tim Noakes' argument holds any water than it's worth an investigation. This is something that happened just last week which merits an explanation as the tournament is still being played whilst we speak and can't just be swept under the carpet just because it involved South African rugby.Lawrence "over refereed" the Australian pool game against Ireland,and was under massive pressure to correct the "wrongs" he publicly admitted too after that game.This is a fundamental problem in all professional rugby and the lack of consistency in refereeing styles continues to blight Test rugby and do determine the outcome of matches. The same thing played out in the Argentinean game against the All Blacks.When the Pumas had possession,the All Blacks were allowed to lie on their elbows,three at a time,slowing the ball and the Argentineans were penalised for not releasing.The Kiwis never released the ball in the tackle which meant the South Americans were never allowed to place the ball,which is the most emphasised directive for referees.When New Zealand had possession,all you could hear at every ruck from the referee was "tackler release".Has there ever been a time with such blatant bias in a game like that?It is a very sad state of affairs in rugby and needs addressing.

      Brett - 2011-10-14 21:10

      I agree Marco. Consistency is what we are talking about and the fault lies squarely at the feet of the IRB.

      Ryan - 2011-10-14 21:26

      What I find curious, is that If Australia Beat Ireland, NZ would have had the task of facing Both the Boks and the Wannabees to get to win the cup. Bryce Lawrence, Had 2 shocking games this WC. One, to knock the Wannabees into a head long path of the Bok train, and then, knock out the team that was playing better rugby AT THE TIME. The boks were no doubt the better team , and Bryce Lawrence single Handidly has knocked out one of NZs two main obstacles, and put the weaker of the two against the Ab's. There is more than Just the Boks game that is at question here, and the Aussies are too blind to see it, instead they rag the Boks fans for making the same call about Lawrence, their own players were a few weeks earlier.

      Brett - 2011-10-14 21:34

      It is amazing Ryan that they think the Rugby World is going to let this slide. Without being condescending, Rugby is played by some pretty educated and sophisticated nations and unlike the Soccer hooligans who just put up with Sepp Blatter's dictatorship, we are going to fight the IRB until the end for what is right and get the game's governing body in shape.

  • Kesivan - 2011-10-14 21:58

    I think if there is an Australian or a New Zealand we should boycott the test matches or super 15 matches that South Africans play in. This will get IRB's attention. We should fly over the world cup finals with a helicopter and flower bomb the grounds like they did in the apartheid era. This will also get the IRB's attention. If the ref is really bad who is he accountable to? Paddy O Brian needs to resign.

      Michael - 2011-10-15 00:17

      I really feel sorry for the thousands of bok fans who travelled and paid alot of money to go to that game, only to be robbed of a fair contest. The debate around BL I believe has nothing to do with the result of the game. It has everything to do with rugby supporters being presented a " faulty product" with a no refund option. The attraction of any sport is to watch two sides compete against each other in an environment where all other factors of the game ( conditions, rule interpritation etc) are equal to both apposing teams. The Bokks were not robbed of a result. They were robbed of a fair contest resulting in a loss and therefore I squarely blame the IRB for falling short of training world cup Refs to an equal standard that fans thought they had purchased with their IRB rugby world cup game ticket. People say stop winging. I say no, this problem has surfaced many times before in crucial rugby games. The IRB need to sort it out. Possibly all refs on world cups should be taken out the system for a month before a rugby world cup and sent for "standardising training" at IRB headquarters so that all refs are talking the same language come game time. Just for laughs, is it not strange that NZ has produced amongst the best coaches in world rugby, some of the best players and legends of the game, and yet they have produced the shi*test refs....

  • barry.dutoit - 2011-10-14 22:08

    aa

  • Hannes - 2011-10-15 02:48

    @Llewelyn:Kiwi koerante is stil maar by die werk is hulle bly.hulle is bang vir die bokke maar nie vir die ossies nie.die ou wat die refs aanwys is ook n kiwi.Afrikaans but,thats in his own words.live there for past 5 years.do you THINK it's the ozzies they are afraid of? then why that comment.I've just watched the game again for the 4th time, I can't fault the ref. And for the 4th time you DID NOT see the "man of the match"not been penelizde.

