Boks land Saru in hot water
7 Jul 2009
The IRB will bring charges of misconduct against Saru after the Boks’ wore white arm bands against the Lions at Ellis Park.
The players were protesting the two-week ban given to Bakkies Botha who, according to the judicial officer, dangerously charged into a ruck without binding during the second Test at Loftus. The Boks believed Botha was victimised, pointing to several similar incidents in the game that went unpunished.
The white arm bands, that were also worn by Bok management, had ‘JUSTICE 4′ written on them with a black marker pen.
In a press release on Monday evening, the IRB said it ‘takes the view that such an act demonstrates a clear disregard of the disciplinary process and does so in a manner which brings, or has the potential to bring, the game into disrepute.’
Saru responded with a statement of its own, saying ‘it would allow the process to take its course. No further comment will be made until the judicial process has run its course’.
298 Comments
7 Jul 2009, 06:47 am
pathetic dragons!
Guys we have bigger issues to worry about!
7 Jul 2009, 06:52 am
So what?
The IRB going to do what, financial penalties, game bans, public floggings, what?
7 Jul 2009, 06:59 am
Especially when the Lions and Jones have said that he hasn’t done anything wrong according to Foxsports: “The Springbok and Lions coaching staff, as well as Jones, have insisted that they saw nothing untoward in the second-rower’s charge, arguing he had merely been clearing a ruck.”
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25744834-23217,00.html
7 Jul 2009, 07:00 am
#2 Pietman: Heafty fine, watch this space…
It was a stupid thing to do.
7 Jul 2009, 07:01 am
seker die old farts wat agter dit sit.pers.dink ek dit was n groot statement wat gemaak is
7 Jul 2009, 07:02 am
#4 Koos:
Oh, ok then, just take away Hoskins’ salary for the year.
He earns way too much anyway, hehehehe!
7 Jul 2009, 07:04 am
#5 smallies72:
Ek stem saam met die banierprotes, te moer met die Oos-Kanadese judicial officer.
Dit was nonsens om Bakkies te ban.
Kyk hoe lekker kom Shaw los, n twee weke ban buite seisoen.
7 Jul 2009, 07:06 am
remember these are the same people that took away rucking,the bigest and best part of forward play.bunch of pansies!
7 Jul 2009, 07:06 am
#6 Pietman: Nee boet, nie mooi nie, onthou ons gaan betaal in US$.
So terloops, keo et al, I hear a rumour that the projected profit for the Lions tour were severely dented because of a large number of tickets not taken up for the final test. This due to it being a dead rubber…know anything about it?
7 Jul 2009, 07:09 am
#7 Pietman: Wel Pete, as jy onder die hoenderstalasie gaan sit moet jy nie complain as die hoenders op jou kop kuk nie…
7 Jul 2009, 07:13 am
One can see what is going to happen here. The whole of the IRB board will need to travel to SA(1st Class) to investigate the matter. Such a investigation will probably be more effective if done from the privacy of a exclusive game lodge. Then SARU will be fined plenty money.
The last sane comment to come from the rugby hierachy in England was when WIll Carling said that the IRB are “a bunch of old farts”.
I believe that in a few years, Andy Marinos will be one of their top performing employees.
7 Jul 2009, 07:16 am
I agree with the protest but not the match in which they decided to do it. Rugbyheaven calls us arrogant when John o neil alone brings the game into more disrepute with his agendas
7 Jul 2009, 07:21 am
“‘takes the view that such an act demonstrates a clear disregard of the disciplinary process and does so in a manner which brings, or has the potential to bring, the game into disrepute.’”
Who can have any REGARD/RESPECT for the present “disciplinary process” in any case, or bring more disrepute to the game and processes that the IRB has already done ?
Would it have been different if the armbands read ” Say no to injustice ” (or “racism” ?)
7 Jul 2009, 07:22 am
So I heard the SA sports minister has told PDV to sober up????
7 Jul 2009, 07:23 am
Bunch old farts…must be. What the hell did Bakkies do in that match that some of the Lions did was a hell of a lot worse.
I think it should have read Justice for some but not for all. We are dirty but anybody spear tackles us, nada. The refs and officails miss it. ala S14. Every time a saffa spear tackled, whamo… but the other darlings nothing.
May be their armbands should have sain Dicko the Does.
This is like the French who have a bad rap and get rorted for it.
This is Saffas fault for having such bad politics within that they cannot manage what is going on the field. Some one should have said no to SANZAR.
7 Jul 2009, 07:25 am
12. Lions_Soutie
Agreed escpicailly O”neil and his Aussie/League/Islander thing he trying to start.
7 Jul 2009, 07:30 am
#7 Pietman:
Dis darem nie buite seisoen nie…hy gaan die eerste twee games van volgende seisoen mis AS hy weer speel
7 Jul 2009, 07:32 am
Outspoken Springbok coach Peter de Villiers has been told to “sober up” by the Minister of Sport and Recreation Makhenkesi Stofile.
Stofile said that De Villiers’ comments during press statements may come back to haunt him. He added that he liked De Villiers very much and knew him as a good rugby player from his playing days in Boland, but suggested the more the Springbok coach talked, the more he got confused.
“The role of the coach is to prepare the team,” Stofile told the Daily News. “The role of the spokesperson is to represent the union.”
Stofile stated that De Villiers would only get away with making such colourful statements while the Springboks were winning.
“When we are losing it will be a serious problem. He will be the first to be fired. Coaches get fired for teams not performing, not because they are not doing their job.”
So does that mean he’ll be gone in 3 matches????
7 Jul 2009, 07:34 am
#14 kyer: From who?
7 Jul 2009, 07:36 am
#18 kyer: Thanks.
I hope to never see him during a losing streak.
7 Jul 2009, 07:36 am
#8 smallies72:
Rucking was the best solution to players slowing the ball down and deliberately getting in the way but there again were some sadistic players who attacked the head. James dalton comes to mind, Finegan, daggles etc etc.
7 Jul 2009, 07:40 am
It may have been a stupid thing to do, but at what point does one feel enough is enough? This is something that has been coming for a long time. We know that there are members within the IRB what cannot stand us and probably practicably choked on their food when we won the WC in 07.
The citing procedure is wrong. That is clearly a fact. Why are we not allowed to contest it properly? Sheridan was not cited after the second test because the citing official would have already known the Lions had lost two props. It is so obvious. Surely this shows that there are bigger things going on behind the scenes are that the IRB are directly involved with citing decisions.
A previous Springbok management team from a while ago overheard one official telling the other to ‘get them’ during a match. I think it was an English guy. The IRB use these officials to deal with us. It’s only newer referees Bryce and the French official who are so far still impartial.
It would be expensive, but we should stand up for ourselves. Law courts are impartial. We will get fined anyway and then in future we won’t be able to say anything. They’ll have us by the short and curlys then.
7 Jul 2009, 07:40 am
#21 wallabie.:
Yup, but then cite and ban those players. We have the technology to show the difference between good old rucking and foul play. I’m getting sick of hearing the ref yell, “Roll away tackler, roll away.”
7 Jul 2009, 07:40 am
Where is the leadership?
It was a bad decision to wear the arm bands.
Who of the coach, manager approved this decision?
Did they ask SARU before going ahead?
Another stuff up by those who are supposed to manage the team.
7 Jul 2009, 07:44 am
#12 Lions_Soutie:
Thats the problem is some respects with RSA rugby. Administrators run the administration of rugby ie speak for their players and players play the game.
When you get players doing the job of administrators that is when one looks silly.
It seems the boks had lost faith in their own administrators getting the job down for them. The IRB is a collection of countries and to change a law lobbying needs to happen…going it alone is just that…going it alone and sticking out like a sore thumb.
When I saw the bands I knew what the reaction was going to be…more detrimental to the Bok cause than help it. Now the Boks have much unwanted attention on them when they least need it.
This Lions tour debacle is sticking out like a sore thumb that RSA need to get rid of quickly…good management is needed.
Leave the administrators to do the off field work otherwise change them and get someone more competent in SARU.
At least Oneill knows his role and the aus players know they have been supported. Time SARU did the same for its own kin!
7 Jul 2009, 07:46 am
#24 tight head:
Why didn’t they just call a press conference as a whole team and state,:
“We disagrees with the ruling and banning of Bakkies Botha.”
“If that is the decision, we’ll have to live with it, but we still feel it was wrong.”
End of story.
7 Jul 2009, 07:47 am
#24 tight head:
There are going to be tough questions…very tough ones.
The manager will be shown the door or maybe PDV at the end of the Tri nations.
7 Jul 2009, 07:48 am
#26 kyer:
That is SARUs job to fight for its own players. It seems SARU rolls over to the other unions.
7 Jul 2009, 07:49 am
IRB should take action against themselves, they are the sole reason why there is so much confusion and double standards in the system.
7 Jul 2009, 07:50 am
#7 Pietman:
Sy ban is vir wedstryde. Hy sal die eerste twee weke van hulle nuwe seisoen mis.
As for the judicial system and the IRB…
This protest (as stupid as I think it was taking player’s minds of the test) is to highlight the absolute farce this judicial and citing system is.
As far as I, and possibly 99% of the rugby public worldwide is concerned, this system has been bringing the game into disrepute, with the utter disregard for accountability to the IRB and the people they appoint to run this thing.
Bakkies should now turn around and sue the **** out of this old boys club for loss of income and defamation of character which in future could lead to more loss of income because he is clearly being targeted because of this so-called ‘reputation’.
Grow some balls SARU.
7 Jul 2009, 07:51 am
#24 tight head:
John Smit, together with SARPA initiated and led the move. Bok management supported it.
7 Jul 2009, 07:51 am
Sorry, if it was PDV talking it would have gone like this, (in a helium voice):
” We’s disagrees wif de ruelling ent benning of de Bakkees….ent, ent, ent..”
LOL!!!!
7 Jul 2009, 07:52 am
“When we are losing it will be a serious problem. He will be the first to be fired. Coaches get fired for teams not performing, not because they are not doing their job.”
Thats a crack up!!
7 Jul 2009, 07:54 am
IN addition, the IRB claims there are channels to follow if you have problems.
All well and good, but the question is how effective are these channels, and is there any level of accountability?
If these issues are highlighted through the channels does it mean there will be actual change brought about? Will the judicial officer who cited him and the one upholding the ban be held accountable?
Will Bakkies be financially reimbursed for his losses because of this decision?
Will we see a drive by the IRB to apply some consistency to this system?
I doubt it.
7 Jul 2009, 07:55 am
#8 smallies72: have to agree with you… since rucking was outlawed, we see more and more offside and negative play at ruck time… the Lions were off their feet and laying everywhere during the recent series, a few well placed studs would dramatically remove a lot of the foul tactics and prob tidy up the ruck…
7 Jul 2009, 07:56 am
#29 2STONE:
IRB is a collection of unions and are misguided by the home unions.
Unfortunately SANZAR is not strong/populas(sp) enough on its own to disagree with the NH…we dont have enough votes to change rulings.
The home unions have 2 votes each with France…so that is 10 votes vs 6 votes in SANZAR.
When it should be One union ONE vote.
7 Jul 2009, 07:56 am
Well done Stofile, but I feel it’s the same as Robert Mugabe telling Morgan Tsvangirai to be more democratic!
7 Jul 2009, 07:58 am
#31 PissAnt:
It was an ill conceived idea.
There is no place for that on the field, no matter how unfair and buggered up the system is.
The fight has to be handled in a better and smarter way.
What next?
Arm bands for extra pay?
Where does it end?
7 Jul 2009, 07:58 am
#36 wallabie.: IRB has always been ruled with an iron fist by the NH… constantly changing rules to abate the SH’s dominance… been happening since I was a kid…
7 Jul 2009, 07:59 am
ok so when the All Blacks and the NZRU officially and publicly placed the blame for their sad QF defeat at the poor innocent refs feet it was just a big whinge. Nothing wrong with thar according to the IRB twats.
If you wear an armband that is a no no.
7 Jul 2009, 08:01 am
#24 tight head: i put the blame squarely in “coach” john smit’s table! He was the one moaning to the papers that bakkies was “victimised” and with his “influence” in the team these days being @ an all-time high, he imposed the arm bands on the rest of the team like he usually does jake white’s gameplan!
7 Jul 2009, 08:02 am
#40 RedLion: innocent ref ??? cripes, if Im ever before the old bailey I’ll hope your officiating the proceedings… if that was your team that had 70% possession and was only awarded 2 penalties the entire match you’d be a little disappointed surely ? especially in the context of the magnitude of the game… one has to question why a novice ref was in charge of such a match… try being a little objective…
7 Jul 2009, 08:03 am
#34 PissAnt:
Technically speaking the citing commissionar got it right with Bakkies…you got to bind before going into a ruck.
I remember our coach drilling it into us at junior level. Its the law that needs changing not the ban. But the law was put into place for descretionary purposes if the ref felt there was malice…remember the ref knows whats going on on the field ie whats being said and the reactions.
So if there is an act a ref deems ‘violent’ or against the spirit of the game he can take necessary steps.
Most refs tread lightly in this area because they are the only ones privy to what is happening at the coal face which may look confusing if he makes a ruling. ie know one knows why…which is happening quite a bit.
7 Jul 2009, 08:04 am
#38 tight head:
I think that was already done (Andy Marinos – Stormers semi final threatened a full on strike & why did they wear armbands when the Boks played the combined Islands team in Aus in 2003?)
7 Jul 2009, 08:04 am
Poppa noting like good rucking to teach you manners,i have the scars to back it up. Maybe the irb must look at fifa 2 yellows=red three match ban finnish and klaar, no comitees no armbands…
7 Jul 2009, 08:07 am
#43 wallabie.:
I also said that from the start, but we might as well stop playing rugby then because it happens 20 or 30 times in every single match.
So althought technically correct, it does not fly with me.
Then one could easily argue that this should be applied consistently, which it is not.
One then can also ask why Bakkies was singled out?
Was it because Jones picked up an injury? Was it because it was Bakkies?
Is this then not clear victimization because it is either Bakkies or there was an injury?
Then who exactly is bringing the game into disrepute?
7 Jul 2009, 08:07 am
#45 smallies72: agreed… would stop a lot of the bullsh1t we see now…
and like the idea of two yellows… but also feel it is a band-aid solution… rules need to be simplified to the point were interpretation is the same, regardless of ref…
7 Jul 2009, 08:09 am
The IRB can go F#%$^$& them selves, SARU has complained about the harsh treatment that goes the way of the boks every time. In the WC Schalk gets banned for a hightackle but Lima gets of scott free, only to be banned the next game.
There are so many instances is not funny. And what have the IRB done, boggerhol!
The IRB is messed up, the last three years of rugby has been a shambels with the pathetic attempt at the ERV’s, I mean they took away the flippin rolling maul, they suck ***!
7 Jul 2009, 08:09 am
By SPIRO ZAVOS – SMH:
Victor Matfield, the Springboks’ lineout genius, had the word “Justice” written across the front of his headgear, and along with the rest of the side that played a memorable third test against the British and Irish Lions, on an armband, as well.
I wondered who or what cause the protest might be supporting until the commentator told us that it was a sign of solidarity for Bakkies Botha over his two-week suspension for foul play during the second test. The Springboks wanted to highlight their contention that Botha should have been cleared of the charge against him.
If we ever needed further proof of the arrogance and obsessive belief in the divine right of the Springboks to get their way on and off the field, this gesture has provided it. Botha had charged the Lions prop Adam Jones off the ball and had dislocated his shoulder. He was given a two-week suspension. It is unprecedented in rugby that the integrity of an IRB ruling has been challenged so blatantly and provocatively in this way.
When the Springboks captain, John Smit, was asked if his team might get into trouble with the IRB over its armband protest, he replied: “We’ll have to see.”
The case of Botha needs to be looked at in tandem with that of Schalk Burger. In the opening seconds of the second test against the Lions, Luke Fitzgerald’s eyes somehow attracted the groping fingers of Burger. The Canadian IRB official, Alan Hudson, ruled that the action was reckless but not intentional: that there was some short-lived tearing and blurred vision, and that there was no eye-gouging “in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area”.
Even a layman can see there is an inherent contradiction in this finding. Burger’s fingers were in Fitzgerald’s eye for some time. Some damage was done to the eyes. Given that eye-gouging is a “serious matter,” the eight-week ban imposed on Burger was totally inadequate and an injustice to the injured player.
Burger and Botha play the part of the hitmen of the Springboks pack, the enforcers. They launch themselves, illegally, like missiles into the rucks and mauls. They constantly provoke opponents off the ball. They are persistent offenders in the rucks and mauls, Burger going off his feet to kill the ball and Botha coming in from the side and invariably lying on the opponents’ side of the ruck. They tackle around the head constantly.
If the referee tolerates this mayhem, which often happens, the opposition get intimidated and overwhelmed. This tolerance gives a decided edge to the Springboks, as the first two tests against the Lions indicated. But on Saturday in the third test, the Lions trounced the Springboks 28-9. The Australian referee Stu Dickinson penalised the Springboks early on for killing the ball at the tackle. This excellent refereeing and the absence of the thuggish play of Burger and Botha meant that the Springboks forwards struggled to stop the Lions recycling ball.
With this front-foot ball, the Lions backs made breaks time and again. Forced to play with shape and discipline, the Springboks were, according to Peter Bills of The Independent, “as clueless as their coach Peter de Villiers”.
After the debacle at Johannesburg and the bizarre defence of Botha, things might have changed for the Springboks. The Lions revealed that without their hitmen, the Springboks struggled to make an impact. This might be the true justice in this matter.
7 Jul 2009, 08:10 am
#43 wallabie.:
The main problem I have is that neither the ref, or the linesmen deemed it dangerous.
He was cited, in hindsight by the commissioner. Where the ‘action’ resulted in an injury.
If the action did not result in an injury would it make the ‘action’ okay?
What are we then judging on?
Actions or consequences?
They want to apply the technical letter of the law, which is in the action, that is how they defend it and charged him – but in reality, they cited on the consequence not the action.
Now the consequence could also be argued in many ways, for instance that Jones’ technique at the ruck is wrong which is why the hit injured him (I can post you a piece where someone disected this).
Point is, this stinks to high heaven and the IRB has some nerve charging anyone given the root of the problem is them!
7 Jul 2009, 08:13 am
#30 PissAnt:
The most rediculous ruling I have ever seen was in 2003 when Laubshagne (sp) was red carded and give a multi week ban for a partially late tackle on wilkinson.
That was diabolical and highlighted who was in control of the IRB. Because someone tackled englands angel a little late they went over the top.
I watched that game and Laubs(sp) tackle was in the opening 5 in if memeory serves me correctly. Yellow maybe but definitely not red and then the 12 week ban.
Fark if I was one of the Boks I would have called 9999.
7 Jul 2009, 08:18 am
#51 wallabie.:
That is exactly the point.
7 Jul 2009, 08:19 am
Poppa i agree to many rules.not a soccer man my self but i do like the simplicety of their game.they do not change the rules every 2 years
7 Jul 2009, 08:21 am
But just watch SARU and the father of protests, Andy Marinos bend over to take another one in the naught.
I am actually hoping for an F1 situation here.
SARU tells the IRB to go forth and fornicate and that they will not attend disciplinary procedures, and if the IRB imposes any penalty they will pull out of any and all internationals.
NZ and Aus will immediately sit up because that means massive loss of income for them with their SANZAR alliance.
But ja, not going to happen.
Take another one up the naught Marinos!!!
7 Jul 2009, 08:23 am
#44 PissAnt:
PA I agree with what you have said about the Bakkies ruling.
I also think that there are some serious issues here as John Smit points out.
I also do not have much respect for the IRB.
However that is exactly why I am againgst this arm band protest.
It simply gives them more ammunition to fire back at the players.
It was a simple and stupidly considered way to fight back.
Good management would have not approved of this and considered smarter ways to make the point.
7 Jul 2009, 08:24 am
#41 Transformation: thank god for jake whites game plan otherwise i dont think we would have won a test under snor
7 Jul 2009, 08:26 am
#49 eddie:
Yup, but why wern’t the Lions charged with the same offence a few seconds later? Also a shoulder with no binding. The rule should apply to both teams. Seemed the injury was what highlighted Botha. We can accept these rulings if going both ways. Surely, surley, surely you have to agree to that?????
7 Jul 2009, 08:27 am
Ja, Adam Jones has accepted the he will have to undergo reconstructive surgery and will be out for six months (in the media has said that his fine with Bakkies, did any one from the Springbok camp contact him?), but no we are so arrogant we wouldn’t sit out a two week ban. We are a bunch of thugs, starting with that skollie of a coach.
7 Jul 2009, 08:27 am
#53 smallies72: again I agree… they have found a model that seems to work well…
7 Jul 2009, 08:29 am
#41 Transformation: I wonder if Jake sms’ed the suggestion to John.
7 Jul 2009, 08:29 am
#49 eddie: Man that is a vindictive article!
Is anyone really surprised at this though? A slap on the wrist and a nominal fine is probably going to be the outcome but I expect the whole saga to disappear quietly, that is if SARU has the balls to stand up to the IRB and challenge them.
7 Jul 2009, 08:30 am
#55 tight head:
Player’s job is to go do a job on the field and control things they can control.
This action was stupid for the fact that there were much more important things they could have occupied their minds with – like winning a test.
But I have some sympathy for them, obviously SARU is doing f-all to fight their cause so they probably feel they have to take matters in their own hands.
I say this again, the day a player takes the IRB or a union to court is not far off.
It will surely be one of the darkest days of the game, but thanks to the administrators, it is heading that way.
7 Jul 2009, 08:31 am
#58 BESTER: Coach John really messed up this time.
7 Jul 2009, 08:32 am
#56 chris_h: Was Jake’s gameplan also responsible for the loss last Saturday?
7 Jul 2009, 08:35 am
#62 PissAnt:
Exactly PA.
7 Jul 2009, 08:37 am
#49 eddie: Spiro Zavos is a typical Australian rugby journalist – they know nothing at all. Look at him, couldn’t even get his facts straight. “off the ball hit” implies a late charge or a foul hit away from the play, not a clean out at a ruck! (And Im aussie bashing my own media, they truly know nothing about rugby).
7 Jul 2009, 08:37 am
ag why dont we all just get some tutus and have a little dance.
what a crock of kuk.
personally, i like it. the irb feels threatened and maybe they will begin to take note that we are sick of the bs that informs their decisions.
a platform of millions sure helps get a point across and i am convinced the boks and saru knew that there would be reprecussions but gambled that the fallout may just be worthwhile.
ffs even paddy o’brien thought the citing was laughable.
and Tight Head, morning man. you are always saying we must fight for our rights as saffas wrt the bok emblem etc etc but what is this action but a fight for players rights by our lads? this is their profession afterall and if they are discriminated against they can lose the means to support their families (dramatic but true i think) not to mention the social stigma.
7 Jul 2009, 08:37 am
#65 tight head:
See the IRB pin this one on John as the instigator and ban him for a couple of matches…
All hell will break lose!
7 Jul 2009, 08:39 am
No matter what angle we take, the reasons are plenty and the examples good but the IRB states clearly what constitutes breaking of their precious laws. The Boks did it and will pay.
It was a stupid thing to do for all the right reasons..
7 Jul 2009, 08:39 am
loooooooooooooooooooooooooose.
7 Jul 2009, 08:39 am
#68 PissAnt: Do they have the power to do that in this case?
7 Jul 2009, 08:40 am
#66 jaimie: Spiros is a Kiwi!
7 Jul 2009, 08:43 am
#62 PissAnt: Good morning PA , TH hope ur both well…
As far as i am cocerned i think taking the IRB will be a good thing.To me the IRB have become a little dictatorship and many times do not take the interest of the players that actually bring in the money to heart.
When this happens , and when players and teams are targeted by idiotic officials as has been the case , they will stand up for themselves as is the case now
So i dont see a court case to far off in the distant future , and yes it will send waves and what ever through the rugby world , but i think thats a good thing
How long does one allow yourself as a team and a nation victimised , unjustly ??
Maybe its time to satndup as they have and say ENOUGHS ENOUGH,
Sooner or later one has to put a stop to the rot
7 Jul 2009, 08:45 am
#67 rangerman:
Morning Ranger.
Don’t misunderstand me.
I am at the front of the fight.
However it is about HOW you fight for your cause.
You have to try and outsmart them and don’t give them anything to fight you back with.
Meeting them head on is not always the smartest way.
7 Jul 2009, 08:46 am
#66 jaimie:
If you were bashing your own media…you would know that Spiros is a kiwi. He is a spin doctor just like Keo and his scribes.
7 Jul 2009, 08:46 am
act one: bakkies is banned
act two: everyone from paddy o’brien to the lions (who had been whining about thggery like an oil-less two stroke engine up until that point) say that the charge was fine.
act three: bakkies banned.
act four: appeal
act five: appeal dismissed.
so the proper channels were followed, the injustice of the irb was upheld and simply put, the players were told to bugger off and swallow the inconsistency of the citing procedures no matter how ludicrous they are.
so what is then the option?
just to carry on? saru to appeal behind closed doors (like that would help lmao!)?
the players took a stand and imo thats the spirit that has ensured that we dont all work in the fields tilling the soil for some unscrupulous “royal”.
the status quo will not change without action and i applaud John Smit and our lads for taking a stand.
7 Jul 2009, 08:47 am
#71 jonnymain:
Well the charge is bringing the game into disrepute.
The question is who did it or who is responsible?
The instigator, John?
Or his union for not keeping him in check, SARU?
7 Jul 2009, 08:48 am
#74 tight head: Ja TH, first question to be asked, can saru please show what they have done along the official channels available to them and the outcome of such actions? I will put money on it that it is a little skimpy…maybe I will be surprised and it will not!