  • Deon - 2011-10-15 06:00

    Rugby has changed when it became full one profesionale The money Came and Game fixing WILL Follow becausepeople are greedy IT'S ABOUT TIME THE GAME GETS INVESTIGATED! !! THIS IS NOT SOUR GRAPES BUT A CRY FOR HELP TO KEEP THE GAME CLEAN

  • Japie - 2011-10-15 07:05

    Look at cricket: We never dreamt there was match fixing, until the Hansie Cronje saga exploded. We know the Aussies love to bet on anything that moves. We also know that Shane Warne & Mark Waugh supplied bookies with info & of ACU's cover up. Ausses currently accused by bookie under investigation. Charles Dempsey in the FIFA World Cup vote fixiing thought us some Kiwi's cowardly (or corruptly) do whatevever bookies tell them to (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/4758267/FIFA-are-ready-to-resist-challenge-to-2006-decision.html ). Add it all up & Dr Noakes is correct. IRB should at least investigate & clear / condemn Bryce Lawrence. It is not about SA winning or losing - it is about rugby keeping integrity. Above facts plus that one can bet on rugby means IRB must prove the unthinkable - as unthinkable as cricket corrupiton was before the Hansie Cronje saga broke.

  • louis.langenhoven - 2011-10-15 07:27

    Whoever llewelyn is he/she does not know a thing about rugby rules....

  • Marc - 2011-10-15 08:24

    I'm confused. What on earth is the relevance of Dr Tim "Running Injuries" Noakes viewpoint on this matter? If the referee was jam-packed full of some illegal substance like peanut butter or parsnips, then I understand.

  • Theprodigy - 2011-10-15 09:17

    Bottom line....1) NZ desperately wants to win this one, 2)so desperately that they are making sure that it happens, 3) Paddy & Keith are determined not to let anything get in the way of this result....no one can tell me any of these 3 points are factually incorrect, the question is how far are they (did they) go to achieve this, time will tell.

  • les.despy - 2011-10-15 11:13

    Our officials should stand up for players and country. Why do we take shoddy treatment of our players lying down? Our players seldom escape harsh punishment for even the slightest infringement?

  • Hannes - 2011-10-15 12:34

    @Brett.good sense of humor,afterall you are in the"POUND".seats.cause it was a Jew who knock over the kiwis in 95.

  • Hannes - 2011-10-15 12:36

    @adrien.mcuire.Nice facts.always a pleasure to read comments like that.Dit is al hoe n mens op iemand se battery piepie

  • John - 2011-10-15 13:50

    do

  • Ninon - 2011-10-15 13:53

    We was Lawrenced. Coincidence that Lawrence is a NZ ref and the team that the AB's did not want to meet in the semi's went out due to some game changing bad decision by the ref. Not just bad decisuions, Lleweyn -game changing and blatantly bad decisions from a supposedly top? referee who game changed a Skarks game with a bad decision. I am not suggesting that the match was fixed but it must certainly have had influenced the ref's mind. Why did the match not be reffed by a northern hemiphere ref as asked by the South Africans???

  • Lawrence - 2011-10-15 15:09

    Dear Tim. You are a die-hard loyal South African Supporter! I feel however that science can only explain so much and no more ! South Africa play dismal, boring rugby, suck it in.

  • Lawrence - 2011-10-15 15:11

    Tim you and science lose badly

  • Lawrence - 2011-10-15 15:16

    Tim , you are a sore loser

  • Michael - 2011-10-15 16:00

    While listing the number of incidents as Llewelyn suggests (17:09) do watch Lawrences face - the smirk that accompanies each time he can blow against SA is unmistakable and irrefutable. Grinning like a cheshire cat each time he doesn't have to award Lambie's kick or can award an Oz penalty. With the biggest smirk of all when it's clear all Oz has to do is clear the final scrum and kick out for the match. Intent here to shepherd the Ozzies through and the Boks out? You bet!

  • pages:
  • 1