7 Jul 2009, 08:49 am
#68 PissAnt:
Well PA, I go back to my point.
Where does the buck stop with this situation.
I s it the players?
Is it the coach?
Is it the manager?
Is it SARU?
How the IRB answer these questions is the key.
However in a well run organization it is the management who must take responsibility.
7 Jul 2009, 08:50 am
#58 BESTER:
I disagree….. Its not about sitting out a two week ban.
If Bakkies got a yellow card and then in a prolonged hearing was let off, things would be fine.
the fact is, it was a ruck clean-out with no immediate penalty. He was cited and banned. the whole issue was revisited and the ban upheld.
NOW, if that is the case there should have been another 8 citings in that match?????
what about the last test? Chilliboy took one in the ribs from the side if i am not mistaken….
WHERE ARE THE CITINGS???? this is the frustration the SA players are feeling………… It has been so clear this whole Lions test series that the tourists were able to get away with murder, this despite the fact that their penalty count for foul/dangerous play was WAY higher than ours…. not many people realise this.
7 Jul 2009, 08:50 am
#51 wallabie.: Laubaschagne didn’t deserve a red but Krige and some of the others did. They took out a lot of players that day, including one of their own.
7 Jul 2009, 08:51 am
#79 tight head:
It also depends how SARU defends the action to the IRB…
Do they take the blame for not keeping the players in check?
Or will they let John face the music saying they had nothing to do with it and that it was done without their blessing or consent?
7 Jul 2009, 08:51 am
#74 tight head: morning mate.
look, i cant stay to debate this too long but my opinion is that JS and his lads knew the fallout would occur but they have brought space to the debate and made it a focal point of world rugby.
it remains to be seen wether the irb will try to censure them but action of that nature could be dangerous considering the threat that it is widely felt this citing offers to the game of rugby as we know it.
like the action or not, they were forced into it and again, imo have opened up space for the debate to occur.
7 Jul 2009, 08:52 am
#64 Optimus Prime: No that was the “15 headless chickens” gameplan as adopted by PdV; Div had so many new faces and new combinations that Smitty couldnt control them – he probably didnt even know who Nokwe was until he saw him get on the team bus in a Bok tracksuit.
7 Jul 2009, 08:53 am
#76 rangerman: Nope, the process was followed to the point of the appeal turned down. What was done through the proper channels to show the unhappiness about the process?
7 Jul 2009, 08:55 am
#82 PissAnt:
SARU should ask the coach and manager why they allowed the protest.
After all they are the management that the players answer to.
They are responsible and obliged to answer.
This would only not apply if these 2 obtained permission from SARU for this protest.
If that was the case then SARU must answer to the IRB.
7 Jul 2009, 08:57 am
This is a joke. Wait for keos take on this ie Pdv must go!
7 Jul 2009, 09:00 am
#81 Big Hit: BH i can sit and watch so many games with you with players like Martin johnson etc and even now with the Lions tour where your players could have gotten long bans , but they don’t
There is so many cases of this , and for this reason the SA players are starting to grumble and get angry
You dont see them being angry about Burger as he deserved what he got
But for long enough we have had guys cited wrongfully , yet UK , Kiwi and Aussie teams in the same game do worse and get off scot free
You forget players always watch games again and see this, they see how they are being cheated , and its only a matter of time before they fight back , as now is the case
Some countries and officials think the game belongs to them and they can do what they want ,IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
This problem is not being caused by the players of countries , but by the IRB ,and many rugby boards
7 Jul 2009, 09:00 am
#84 chris_h: Oh I get it. Jake White is smsing John Smit with his gameplan to implement and all the wins, and the Lions series is to his credit, and the loses, that is squarely Pdv’s fault.
You must be incredibly busy today Chris. You still have to fit in your fitting with the KKK for your updated white robe and hood. Let’s not keep you.
7 Jul 2009, 09:04 am
#89 Optimus Prime:
Oh GET OVER YOURSELF!
7 Jul 2009, 09:07 am
#81 Big Hit: see most poms think their players are little angels
as do the kiwi’s and the aussies etc,
The fight here is not about wanting favours , its about everyone getting the same treatment
Its about the laws of the game , being different for different teams
That is the actual problem , not that someone was banned but why
when another 4000 examples of this so called offence happened this season and only he got punished
Thus BG the IRB is showing itself not only to be cheats , its also showing itself to be the spineless , arrogant , jellyfish that they are
7 Jul 2009, 09:14 am
facts is they(the players ,lead by j smit)aproached the whole situation in the wrong manner.
i support the boks but now i know why the rest of the world say the boks are arrogent, they proved it saturday.
some of the bok players think they are god’s gift to rugby
7 Jul 2009, 09:15 am
#87 Slappes: he’s probably already frothing over his keyboard with jake egging him on & proof reading, to make sure that something about “during jake white’s tenure respect was paramount”…
It’s the “winning ways” gospel! It has to get to the “delusional disciples” one way or the other!
7 Jul 2009, 09:16 am
#77 PissAnt: In such matters I would think the IRB will hold SARU directly responsible for the actions of their players, not the instigator of the protest. In my opinion it is up to SARU to ensure their employees act “appropriately” at all times.
7 Jul 2009, 09:18 am
#89 Optimus Prime: No I dont think its sms-ing – I would say they meet a few days in advance of match day for a proper briefing so that when it comes to the captains practice (ie with Snor not running around blowing hot air) Smitty knows what instructions to give.
Mate if you believe that Div is fully in control of that team then you are properly naive.
Oh you think that because I criticise Div its because I am a racist – hence the KKK chirp. Sheeeeeet am I that transparent?
7 Jul 2009, 09:20 am
#91 sharks_lover: So what would you say to those who think Schalk was lucky to escape with only 8 weeks? Precedent was there after all for a 12 week ban, maybe longer but he has got off relatively lightly. Is that not a case of the citing process doing SA a favour?
7 Jul 2009, 09:23 am
#92 st.a.t.w: You know, I don’t see it that way at all. They displayed solidarity for one of their mates, some would say that should be applauded and shows they have a tight team spirit…? Why does showing solidarity for a mate display arrogance?
7 Jul 2009, 09:27 am
#95 chris_h: I like that you believe in this undercover meetings with Jake. Do they Skype him the practice too? And tell me. Jake does all of this without receiving renummeration whatsoever.
Yes. It makes more sense to believe that Jake is hiding in the bushes, than Pdv is actually coaching.
But your argument is flawed. You blamed the coaching of Pdv for the loss. But you praise the bush hiding Jake, for the Lions series win. So somewhere in your head, whilst you sit around a bon fire getting ready to plant a cross on someones lawn, you are admitting that Pdv is coach.
7 Jul 2009, 09:28 am
The IRB have a serious legal battle on their hands with this one. Unlike the RWC in France on 07, this protest was held on South African soil and as such all the players have clear protection under the Constitution.
:Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
– Chapter 2: 7-39 Bill of Rights
– Section 17. Assembly, demonstration, picket and petition
Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed,toassemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.
All I can say is if I were one of the players who protested I would have plenty amunition to shoot the IRB down in flames.
7 Jul 2009, 09:32 am
#62 PissAnt: You make some good points here. Just a few of my own.
1. If Hoskins & Co had come out and slammed Bakkies’ suspension, calling for the IRB to hold an urgent meeting to clarify clean-outs at rucks, the players would probably not have needed their Justice protest.
2. The IRB is a faceless group, almost like a boys’ club. Carling was right to label rugby administrators “old farts” all those years ago. Nothing’s changed.
3. When will the IRB follow the example of the ICC which has former Test cricketers as match referees? They impose penalties ranging from fines to suspensions. Had just one former Test player been on the citing tribunal, Bakkies would probably have been cleared as he would have seen it the same way as Paddy O’Brien (IRB refs supremo) and Warren Gatland (Lions forwards coach). They believed there was no case to answer.
4. The IRB need to realise that rugby is now professional and very big business. It’s no longer the amateur game of the up-school, up-school days. Players now have rugby careers and are effectively employees of their unions. Accordingly they have the right to legal redress if they are treated unfairly. Bakkies lost out on a hefty match fee and his reputation was impugned for an incident that qualified experts (ie O’Brien and Gatland, not to mention the injured Jones) have labelled as “no problem.” I’m no legal expert but it would be interesting to see the outcome if IRB execs were served with a writ for damages next time they came to SA.
7 Jul 2009, 09:33 am
#96 jonnymain: GO look at the charge against Burger , he was found not guilty of eye gouging
thus he got the same 8 weeks a italian player got
why not take a better example ,
Bakkies does something legaly and is banned 2 weeks
a lions player intentionally pounds his knees into a player on the ground and gets 2 weeks??
The player on the ground from the force and size of the player slamming his kness into his back could have had a broken back , spine , paralysis ???? who knows what also gets 2 weeks ??
a lions player openly punches a player in the testicals and is not even cited , this list could go on
See it is typical that you and your cronies would agree with the citings and the ways its done as it favours your kind
Of course you would not find it wrong then
7 Jul 2009, 09:34 am
Attention everyone:
The apologist lefties have now latched (yes, just like a baby latches on to a breast) onto the phrase “Coach John Smit”.
Be prepared for all the ‘facts’ that will now be posted, like SMS’s, emails etc which ‘prove’ this to be the conspiracy.
7 Jul 2009, 09:44 am
#101 sharks_lover: I was actually thinking of Alan Quinlan of Munster not Parisse.
You say that Shaw intended to injure FdP but that was contested by the player and his coaches, he did appear to stumble into FdP – it was reckless and dangerous but you won’t convince me it was intentional. You need to simmer down a bit, broken back or paralysis indeed!
If you say Shaw was intentional there are those who would counter by saying Bakkies intentionally took out Jones knowing his arm was trapped in an awkward position – it is ridiculous but try looking at these situations with both eyes open. For every argument one way there is a counter argument, you can’t just have things your own way because you aren’t capable of seeing both sides of the argument!
Fact is most people think Burger was lucky to get 8 weeks. If the IRB REALLY had it in for SA they’d have had every excuse to ban Burger for 12 or more. These accusations of persecution don’t stack up to me.
7 Jul 2009, 09:52 am
Apart from the fact that the protest armbands was a really superkak idea, who the fck decided on the “Justice 4″ line?
Justice 4 sounds like a wannabe bad-*** boy band.
I assume the 4 is yoofspeak for “for”. But for what, then? If you have the conviction to wear the bands, then surely you should have the balls to call a spade a whole spade. Or could no one remember how to spell Bakkies?
Or was the whole thing conceived about 2 minutes before they ran out and this is all they had time for? This would be my guess.
Note to those planning future protests: get a copywriter on board.
7 Jul 2009, 09:55 am
#104 katman: Think Bakkies wears number 4 hence the “4″ in “Justice 4″
7 Jul 2009, 10:01 am
Yarpies have a persecution complex. It’s paranoid schizophrenia, of course.
Boo hoo. (not)
7 Jul 2009, 10:02 am
#101 sharks_lover: Spot on Sharks_lover. Agree there.
Why no yellow card for Sheridan for punching Bekker in the testicles? Bloody dirty bugger. Shaw only gets two week ban that could have damaged FdP kidney he went in with his knees right in that area. Nothing wrong with what Bakkies does and he gets a two week ban!!! Even after the appeal they could damn well see he never done anything wrong. Bugger it seems they are just out to get us as usual.
Does players just not have a voice? We go the legal route and appeal and still nothing is done. Players should have a voice somehow. Just to wear a arm band is no big deal. Next time we may see teams boycott a game. That would be a lot worse. Something has to be done about the reffing and citing officers. Some of them disgrace just not good enough.
7 Jul 2009, 10:03 am
#98 Optimus Prime: Where is the site moderator – this is the second time I’ve been a called a racist..boo hoo…boo hoo…transformer man (or woman?) is hurting my feelings…
I just think PdV is a kak coach…fullstop – an opinion, in a democratic society – I am fully entitled to.
7 Jul 2009, 10:05 am
#105 jonnymain: I think they were going to write Justice 4 All (inspired by the Metallica album), when someone pointed out that All would include the Lions players. Unfortunately Victor had already written the 4, so they had to go with “Justice 4″
7 Jul 2009, 10:05 am
#102 Stawm: Read Gavin Rich’s article from the Cape Argus
The article was discussed yesterday here on Keo under the heading of “Boks need a coach”
“But how much longer can Smit and his lieutenants Victor Matfield and Fourie du Preez keep the Boks together?
Yesterday the cracks were clearly becoming evident, and the Boks have got progressively worse during the series.
It is when the experienced players go that the Boks are going to need a coach. Is De Villiers the right man to take the Boks to 2011?”
Gavin Rich in the Argus over the weekend.
Further, a blogger here Chris says before the match meetings are arranged with Jake White, by John Smit to talk about what they are going to do.
“95. chris_h :
July 7th, 2009 at 9:18 am
#89 Optimus Prime: No I dont think its sms-ing – I would say they meet a few days in advance of match day for a proper briefing so that when it comes to the captains practice (ie with Snor not running around blowing hot air) Smitty knows what instructions to give.
Mate if you believe that Div is fully in control of that team then you are properly naive.”
So, this view, it does not come from the so-called leftist apologists. It comes straight from journalists and right wing bloggers.
7 Jul 2009, 10:06 am
#108 chris_h: Just like you are entiled to yours, I AM ENTITLED TO MINE. Democracy and all that old chap.
7 Jul 2009, 10:08 am
#107 Puma: Oh FFS why don’t you get it!!?
Sheridan did what he did out of sight of the officials so he didn’t receive a sanction on the field. How can you yellow card someone if you haven’t seen it?
The point about Bakkies is he DID do something that is contrary to the rules, ie a flying shoulder charge into a ruck without binding onto one of his own players. It is in the rulebook therefore once he was cited it was inevitable that he would be punished. The citing process is not in question, they made the right decision on the evidence. I, and others like John Smit for example, have a problem with the fact that he was cited in the first place for doing something that you see 10 or 15 times in a match.
7 Jul 2009, 10:08 am
#106 TheTackler: Well done, Tackler. I see you made the local news here:
Wellington – A New Zealand teenager tried to sell some sexy photographs of his mother on an Internet auction site after the pair had an argument, a newspaper here reported.
The 18-year-old student opened an auction for “five naked photos of my Mum” on the Trade Me site after being told to clear the family garage and sell any unwanted items on the site, the Herald on Sunday said.
Trade Me pulled the auction the next day, but the student, identified only as Michael, was soon back trying to sell a series of eight-year-old “glamour” shots of his mother, including one of her in underwear.
7 Jul 2009, 10:10 am
#108 chris_h: If you are a white man with a negative opinion of a non-white person you are automatically a racist. Dontcha just love SA sometimes!?
7 Jul 2009, 10:12 am
#114 jonnymain: Actually come to think of it, the same applies all over the world – not just in SA.
7 Jul 2009, 10:13 am
Well at least the wearing of armbands has had an effect, and “Bakkiesgate” can hopefully give us some answers from the IRB.
After all, what use protesting if nothing comes of it?
7 Jul 2009, 10:14 am
#114 jonnymain: Exactly. But this is nothing. It’s rumoured that, in line with our AA policies, our next coach will be a woman. If you don’t like her, you’ll be a sexist.
7 Jul 2009, 10:17 am
#117 katman: Depends if she’s hot or not
7 Jul 2009, 10:17 am
#106 TheTackler: Is that why you moved to Wellington?
Felt the new regime would be “persecuting” you and your naked mum?
7 Jul 2009, 10:18 am
#112 jonnymain: Sheridan should have been cited by the citing officers. If we saw it on TV then they saw it too. Just think a little before you type. Okay. Does not take much to think about.
7 Jul 2009, 10:20 am
#116 RedMan: You are probably right there. Maybe for once the players voice will be heard. Even if we have to pay a fine or whatever. Next time mark my words teams will start to boycott games. It will get worse.
We need far better reffing and citing officers.
7 Jul 2009, 10:21 am
#110 Optimus Prime:
But thats part of my point, who takes the journos seriously, really. Who?
Also, when have we EVER had a coach that everyone agrees with?
There are always going to be people who will find a way to discredit anyone they want to. Also, out of the number of bloggers here on keo, it must be a very small minority that even begin to believe that SMS story.
We (you) should be encouraging people to read between the lines, and make up their own minds. Personally, I think the media are HUGELY to blame here, not only for the current clandestine rugby stories, but the whole country in general with regard to all the pessism etc.
7 Jul 2009, 10:22 am
Why the hell can’t any of the journo’s get it right? First you report “Justice”, then “Justice 4″.
Is it going to take you another week to realise that it was “Justice 4 All”?!!
I saw it on saturday – open your eyes, phone some of the players, review the match – it’s not so difficult to do some research. I constantly have to do it in the real world.
7 Jul 2009, 10:25 am
#120 Puma: Try reading what I actually wrote first, it isn’t hard. I do think Sheridan deserved to be cited but you clearly said he should’ve been yellow carded – big difference if you are pedantic like me
7 Jul 2009, 10:26 am
#123 King Shark:
How dare you accuse these journos of not doing their work properly.
This is their own personal fiction factory.
7 Jul 2009, 10:28 am
No, a “clear disregard”would be actually fielding Botha. This is merely making visible the doubts that SA players and SARU have that IRB is not the WWF in diguise….
IRB, this is not a rock concert, ths is sport- with equal rules for everybody. Interference from the top means it is not sport anymore. It is pure theatre. I prefer sports thankyou.
7 Jul 2009, 10:31 am
katman old tacklebags is like a old dog just noise and no bite.i am so glad he lives in nz and not in k@k sa.i must ad that the kiwis also does not deserve to have him pulling them down
7 Jul 2009, 10:31 am
The only way to defeat the citing system is for SARU to go through the match recordings with a fine toothcomb in concert with players, the day after the match, and lodge complaints with the citing board for every single incident.
I realise that it goes against the spirit of the game but it’s one way to show how selective the citing process is. It’s just a matter of drowning the buggars in paperwork!
7 Jul 2009, 10:32 am
#125 Stawm: Hehe. Quite the factory.
7 Jul 2009, 10:36 am
And how come calling a **** decision a **** decision is “bringing the game into disrepute”, but the whinging and gnashing of teeth and rendering of garments that the Lions were doing about the ref’s was not bringing on disrepute. Hell, the one shows character, while the other shows immaturity. Then again, the IRB would not understnd the concept of immaturity…
7 Jul 2009, 10:37 am
#128 David: Not a bad idea – we might win the #N after all if they do that.
After the third match, the Aussies would have to field a third string side…
7 Jul 2009, 10:37 am
#124 jonnymain: Agree I did say that. He should have if he had been seen doing it. He should have though got cited. It was there up on the tv to be seen by the citing officers. If we saw it they did too. But nothing came of it. Seems a bit unfair. If it was one of our players he would have got cited. I have not doubt about it.
So I for one had no problem with them wearing the white bands on Saturday. Their voices have to be heard. So why all the damn fuss about that now? Bakkies should never have got the ban.
7 Jul 2009, 10:37 am
The IRB, like the ICC, are a bunch of elitist pricks. They protect only their own interests and particularly those of the Northern Hemisphere.
The 4 best sides in the world come from the Southern Hemisphere, yet we continue to suck hind-*** and it’s time we do as India did with the ICC… tell them to get fcuked
7 Jul 2009, 10:38 am
#N=3N
7 Jul 2009, 10:40 am
#133 seamus:
I agree, India showed that it can be done, and with huge success.
The IRB behave like the international rugby world is their own little boys school, with them being the headmasters etc.
7 Jul 2009, 10:44 am
#112 jonnymain: Actually his right arm was up – its just that Adams went backwards so quickly, he did not have time to bind.
The point was that if Bakkies was cited for that level of non-binding, then all of the players should have been. SA should seriously have gone through the entire match with a fine tooth comb and cited every Lions player doing that. In light of all that evidence, the citing commisioner could hardly have only banned Bakkies? This *** for tat stuff is such nonsensand takes away from an otherwise magnificanet game. The IRB is making such a shambles of running rugby. It is time a breakaway group came out of the woodwork.
7 Jul 2009, 10:53 am
#104 katman:
lol, it was a bladdy stupid idea, why did they not just whinge like the pommies, which is perfectly acceptable to the IRB.
7 Jul 2009, 10:58 am
We need to make an alliance with our French Rugby Brothers, more internationals series against them please.
More club games , Sharks vs Racing perhaps?
Im sure we would rather be aligned with French style than the 4 Nations rugby.
Plus im keen to learn French ?
7 Jul 2009, 11:00 am
#136 SjamBok: That is the point I made, it happens 10 or 15 times a game. Once Bakkies was in the citing process though he had no leg to stand on from a legal viewpoint.
Don’t think the citing had anything to do with the Lions though. More than that I don’t think citings can be made by teams themselves, they have to be made by the citing officer.
7 Jul 2009, 11:02 am
#139 jonnymain:
A team has 48 hours to lodge a complaint with the citing officer, after the match.
7 Jul 2009, 11:07 am
If the IRB spent as much time sorting out the citing problems as they do covering their own arses’s and the refs there would be no complaints like this
7 Jul 2009, 11:11 am
#109 katman:
Mate you need your own sitcom!!
7 Jul 2009, 11:12 am
#140 David: I stand corrected.
7 Jul 2009, 11:14 am
#140 David: Ya, PDV said he doesnt want to cite anyone???? I understand the logic but cmon this is a professional sport and people are getting injured.
7 Jul 2009, 11:21 am
The white media is to PdV what the black Govt would have been to a Heyneke Meyer
It speaks of the polarised society that we have in SA.
7 Jul 2009, 11:21 am
#106 TheTackler: being insulting again taclker? what abou your yellow runaway to nz streak?
7 Jul 2009, 11:23 am
#122 Stawm: Then don’t say one group has latched on to this rubbish. If we are to encourage people to see the light, what do you think I said to the Chris guy.
I find it insane that he would rather believe that Jake hides in bushes at bok practices to sms John to implement his coaching, rather than that Pdv is actually coaching. Win or lose.
7 Jul 2009, 11:25 am
#99 Sharptooth:
Hear hear!
7 Jul 2009, 11:25 am
Whither goeth the IRB? To have respect for a process the said process must be worthy of respect. The IRB “process’, in this instance, falls short of the standards that one would expect. The IRB fails the requirements dismally!
7 Jul 2009, 11:29 am
#111 Optimus Prime: Hatespeech dude
7 Jul 2009, 11:30 am
I see a lot of angry invective about the armbands here on both sides of the debate. Well, at least that is a nice balance anyway, if nothing else. I see a lot of questions too, but commonsense answers appear to be in short supply.
34: PISSANT
“Will Bakkies be financially reimbursed for his losses because of this decision?”
I could also ask, will Adam Jones be compensated for his SIX MONTHS out of rugby due to the injuries he received that were caused by Bakkies’ illegal action? That is six months during which we will miss ALL of Ospreys Heineken Cup matches, half a season of Magners league matches and all of the Autumn Internationals, which also means he will struggle to get selected for Wales in the 6N. Thats match fees and win bonuses gone! Perhaps Bakkies could stump up with some compensation!!
15. KEVINRACK
“What the hell did Bakkies do in that match”
What he did was charge into a ruck without binding (illegal) which resulted in him shoulder charging an opponent (illegal) and injuring him. For anyone to claim this is “cleaning out” is bullsh!t of the highest order. Shoulder charging a player with the ball is considered dangerous, so why would shoulder charging a player without the ball not be. While it may be true that others have done the same thing, Bakkies wasn’t penalised at the time, he was cited AFTER the match. Once cited and sent to the judiciary, his prior offenses (the list of which is lengthy) come into play. His brutal attack on Mortlock’s head last year (causing that player to be replaced and miss the next match), as well as the injury his actions caused to Jones (who also had to be replaced and miss the next match) would have been taken into consideration. In some ways, Bakkies is unlucky in that he has been made an example of. Someone has to be first when the Lawmakers crack down, and Bakkies got the short straw. However, the IRB means to stamp oui this brutal and illegal practice of players launching themselves at rucks like missiles, and IMO the sooner the better. Its dangerous. The victim often has no defence against it, or cannot brace themselves against the impact and as a result it will lead to serious, perhaps career ending injuries if allowed to continue. In short, it has no place in the game.
7 Jul 2009, 11:38 am
#151 cooky: When Brad Thorne spear tackled John smit 2 years back and as a result Smit missed 3-4 months of rugby; Thorne got absolutely no suspension at all. It’s a mixed up system.
I believe that if foul play (and I don’t agree that Bakkies play was foul in this instance) results in an injury, the offender should be suspended until the injured player returns to the field. Just a thought…
7 Jul 2009, 11:39 am
#135 Stawm:
But then again India have taken over the cricket world now.
Personally I think it was perfectly acceptable, and right, to wear the armbands. How can you stop a team from doing that when they feel aggrieved by a decision that victimised one of their own.
7 Jul 2009, 11:41 am
#151 cooky:
Even Jones said he had no problem with what Bakkies did!!!
7 Jul 2009, 11:42 am
And it’s not that Bakkies drew the short straw, the f*cking IRB gave it to him!
7 Jul 2009, 11:45 am
To add to the confusion an IRB spokesman said Bakkies
did not use his arms and did not bind,clearing out Jones.
So if I understand him correctly it is the same as a tackle,
it is OK to use your shoulder,which you in any case must
do in a tackle,but put your arms around him.
So no more charging in like a Bull in a China-shop.
So it appears if Bakkes had put his arm around Jones,
the impact may have been softened and perhaps if both
had landed a couple of meters away,it would have been
all right as long as Bakkies accompanied him.
7 Jul 2009, 11:45 am
BOYCOTT THE TRY NATIONS TEST MATCHES:
SHOW SARFU WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THEIR GREED…R1 140 A LIONS TEST TICKET
EVERY-ONE DO NOT GO TO ANY TRI-NATIONS TESTS THIS YEAR!
7 Jul 2009, 12:02 pm
SHOW THEM WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS RUBBISH ANYMORE
DO NOT ATTENND ANY MORE GAMES
7 Jul 2009, 12:05 pm
I agree that something needs to be done about the IRB’s very selective citing process, but not sure the armbands was the way to go. What people need to understand is that the ban on Bakkies was not the sole reason for the Bok protest, it was simply the final straw – there’s been a long history of SA players receiving harsher penalties than other players for the same offences. I’m sure bloggers here could quote you numerous examples.
I don’t know much about the citing process, I admit, but here’s my suggestion.
In future tests, SARFU need to have a team making a case against anyone who they believe should be cited, and have it ready just before the deadline expires for citings. Then if a Bok player is cited for something and an opponent is not cited for a similar offence, they can immediately hand the evidence to the citing commissioner with a request to follow it up, and insist on an explanation if no citing follows. For instance, after the second test, if as soon as Bakkies was cited the Bok management had handed the IRB a video clip of Sheridan punching Bekker in the balls, with a request to follow it up, then the IRB would have no choice but to cite him too.
Of course it would require work from the administrators, and cost some money, but I think it’s a way smarter way to go than the armbands idea.
7 Jul 2009, 12:08 pm
152. Chappy
“When Brad Thorne spear tackled John Smit 2 years back and as a result Smit missed 3-4 months of rugby; Thorne got absolutely no suspension at all.”
Incorrect. It was last year not two years ago (the Wellington Test). Brad Thorn got a yellow card and a one match suspension.
What Brad Thorn did was wrong and he should have been given at least another week. Actually, Thorn is one of those players (Adam Thomson is another) who are going to have to change their approach to how they clean out.
154. boktoinfinityandbeyond
“Even Jones said he had no problem with what Bakkies did!!!”
Jones’ opinion is irrelevant. The iRB have issued a directive to National Unions and referees which outlines the concerns of the medical profession, coaches, players and administrators. The directive contains a lot of admin guff, but the upshot of this is the last paragraph:
—
“Zero tolerance to players who charge into rucks and mauls without binding.
Zero tolerance to players who clear out opponents not involved in ruck and maul.
Match Officials, Citing Officials and Judicial Officers are requested to be vigilant and apply Law and appropriate sanctions when players are involved in dangerous play of this nature.”
—
Any way you slice it, ZERO TOLERANCE, means that the iRB intends to put an end to this practice, a practice that IMO should never have been allowed in the first place.
7 Jul 2009, 12:08 pm
BOYCOTT ALL 3 NATIONS GAMES-SHOW THESE IDIOTS FOR ONCE
7 Jul 2009, 12:09 pm
#159 rich1:
‘Work from the administrators’? You’ve got to be joking.
7 Jul 2009, 12:11 pm
The IRB can fk off …c_nts
7 Jul 2009, 12:11 pm
#162 boktoinfinityandbeyond:
Admittedly that is the flaw in my plan!
7 Jul 2009, 12:13 pm
#160 cooky:
Zero tolerance my arse! If they had zero tolerance half the players would be cited and suspended after every game, because it happens multiple times every game!
7 Jul 2009, 12:16 pm
#159 rich1: there have been numerous very unfair citations against the boks and numerous occassions when opposing teams have been left to do as they please, this must stop, its is absolute fkn bull.
7 Jul 2009, 12:18 pm
R1140 to go to a Lions Test…. that’s cheap!!!
In 2005 the price for Jade Stadium Lions Test tickets was about NZ$270 (R1350) for the open stand and over NZ$400 (R2000) for the Paul Kelly Stand, if you were lucky enough to win the ballot for them!!!
7 Jul 2009, 12:22 pm
#165 boktoinfinityandbeyond: exactly , it appears that the zero tolerance bullshite only applies to South African players.
This whole issue must come to a head and SARU must stand up to the IRB.
7 Jul 2009, 12:26 pm
#167 cooky: We pay R300 to see the All Blacks. Now that is what I call money well worth spent.
R80 to see the Supersport teams playing.
So to charge R1140 to see the Lions was a bit much. It was first R1450 then the released tickets were R1140. Its a lot of money for South Africans earning rands. Spoke to some Lions supporters and they only paid 70 pounds for theirs. Not a lot of money if you earning pounds.
We should have bused in the children free too.
7 Jul 2009, 12:26 pm
#166 byoboy:
Agreed. That’s why the citing commissioners have to realise that if they choose to cite a Bok player but ignore a similar offence from someone else, they will immediately be expected to explain why. If we just sit there and say “it’s not fair, Bok players always get cited and others get away with it”, it sounds like a whinge. We need to show specific instances of bias, and have the evidence ready to prove the point.
7 Jul 2009, 12:26 pm
#167 cooky: one can’t convert on NZ$ to Rand when comparing prices, let me tell you R1140 is expensive.
7 Jul 2009, 12:29 pm
bloody idiots, won’t they just play rugby and stop this blue-bullying it’s taking us nowhere, don’t forget we were going to thrash these weak lions, in fact the only time we beat them was the first half of the first test,let’s hope this is a massive wake-up call.did keo write that we should have no trouble in winning the tri-nations as we have the best team.
7 Jul 2009, 12:29 pm
#170 rich1: agreed, we need to stand up to this nonsense and end it once and for all.
7 Jul 2009, 12:36 pm
One example in the 3rd Lions test had Heaslip charging in shoulder first into a ruck, the ref pinged him but not for dangerous play like Botha was cited for, but for coming in the side. If the Botha citing was fair then Heaslip should have been cited.
Plus if anyone has actually played rugby you are taught to clean out a ruck with your shoulder from an early age. You just put your arms out to make sure the player can’t move away. If the IRB seriously do not want this type of cleaning out they need to do two things:
1) Cite EVERY PLAYER who does it ‘illegally’, until it stops regardless of injuries sustained by the person being cleaned out.
2)Bring back rucking
7 Jul 2009, 12:37 pm
165. boktoinfinityandbeyond
“Zero tolerance my arse! If they had zero tolerance half the players would be cited and suspended after every game, because it happens multiple times every game!”
You are talking the past. I am talking the future, what is going to happen
This perception that South Africa have been hard done by is just so much bullsh!t. That’s your paranoia coming out.
Our perception is that we see game after game, time after time, Springbok teams continually provoking opponents off the ball, taking out support players, high tackles, early tackles, late tackles, foul play of all descriptions. Just from memory…
- Butch James attmpted eye gouge on Conrad Smith
- Bakkies Botha flying headbutt to Ben Kay
- Juan Smit attempted eye gouge on Adam Thomson
- Victor Matfield forearm to the head of Byron Kelleher
- Bakkies Botha elbow to the face of Rodney So’oialo
- Bakkies Botha brutal attack on Mortlock’s head
- Butch James no-arms tackles… too numerous to count
- Corne Krige elbow to he head of Aaron Mauger
- DeWet Barry numerous no-arms often late tackles
…and game after game, time after time, these players escape punishment. That is our perception, which of course Bokke supporters will disagree with.
It all depends what colour supporters jersey you wear, as to how you see it.
7 Jul 2009, 12:41 pm
later people. IRB are a bunch of fkn p-ssies.
7 Jul 2009, 12:43 pm
#76 rangerman:
If you are going to make a stand against something and advertise the fact to the world, then at least stand for something worthwhile and in the process gain respect, not ridicule.
Take a stand against injustice & the complete lack of will and moral obligation by your leaders to fight endemic crime. To remember the thousands of people (including women & children) whose lives have been needlessly cut short by vicious criminals who operate right on your doorstep.
You just don’t get it.
7 Jul 2009, 12:46 pm
#175 cooky:
And here’s the perception SA supporters have. Not going back so far, just this series:
- Brian O’Driscoll flying headbutt on Danie Rossouw, injures him
- numerous high tackles, especially by Shaw, Rees and O’Driscoll
- Sheridan punching Bekker in balls
- Jamie Heaslip kneeing Habana in the back after he’s scored
- Heaslip dangerous shoulder charges at rucks
- O’Connell strangling Juan Smith
Yet the international press ignore all this and go on about the “dirty” Springboks, and all the above Lions players are referred to as “heroes”
7 Jul 2009, 12:51 pm
Sharptooth I agree with your line of thinking as that has been my view on the IRB’S stance of this. Surely the memebers on the IRB board represent countries where democracy is the way ie. there is a right to protest, especially as in this case peacefully, so are they not going against the very principles they should be upholding being citizens representing countries that adhere to this.
On another more cynical note is the timing of this nonsense from the IRB in anyway related to the upcoming anouncement of who gets to host the World Cup, ie does this help justify their smug decision that England will probably get it and not South Africa, or is that just a crazy theory on my part?
7 Jul 2009, 12:51 pm
sa in nz i fully agree bring back rucking.u will not have all this niggling because u will be sorted out at ruck time.just make rucking to the face a offence
7 Jul 2009, 12:59 pm
160 CHAPPY
Are you sure you dont work for the IRB? “Jones opinion is irrelevant” yes I mean what would an upstart international rugby player’s view be of any relevance we (IRB board) are actually the only one’s who really matter so with regard to the protest how dare they.
As for you lofty take on ZERO TOLERANCE well if that was indeed the case then you would have a lot of folk being unhappy about the way the game on the field was heading but at least if that had been applied across the board then it would be fairer and we wouldn’t be the inconsistencies in their decisions.
7 Jul 2009, 13:02 pm
#151 cooky: Listen Toss,
Jones himself said that what Bakkies wasn’t wrong. Are you one of those people they feel they have to make decisions for others because you think you know whats best for them, (eg. making it illegal for someone to smoke in their own home/car.)
7 Jul 2009, 13:04 pm
morning all, does any1 think that perhaps its understandable that the players are in a sense standing up 4 themselves ,i feel that saru gets bullied by SANZAR way too much and that we keep quite far to often ?hmm maybe
7 Jul 2009, 13:10 pm
#160 cooky: You really are just opposing everyone’s statements no matter what.
You must be a woman.(no offence to females but you do like to argue)
The point is that Jones has the best first hand knowledge of what happened. Bakkies cleared a ruck and DID use his arms.
We saw a number of “worse” ruck clearances by the Lions on the sheepish Boks in the Third test even.
7 Jul 2009, 13:14 pm
smaller stadium…
7 Jul 2009, 13:20 pm
#175 cooky: Yeah, you deserved every one of those…
7 Jul 2009, 13:30 pm
#175 cooky:
right up to that post i found your arguments logical and even-handed.
but then you went and cited bok incidents against (mainly) all black players which reduced you to another whinging kiwi.
when will you guys get over your holier-than-thou selves?
is it the isolation or island mentality?
is it because as a nation you haven’t really produced that many outstanding citizens?
don’t know the answer but it confuses the **** out of me.
7 Jul 2009, 13:34 pm
#122 Stawm: I dont need to read between the lines or read the sporting hacks; I just need to watch 80 minutes of South africa playing rugby to fill me with all that pessimism…
Hopefully I’ll be eating my words at Tri Nations time but I have my doubts.
7 Jul 2009, 13:37 pm
Possibly the best thing that could come out of it for SA rugby/Boks is if the IRB banned them for 1 or 2 matches (of course, they wont), which would draw a line under it (as they should, that JUSTICE campaign was disgraceful) and allow the Selectors to pick a side entirely from afresh. The new Boks would play with no expectations and 1, 2 or more players could emerge as the next stars. Then the returning, and hopefully more humble, players would know their place was now not taken for granted and the weeding-out process of aging stars could begin.
This is what happened when the Cavaliers were banned from the ABs post 1986 tour to SA, out of which the phoenix of the Baby Blacks vs France arose who then formed the nucleus of the team that won the RWC the following year.
But Smit and PdV should hang for that appalling display of egos. In the week that 1 of their players eye-gouged, it was completely disgraceful, player power drunk on success of the previous week.
All the apologists out there who are still going on about the technicalities of the Bakkies ban are colluding with the smokescreen that hides the real issues here. JUSTICE my ***. Its fair to say there are ALOT more campaigns worthy of ‘JUSTICE’ in their own back yard, surely.
7 Jul 2009, 14:51 pm
#189 BlackPanther:
Comparison to the Cavaliers. Well thats not fair
* The Cavaliers did toured against the wishes of of their UNion, coach and against sporting sanctions
* The Union and government told them n ot to go and even went as far as stopping them legally a year ealrier
* The Cavaliers did it for money
* THey were reinstated after 2 games
* And the Cavalier side (plus Kirwan and Kirk who refused to tour) were the main nucleus of the WC winning side
The SA side did it with their coach’s blessing (in fact he participated and maybe even encouraged it or even started it)
It is not clear whether SARU was involved. Going by Hoskins comments they supported the protest albeit tacitly
I didn’t like the armbands either.
But the intention was way more noble than the Cavaliers
7 Jul 2009, 14:52 pm
187. Charo
You missed the underlying point. In citing the “Bok incidents” I am simply making a point about perception. Every supporter in every country in every sport can list things that have happened in matches, games, events where they feel they have been unfairly treated. I sure you could list lots of things that players from all over the world have done to Boks in rugby matches. No team in anywhere in the world gets more or less harshly treated by judicaries or referees than any other.
179. 2XCHAMPIONS
National Rugby Unions sign up to a code of conduct. They break it at the peril. This kind of protest smells of dissent to me. Players are not allowed to protest a referees decision on or off the field, so what gives them the right to protest a decision given by an even higher authority… namely the judiciary.
I’ll give you a scenario to consider.
You are the referee. You have Red Carded a team’s No 7 for a late head-high tackle in the first half.
After half time the team come back on, all wearing armbands which say “Justice 7″ on them, and their Captain informs you that they are a protest against your Red Card decision in the first half, and the coach and management informs everyone at the ground loud and long.
Clearly, the players are showing continuing dissent with your decision. This is no different to them constantly chipping you about the decision for the whole of the second half.
Do you honestly believe this should be allowed? As referee, would you permit a team to continually protest a decision you made for the whole 40 minutes, because that it what those armbands would be, and written communication, aimed at you that shows dissent. Unforgivable behaviour.
Whether or not the Boks management agreed or disagreed with the judiciary decision, the action of the armband protest was a piece of sheer mindless stupidity, and act of arrogance and outright defiance of authority; one which has not only brought the game into disrepute, but has painted your team in a very poor light and done a lot of damage to your reputation. It has made your team come across as a bunch of whinging ninnies.
182. Oxy moron
The only time I reply to posters who resort to personal abuse is to tell them I don’t debate with them.
7 Jul 2009, 14:54 pm
#189 BlackPanther:
top calling the 1987 Cup a world cup.
It wasn’t.
It was an invitational cup.
7 Jul 2009, 14:54 pm
#192 Pietman:
‘Stop calling it a world cup….’
7 Jul 2009, 15:27 pm
#190 Biscuit:
Oh how silly.
OK, the ‘aftermath of the Cavaliers tour’.
I thought it obvious that 1 cannot be like the other. But no.
The Cavaliers formed approx 50% of the 1987 RWC squad as many had already retired or been dropped. Players like Kirwan, Kirk, Fitzpatrick, Brookes, Brewer were not part of the Cavaliers, nor was the star of the ABs winning team, Michael Jones.
#192 Pietman:
On that basis, the Springboks have never beaten the All Blacks in a Series in Sth Africa. The previous touring NZ ‘Invitational’ teams were not wholly representative of NZ given that 1992 was the first time there were no restrictions on Visas from the SA Govt. Until 1970, no Maoris or Polynesians were given Visas, and in 1976 the NZ Invitational were ‘granted’ only 3 Visas for ‘non-white players’. Maoris and Polynesians equated to 30+% of NZs population at the time. Furthermore all Tests were controlled by SA refs.
Therefore the 1996 team were the 1st non-Invitational ‘All Black’ team to play a Series in SA. 2-1.
No previous records exist.
7 Jul 2009, 15:51 pm
# 191 COOKY
Granted you make a good argument for the particular scenario and I would agree that in that case it would be wrong and amount to direct intimidation of an individual ie. the referee, but I fail to see the connection with that scenario and what has happened here. In my mind they are completely different in the timeline between the protest, the whole citing and appeals procedure that had been followed etc. As you say the Rugby Unions sign up to a code of conduct, I am not familiar with all the details of that code so it will be interesting to see if technically the protest was a breach of any specific clause and it again comes down to consistency of application of the laws. I guess one of the laws that has to be strictly adhered to which is not as an example is players on the field with blood, I have seen lots of games where players have stayed on the field for quite a while after blood appears, so then according to your very strict application someone then needs to be punished for breaking the code of conduct and putting other players at risk. Is it the player who carries on regardless or perhaps unaware, is it the on field match officials being not being competent enough to spot these things straight away or is it the IRB themselves for not having procedure in place that will allow the TV ref to spot this and draw attention to this?
Anyway moving back to this topic I guess the way you view it is very much a matter of opinion and which side you support so I don’t agree with you expressing what is merely your opinion as if it is fact. I for one don’t think it was an act of sheer mindless stupidity etc, and no one that I have had direct contact with over here during the match and in the first few days after the match even mentioned it in the way you have, most of them were just too happy the Lions won. Maybe its just your way to keep your head down and obey your authority come what may, but I certainly don’t suscribe to that way of thinking if I perceive things are not right. It seems to me again that just like with all the controversy stirred up by the media during the tour the same thing is happening here and all of a sudden now its being made into a bigger no no than before. Even the great ‘old’ footballer Ian Wright said respect to them for doing it when the sports reader was trying to make it out to be this terrible petulant act.
What punishment do you see the IRB handing out to these ‘naughty boys’? What would you recommend happens to them?
7 Jul 2009, 15:54 pm
194. BlackPanther
“On that basis, the Springboks have never beaten the All Blacks in a Series in Sth Africa. The previous touring NZ ‘Invitational’ teams were not wholly representative of NZ given that 1992 was the first time there were no restrictions on Visas from the SA Govt. Until 1970, no Maoris or Polynesians were given Visas, and in 1976 the NZ Invitational were ‘granted’ only 3 Visas for ‘non-white players’. Maoris and Polynesians equated to 30+% of NZs population at the time.”
“Furthermore all Tests were controlled by SA refs.”
“Therefore the 1996 team were the 1st non-Invitational ‘All Black’ team to play a Series in SA. 2-1.
No previous records exist.”
Brilliant conclusion.
You mention the Hometown Harry SA referees. This included the single most crooked and biggest cheat of a referee to ever grace a rugby field… Gert Bezuidenhout. In 1976 on the night of the 4th test I sat in the TV lounge at RNZAF Base Whenuapai with two friends who were on exchange from the SAAF (based at Waterklof AFB if I recall). They were embarrassed to have won that test given the way the referee cheated.
Nuff said
7 Jul 2009, 16:06 pm
2xchampions
All they will get is a reprimand, but they will be on notice.
However, I see no difference between challenging the authority of the referee and challenging the authority of the judiciary, a higher authority than the referee.
As far a the code of conduct goes, here are the relevant clauses;
IRB Regulation 20: Code of Conduct
20.1 All Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies, Clubs and Persons:
20.1.4 shall accept and observe the authority and decisions of referees, touch judges, Match Officials and all other rugby disciplinary bodies, subject to Regulation 17;
20.1.6 shall not publish or cause to be published criticism of the manner in which Council or any other rugby disciplinary body handled or resolved any dispute or disciplinary matter resulting from a breach of the Bye-Laws, Regulations, or Laws of the Game;
20.1.8 shall promote the reputation of the Game and take all possible steps to prevent it from being brought into disrepute;
20.1.13 shall not to do anything which adversely affects the Game of Rugby Football, the Board, any member Union or any commercial partner of the Game.
20.2 Each Union and Association is under an obligation to:
20.2.1 Comply with and to ensure that each of its members comply with this Code of Conduct; and
20.2.2 Adopt procedures to monitor compliance with and impose sanctions for breaches of the Code of Conduct by Persons under its jurisdiction.
You can download the whole Code of Conduct at:
irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/0/regulation20090603%5f8263.pdf
7 Jul 2009, 16:20 pm
#197 cooky:
There is no doubt they are guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.
The tricky part is who is guilty.
i.e. who caused the armbands to come about?
The Players – well they wore the bands
The coach – well he participated and may have even helped make it happen. His duty was to say no to the players
SARU – it seems they knew and they may have tacitly supported it. If they knew their duty was to tell PdV, management and players not to do it
One of them? All of them?
7 Jul 2009, 16:29 pm
#196 cooky:
In particular the last few minutes of the 4th Test when Bezuidenhout awarded the Boks a penalty after an attacking NZ scrum 5 metres out from the tryline. A try would have given the NZ ‘Invitational’ XV the Test and drawn the Series.
Its easy to say now but it was an hilarious scene, Bezuidenhout running away from the scrum and refusing to speak to Leslie the NZ ‘Invitational’ XVs Captain.
Bezuidenhout would speak to the Boks Capt in Afrikaans and almost resolutely refused to speak to the NZ ‘Invitational’ XV in english. But Puma assures me that he could so lets assume he just refused.
I have spent many a great night at the Whenupai airbase bar in the early 80s. Cant remember leaving too often tho.
7 Jul 2009, 16:37 pm
#196 cooky: New Zealand has never beaten SA before 1992. Before then SA only made use of their white players. Black make for 80% of our population, and colourds 6%.
7 Jul 2009, 17:01 pm
#200 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL:
fair enough.
Then the Springboks have NEVER beaten the All Blacks in a Series throughout history.
Since 1992, the All Blacks have won:-
1994 in NZ 2-0 (1 drawn)
1996 in SA 2-1
from 2006 when mini-Series of 3 rounds were introduced to the TriN:-
2006 NZ 2-1
2008 NZ 2-1
Since 1992, when neutral referees finally controlled All Blacks vs Springbok encounters:-
NZ has won – 27
SA has won – 10
Prior to 1992, the Sth African ‘Representational’ XV played the NZ ‘Invitational’ XV – in Sth Africa – controlled solely by Sth African refs, in 20 Tests.
SA won 14
NZ won 5.
7 Jul 2009, 17:07 pm
what are the possible sanctions ?? sorry if i missed them earlier ….. can they seeriously impose a 1 match ban on all boks who wore armbands ??
7 Jul 2009, 17:21 pm
#202 redrum:
Since no other team has been so stupid and arrogant to think of doing something like this to their national jersey throughout the distinguished history of rugby union, then I suppose the IRB are going to have to dream something up.
A 1 or 2 match ban and a fine would be a good starting point tho.
7 Jul 2009, 17:26 pm
#203 BlackPanther: Fok that is bad.
7 Jul 2009, 17:30 pm
ok found the regulation:
Regulations;
REGULATION 18
18.6.1 Upon finding a breach of the Bye-Laws and/or Regulations, or that an offence pursuant to Regulation 18.1.1 (a) to (d) inclusive has been committed, Judicial Officers and Judicial Committees shall be entitled to impose such penalties as they think fit. Such penalties may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) a caution, warning as to future conduct, reprimand and/or a fine;
(b) a suspension for a specified number of Matches and/or a specified period; a requirement that a Match or Matches be played with the exclusion of the public; the cancellation of a Match result and, where appropriate, the replaying of a Match; the forfeiture of a Match or matches and/or tie(s); the deduction or cancellation of points; the immediate or future expulsion or suspension from a tournament(s) or competition(s); or any such similar sanctions;
(c) cancellation or refusal of the registration of any Person registered in contravention of the Regulations;
(d) a recommendation to the Council that a Union or Association be
expelled or suspended from Membership of the Board. Subject to the
provisions of Bye-Law 6(d), only the Council shall be competent to
expel or suspend a Union or Association and any such expulsion or
suspension shall only have effect if approved by a two-thirds
majority of the votes cast at a properly convened and quorate Council meeting;
(e) an order that any Union, Association, Rugby Body, Club or Person pay compensation and/or restitution;
(f) the withdrawal of other benefits or membership of the Board,
including, but not limited to, the right to apply to host International Tournaments; and
(g) any combination of the penalties set out in 18.6.1(a) to (f) above.
7 Jul 2009, 17:31 pm
I don’t think it’s stupid at all. Copping a 2 week ban for a offence, every player has committed AT LEAST once in ANY game for the last 100 yrs is. From Smit’s comments last week re Bakkies being ‘victimised’ it should be clear where they’re coming from. How is that stupid?
7 Jul 2009, 17:35 pm
re timing, its a bit vague when dealing with judicial committees – but there is a 14 day window in which appeals can be lodged and which would then need to be heard.
so you have to assume that SARU could ensure that any penalty could be delayed for a few weeks …. at least up till when we start touring in the TN
7 Jul 2009, 17:39 pm
#201 BlackPanther: Yes, but before 1992 SA won more games than NZ, including 1937 series in NZ. As you would very well know, SA has gone through a transitional period. I’m sure you can accept that, maybe not here but in the privacy of your thoughts.
7 Jul 2009, 17:40 pm
No fine, no ban, no nothing already appealing?
Shoot us already govnor.
7 Jul 2009, 17:44 pm
#208 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL: Man you kidding yes? For 100 years we say fok off black players. No players for SA and NO invites for color players. NZ no chance for anything but whiteys. Now we say need more black players and color players and less whiteys.
Getting dizzy going round and round.
7 Jul 2009, 17:45 pm
#201 BlackPanther: My point is this:
We cannot change the past, politics unfortunatly influenced rugby. However, I’m sure you will agree that without SA rugby would not be the same, same as rugby would not be the same without NZ. NZ has dominated the Boks in between WC’s since 1992, but that can change, and it will. IT has always been like that where the one team dominates for a period of time, then the other team gets their turn. NZ has had a long run (except for the WC’s), but the Boks will have their time soon.
7 Jul 2009, 17:49 pm
#210 oodles: You’ve lost me. The past cannot be changed, we are in a new era. We need the BEST players, regardless of skin color! Fact is we went through a transition period, growing pains. Not easy you know! Look what happened in Yugoslavia, Somalia, DRC, etc. You cant just change people over night, cultures need to be intergrated.
7 Jul 2009, 17:55 pm
#212 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL: You think we got intergated with armbands? You think we looking whitey with that genius move? Fok no we look like a bunch of ……s
7 Jul 2009, 17:57 pm
#213 oodles: What did I say about the armbands?
7 Jul 2009, 17:59 pm
#213 oodles: Did your wife hit you or something that you are so aggressive?
7 Jul 2009, 17:59 pm
Any case, cheers!
7 Jul 2009, 18:20 pm
#211 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL:
I found your name easier to decipher than your argument.
I think the question was ‘from when was there a level playing-feild ?’.
What with the issue of neutral refs and no-visas to Maoris/Polys and whites-only SA teams, that line in the sand was drawn in 1992.
Since 1992, the Springboks have only beaten the All Blacks more than once in a season, on only one occassion (1998). Otherwise that stats heavily favour the ABs (see #201 above).
In RWC matches betw NZ vs SA, the record is 1-1.
Please nb this is not an exercise in (yawn) producing the ‘Greatest Team Ever’ (far too many times on this blog already), but has grown organically from the ridiculous and oft-cited argument of what constitutes a ‘real’ RWC as proposed by Pietman at #192. We therefore took this silly premise and asked what was a ‘real’ rugby team and what was a ‘real’ Series.
Hence this long journey. I wonder whether Pietman will now trade his RWC theory for the Boks NEVER having beaten the All Blacks in a Series home or away ?
7 Jul 2009, 18:39 pm
If we still take Pietman’s argument:
NZ – Never won the World Cup
SA – Twice won the World Cup
What more can you say?
7 Jul 2009, 18:46 pm
#218 boktoinfinityandbeyond:
Er, Einstein, just like I summarised in the Idiots Guide in the last para.
A Series of no less than 3 matches remains the recognised method of evaluating the stronger of 2 teams.
Unless of course you think youre ‘only as good as your last match’ in which case the Boks just lost to the Lions and were last nilled, at home, by the Blacks.
What more can I say ?
7 Jul 2009, 18:53 pm
#217 BlackPanther:
’99 cup SA played NZ in the third place playoff and won. So that makes it 2-1.
7 Jul 2009, 19:23 pm
#220 rich1:
fair point, but 3rd/4th games are a nonsense and usually mean all the other squad members get a game. Personally I think theyre a waste of time and unfair on the players. The same premise as the Boks selecting 10 new players for the 3rd Lions Test.
But including even that match, the record since 1992 remains NZ 27 SA 10.
7 Jul 2009, 19:49 pm
I am in two minds about this one.
On the one hand we can say yes, if you are going to protest about something don’t protest about one of your players getting a measly two week ban after he dislocated someone’s arm (regardless of the fact of whether it was legal or not). I mean they could have protested about something meaningful like…I don’t know, the environment or world peace or some hippy **** like that…real issues in other words. Instead they chose to unite against what was regarded as an injustice against a player, who to be fair, doesn’t have the greatest disciplinary record.
But on the other hand the citing laws and the inconsistencies of their application do create frustration and I do think the IRB are not beyond reproach in that regard. Why do we just have to sit back and blindly obediently and unquestioningly accept the farce that citing has become? Why should the Boks have to pay for “daring” to challenge the rugby authorities on these issues? Is the IRB so precious about their omnipotence that they have to impose serious sanction on South African rugby merely for voicing their opinion? There is a little thing called “free speech” that the UK and the rest of the modern world like to promulgate in other regards, so lets see them walk the walk on this one.
7 Jul 2009, 22:25 pm
#222 Harlequin:
Surely the advocation of ‘free speech’ argument is more acceptable when the cause is regarded as worthy. In this case, Bakkies received a 2 week ban only, for exactly the same offence as July ’08, and in the same week that an eye-gouging teammate got a pitiful 8weeks.
Simon Shaw got 2weeks for a knee-in-the-back which he too has been banned for previously. Many think it was unintentional. We havent heard from him since.
Do we really want to see the proliferation of political messages by individuals and teams during rugby Test matches ? Im only just getting used to them smiling after tries.
7 Jul 2009, 22:40 pm
200. AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL
“New Zealand has never beaten SA before 1992. Before then SA only made use of their white players. Black make for 80% of our population, and colourds 6%”
That is a such a twisted bullsh!t argument it defies belief at any South African would have the sheer gaul to make it.
Firstly: That South Africa did not use Black players is a situation of their OWN doing. New Zealand choose not to use any NZ players who play outside of New Zealand, but we don’t claim the All Blacks to be not full strength without them.
Secondly: The Black & Coloured players in South Africa during the apartheid years weren’t all that good anyway. They had little if any resources spent on them and were actively discriminated against. On the occasions when touring teams played matches against the best Black and Mixed Race sides (e.g. v The Leopards and v The Proteas) they beat them easily.
Thirdly: The All Blacks were prevented from using their Maori and Pacific Island players, who were the core of the team. This racist policy restricting opponents from using black and Coloured players was IMPOSED upon them.
To suggest that South Africa choosing not to select from a group of weakener players, while preventing their opponents from choosing from a group of their strongest players, is somehow creating an even playing field is nothing short if disingenuous.
7 Jul 2009, 22:58 pm
As far as the armbands are concerned, Stu Dickinson was actually within his rights to have made the SA players remove them if he chose to. All apparel a player wears in the field, must be iRB approved. There is even an iRB approved black or white “mourning” armband which players/teams have to get prior permission to wear.
Additionally, there are contractual restriction on displaying any wording on apparel to prevent “ambush” marketing.
—
IRB REGULATION 11: ADVERTISING WITHIN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
11.5.3 Save for the emblems or marks of Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies or Clubs and as otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation 11, no form of emblem, mark, name or other form of commercial and/or promotional association may be displayed on any item worn, used, placed or carried onto the playing enclosure that is not referred to in Table 1.
—
The players were clearly advertising their dissent and contempt for the judicial system. The argument “everyone picks on us” will not wash in the hearing.
7 Jul 2009, 23:09 pm
#225 cooky:
Dont you get it. It wasnt really about Bakkies per se. They were doing it ‘for rugby’.
We were being preached to.
On the field of play.
The Righteous Brothers.
7 Jul 2009, 23:09 pm
If I was bok coach I would not have condoned what the boks did as it brought more attention on to them at a time when staying out of the spotlight would have been more appropriate.
But the IRB reaction is also a bit silly, as all it is going to do is amplify the players message – and cause further discussion on Botha’s banning. Discussion that is likely to emabrrass the IRB given very few people think Bakkies should have been cited let alone banned.
There is an issue with the way citings work and the way punnishment is metered out – even comparing bakkies and schalk there is inconsistency given one was harshly dealt with and the other probably got off lightly. In my opinion the IRB should have taken the cirticism on the chin and just let it die out. They are not beyond criticism and their response is typical of an all powerful body that believes it owns the game.
Have any of the lions players been censured for criticising the referees during the series? They did it quite openly and regularly.
7 Jul 2009, 23:20 pm
#227 munkiboi:
All we keep hearing from the locals is this BS about “….very few people think Bakkies did nothing wrong”. What utter ****. What you have done is cherrypick 1 or 2 quotes and spread it evenly over your thin argument to give it substance. Certainly, the press is damning of Bakkies and even more so the Boks for their incredibly inappropriate behaviour.
“OPINION: Victor Matfield, the Springboks’ lineout genius, had the word “Justice” written across the front of his headgear, and along with the rest of the side that played a memorable third test against the British and Irish Lions, on an armband, as well.
I wondered who or what cause the protest might be supporting until the commentator told us that it was a sign of solidarity for Bakkies Botha over his two-week suspension for foul play during the second test. The Springboks wanted to highlight their contention that Botha should have been cleared of the charge against him.
If we ever needed further proof of the arrogance and obsessive belief in the divine right of the Springboks to get their way on and off the field, this gesture has provided it. Botha had charged the Lions prop Adam Jones off the ball and had dislocated his shoulder. He was given a two-week suspension. It is unprecedented in rugby that the integrity of an IRB ruling has been challenged so blatantly and provocatively in this way.
When the Springboks captain, John Smit, was asked if his team might get into trouble with the IRB over its armband protest, he replied: “We’ll have to see.”
The case of Botha needs to be looked at in tandem with that of Schalk Burger. In the opening seconds of the second test against the Lions, Luke Fitzgerald’s eyes somehow attracted the groping fingers of Burger. The Canadian IRB official, Alan Hudson, ruled that the action was reckless but not intentional: that there was some short-lived tearing and blurred vision, and that there was no eye-gouging “in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area”.
Even a layman can see there is an inherent contradiction in this finding. Burger’s fingers were in Fitzgerald’s eye for some time. Some damage was done to the eyes. Given that eye-gouging is a “serious matter,” the eight-week ban imposed on Burger was totally inadequate and an injustice to the injured player.
Burger and Botha play the part of the hitmen of the Springboks pack, the enforcers. They launch themselves, illegally, like missiles into the rucks and mauls. They constantly provoke opponents off the ball. They are persistent offenders in the rucks and mauls, Burger going off his feet to kill the ball and Botha coming in from the side and invariably lying on the opponents’ side of the ruck. They tackle around the head constantly.
If the referee tolerates this mayhem, which often happens, the opposition get intimidated and overwhelmed. This tolerance gives a decided edge to the Springboks, as the first two tests against the Lions indicated. But on Saturday in the third test, the Lions trounced the Springboks 28-9. The Australian referee Stu Dickinson penalised the Springboks early on for killing the ball at the tackle. This excellent refereeing and the absence of the thuggish play of Burger and Botha meant that the Springboks forwards struggled to stop the Lions recycling ball.
With this front-foot ball, the Lions backs made breaks time and again. Forced to play with shape and discipline, the Springboks were, according to Peter Bills of The Independent, “as clueless as their coach Peter de Villiers”.
After the debacle at Johannesburg and the bizarre defence of Botha, things might have changed for the Springboks. The Lions revealed that without their hitmen, the Springboks struggled to make an impact. This might be the true justice in this matter.”
7 Jul 2009, 23:25 pm
#226 WakaNathan:
a bit rich coming from our self righteous brother….
sarcasm will not endear you despite the fact your points are valid. i just wonder again what your reaction would be if it was the ABs who had done it for a perceived injustice on their side. would you be defending or castigating them?
this is a unique situation and one which is going to set new norms – something we hould all fear.
And just think for a minute why the boks are so upset – bakkies has been abnned for clearing out a ruck – not in accordance to IRB regulations but in accordance to the norm which has crept into the game. he is doing what players do a dozen or so times in a test match. and if for some strange reason he gets cited again for doing it – he will banned for even longer because he has already been disciplined for it. it is not only the ban itself but the precedence it is going to set.
watch this space this is just the start and instead of looking for issues to criticise the boks and their supporters on (something you apear to enjoy) you should think of the wider implications here for all of us rugby lovers.
7 Jul 2009, 23:27 pm
227. munkiboi
The IRB DOES own the game.
It makes Regulations that govern the game administratively.
It makes and amends the Laws the game is played under.
It owns all advertising & broadcasting rights for the RWC.
The IRB is made up of the Nations that play the game. It is not some disembodied far off body of people unrelated to rugby. If the IRB have decided that SARU is to be charged, it is because the representatives of other Nations wanted this to happen.
This is not the first time that the IRB has charged a National Union. Russia were expelled from the qualifying competition for the 2003 RWC for fielding ineligible players.
7 Jul 2009, 23:38 pm
#228 WakaNathan:
i lost interest in your cut and paste article when it stated the two issues needed to be looked at in tandem.
and I’d like to point out that I live in NZ and most of the kiwis in my workplace, as well as the NZ press (Herald articles) question bakkies banning. so dont tell me otherwise because it suits your argument.
and lets be clear – we agree that the “protest” was inappropriate – even if for different reasons. no doubt we can politely agree to disagree.
7 Jul 2009, 23:46 pm
#230 cooky:
In my opinion the IRB are the GUARDIANS of the game – they DO NOT own it.
And again lets make this clear – I do not condone what the boks did. I purely maintain that by charging SARU the IRB are amplifying the playes voices and it is only going to further discredit the game as it is going to result in more column inches and both SARU and the IRB are going to be losers in all of this.
I remeber the Russia incident they were playing a whole bunch of south africans funnily enough. The difference is that it is a passing story when they fined russia who is a rugby minnow – this is gonna get messy.
7 Jul 2009, 23:50 pm
People who think players are going to be allowed to charge into rucks unbound in the future had better think again. This brutal practice has no place in the game.
That something has “become the norm” does not make it legal or safe. Tackling players in the air used to be “the norm” and was only made illegal a few years ago. The “Cavalry Charge” and the “Flying Wedge” used to be legal moves before the danger was realised and they were specifically outlawed.
I hear people crying that the physicality will be gone from the game if players aren’t allowed to use their bodies like exocet missiles. That is just a load of BS. It is possible to be physical without being a thug, and it is more skillful. Any dumb idiot can fly headfirst into a ruck hitting opponents with a flying headbutt, but is takes SKILL as well as technique to bind, drive and overpower an opponent. Anyone who has played in the front rank will testify to that. A prop with really good scrummaging technique can beat the pants off a bigger stronger opponent whose technique is poor.
The days of players being allowed to defy the following laws with impunity are numbered;
—
Law 10.4(j) Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Law 16.2(b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate, using the whole arm.
—
Get used to it or get left behind.
7 Jul 2009, 23:50 pm
during the eighties i was innocently oblivious of the fact that the boks had the edge over the all blacks in test series.
it was pointed out to me by an englishman and his french father-in-law.
apparently they had not considered the evil intervention of local refs and political interference in ab slections.
i suppose it just shows that the rest of the world looked at results while the kiwis looked at excuses (again)
7 Jul 2009, 23:57 pm
232. munkiboi
“In my opinion the IRB are the GUARDIANS of the game – they DO NOT own it.”
Yes, I agree. “Guardians” is probably a much better description than “Owners”.
However, as Guardians, it is still their responsibility to ensure that the game is honoured.
I don’t think this will get messy.
* IRB will reprimand them and give them a suspended fine
* SARU will accept they were wrong
* PDV will be told by SARU to wind his head in
It will be a case of “naughty boy, don’t do it again”. SARU will be on notice and will have to tread carefully in future.
8 Jul 2009, 00:06 am
#233 cooky:
again I dont disagree with you. But you dont stamp it out by starting to single out players randomly.
The IRB must send a clear directive to unions that it is an aspect of the game that needs correction and that it is going to be policed on the field by the refs. the refs are then instructed to start penalising the offence – ad using yellow and red cards for repeated or partcularl violent infringements.
Anyways I am glad the IRB has such a strong supporter in yourself cooky given they are so often cirticised for constant and incoherrant rule changes, for failing to grow the game outside its strongholds and of course for inconsistent application of laws and disciplinary actions.
8 Jul 2009, 00:07 am
#235 cooky:
that is the logical outcome
8 Jul 2009, 00:11 am
#234 charo:
dont worry too much about them excuses… Here in NZ the kiwis still talk about how they LOST the world cup in 2007. people like Wakanation call us arrogant, yet they have an inherrant belief the cup was their to lose. as opposed to theirs to win. a subtle difference that tells us so much about them.
8 Jul 2009, 00:20 am
#231 munkiboi:
Bakkies Botha has been getting away with flying-headbutts for years.
Even you have acknowledged he has been banned previously for exactly the same offence. He does not use his arms and it is his head and/or shoulder making 100% of the impact. Its dangerous and he keeps taking guys out.
The relevance of the Burger incident illustrates the hypocricy of the protagonists. 1 player gets let off lightly and the other player not lightly enough. Smokes and mirrors.
JUSTICE for who exactly ?
All week the Boks complained about the Lions whinging. So what was JUSTICE if not a glorified whinge ?!
8 Jul 2009, 00:20 am
#234 charo: just the kiwis huh ?? ridiculous comment… look at quotas, reffing alliance, travel, PDv…
is that looking at results or is it excuses ??
theres an old saying
“people in glass houses shouldnt throw strones”
#238 munkiboi: like last years 3Ns huh ?? you guys had an inherent belief that your WC Champs were going to walk it, and we all know the result… so Kiwi supporters expect a lot from their team, its because the team has given us sooo much in the way of “RESULTS” since the professional era, no other team comes close…
it wasnt only us that thought that (not that I ever did), take a look around the world , all the different media reports and even supporters felt NZ were the best team and should win it, there is a difference… but dont let it stop you from your little tirade…
8 Jul 2009, 00:26 am
#234 charo:I will watch your posts with interest now, and every time the Boks play, I will be looking.. definitely hope I dont see any excuses offered under your name, would hate to have to point out your hypocrisy.
8 Jul 2009, 00:28 am
#238 munkiboi:
Talk it up.
No team has an inherent right to win anything. Altho I do recall the Springboks arriving in Ireland under Jake White with ‘Grand Slammers’ on their training kit and JW claiming no Paddy would get in the SA team. They lost. Twice.
Kiwis have been hearing nothing but reasons why SA has not been winning, refs, transformations, travel, bannings, conspiracies, emails….. since post-isolation. And now, punch drunk after success over the Lions, Smit and his boets decided to tell the World we were all wrong. The message is loud and clear – ‘noone beats us fairly’ !
Yep, I stand accused. That is bloody arrogant.
8 Jul 2009, 00:31 am
20. sharks_lover :
July 8th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Well ladies and gents
Here is the team i think will be chosen for saturdays game against the WP
Players i know were not allowed to play are: Smit,Beast,Jpp,Bismark,Ruan,F Steyn,Hernandez (new signing)
15 Stefan
14 Odwa
13 Strauss
12 Swanepoel
11 Vulindlu
10 G Cronje
09 Rory
08 Ryan
07 Deysel
06 Botes
05 Muller
04 Sykes
03 Jannie
02 Burden
01 Carstens
16 Skipper
17 Cilliers
18 Oom Albert
19 Keegan
20 Downey/jordaan
21 Lambie
22 McCleod
It would’nt surprise me to see someone else like Jordaan at fullback or lambie with Stefan moving to outside center, but i feel they will stick to the old school
8 Jul 2009, 00:33 am
#243 sharks_lover: Add Adi Jacobs to the list that cant play
Eish thats another 8 players
8 Jul 2009, 00:38 am
#244 sharks_lover: Hey Sharks, shame they cant play for you guys, but it does open up opportunities for others… question is if they will stand up and take the opportunity ?
Abs have had a similar prob this year..
8 Jul 2009, 00:44 am
#245 poppa69: Hiyas mate , hope ur well…
That be true , and its good to have 2 ,18 year olds coming through in cronje and lambie
Anyhows mate im off to bed , damn near 1 am and im still up talking ****
take care and catch ya 2morrow
8 Jul 2009, 01:03 am
236. munkiboi
“Again I dont disagree with you. But you dont stamp it out by starting to single out players randomly.
The IRB must send a clear directive to unions that it is an aspect of the game that needs correction and that it is going to be policed on the field by the refs. the refs are then instructed to start penalising the offence – ad using yellow and red cards for repeated or particular violent infringements.”
They have done this already. Here it is. I have posted this before, but in case you missed it:
“To: Secretaries/Chief Executive Officers of Unions and Regional Associations in Membership of the IRB
From: David Carrigy Head of External and Member Relations
Date: August 19, 2008
Re: Dangerous Play
There is a growing concern amongst the medical profession, coaches, players, administrators and judiciary about the conduct of players when entering rucks and mauls and when clearing out players on the fringes of tackles, rucks and mauls which is considered dangerous. A DVD has been produced that demonstrates such actions and includes examples of illegal and/or foul play. The DVD will be circulated with a hard copy of this correspondence.
The relevant parts of Law are very specific as detailed below:
Law 10.4 (i) Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Law 16.2 (b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one
arm around the body of a teammate, using the whole arm.
Law 17.4 ( c ) Players joining the Maul
Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost teammate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents side or in front of the hindmost teammate the player is offside.
In addition the Aide Memoire for the IRB Panel referees enacted at RWC 2007
stated:
• Zero tolerance to players who charge into rucks and mauls without binding.
• Zero tolerance to players who clear out opponents not involved in ruck and maul.
Match Officials, Citing Officials and Judicial Officers are requested to be vigilant and apply Law and appropriate sanctions when players are involved in dangerous play of this nature.
Yours sincerely,
David Carrigy
Head of External and Member Relations”
8 Jul 2009, 03:45 am
The armband protest has only damaged the springbok reputation further. It shows us up as petulant and sulky. Regardless of how aggrieved the boks may be with the Botha verdict, we look like 4yr olds who can’t accept a bad ruling with grace and dignity.
Bad decisions go against teams and individuals all the time in rugby, but taking it like a man is what separates those who understand the spirit of the game from those who don’t.
This is like argueing with the ref, except it was premeditated and advertised to the world. What reaction did they expect from the IRB? A) Poor boks, you knows they have a point, what were we thinking? or B) These guys don’t know how to accept the judge’s verdict, no wonder they have such a poor disciplinary record.
Whoever sanctioned this protest displayed very poor judgement.
8 Jul 2009, 03:48 am
#248 stormer in a teacup: And, when they get their just desserts, they’ll bleat “conspiracy theory” and “everybody keeps picking on us”…
Pathetic!
8 Jul 2009, 04:23 am
#187 charo: “is it because as a nation you haven’t really produced that many outstanding citizens?”
is that right Charo ??
check out Ernest Rutherford (famous for splitting the atom)
check out the White Mouse (Nancy Wake)
check out the Commander of the air forces in the Battle of Britain and the Battle of Malta (Keith Park)
check out Sir Edmund Hillary
check out John Britten
check out Arthur Lydiard
check out Alexander Aitken
check out Katherine Mansfield
check out the only man to receive the Victoria Cross and Bar in WWII…
and thats all off the top of my head, sure I can find many, many more.
your post shows a complete lack of respect, especially for a country that didnt want to get caught up in politics, just wanted to play rugby with your country, to the point that many African countries boycotted an Olympics because NZ was there, after touring SA during isolation… so, best you farkin remember who your friends are… perhaps one should engage the brain a bit more before they open the mouth…
8 Jul 2009, 06:53 am
250. poppa69
“check out the only man to receive the Victoria Cross and Bar in WWII…”
That would be Charles Upham.
And you can add to that list Sir William Pickering,
one of the world’s leading atsrophysicists, former Professor of Physics in Pasadena, former Director of the JPL and a member of the US National Committee for Aeronautics. “More than any other individual, Bill Pickering was responsible for America’s success in exploring the planets an endeavour that demanded vision, courage, dedication, expertise and the ability to inspire two generations of scientists and engineers”.
Interestingly the two most famous phyisicists Rutherford and Pickering both went to Havelock School, in a very small town near where I live. There must be something in the water
8 Jul 2009, 07:12 am
#251 cooky: Cheers Cooky.. had heard of Pickering too…
8 Jul 2009, 07:20 am
Morning Cooky & Poppa
Do you subscribe to nzedge.com ? Cool website & a heart warming occasional read for Kiwi expats far from home
8 Jul 2009, 07:28 am
#253 Rugby_Princess: More Princess… have never been to that site, going to have a look see now…
8 Jul 2009, 07:32 am
#254 poppa69:
More you too … are you a memebr of KEA ?
8 Jul 2009, 07:34 am
There are a number of comments from Kiwis regarding playing tests in SA under SA refs in the last century.
Did the same not apply for the Boks playing in NZ ie playing under Kiwi refs?
8 Jul 2009, 07:34 am
#255 Rugby_Princess: Blerrie bunch of Kiwis, don’t you have your own place to go and play at…
PS Howzit RP, I see Poppa also picked up a bit of slang…
8 Jul 2009, 07:40 am
#255 Rugby_Princess:
Morning babes,how’s my little meatpuppet keeping?:-)
I am well and in a very kind and romantic mood as you can see.
8 Jul 2009, 07:42 am
#257 Koos:
yeah, slowly but surely learning the lingo, would be rude of me not too…
8 Jul 2009, 07:44 am
#259 poppa69:
Poppavych[sic],you brother from another mother is doing you proud in the Tour de France hey?
8 Jul 2009, 07:45 am
#259 poppa69: Ja RP had a good teacher and she was getting quite good…and then she gave up!
8 Jul 2009, 07:50 am
#260 Fern: havent been following the Tour de Drugs fernly…
#261 Koos: yeah, I have picked up little bits here and there…like calling Fern a meisekind for example lol
and then just to hammer it home, we finish with
vat so katvis !!
8 Jul 2009, 08:00 am
#257 Koos:
Dont be cheeky you brat !!
#258 Fern:
Fernly, be nice now
#261 Koos:
Actually my professor abandoned me !
8 Jul 2009, 08:02 am
#247 cooky:
thats great – now all we need is consistent application of the law!!
8 Jul 2009, 08:09 am
#264 munkiboi:
Well Munki if that happened, what would be there to debate?
8 Jul 2009, 08:33 am
#241 poppa69:
hook, line sinker.
always marvelled how big hit wound the kiwis up so effortlessly.
you guys are generally a fine bunch – just a little too serious sometimes (just like a lot of us saffas)
8 Jul 2009, 08:35 am
#266 charo: just passionate for anything NZ, as Im sure you are for anything SA… its in our blood I guess…
8 Jul 2009, 08:40 am
#266 charo: kiwis generally have no sense of humor i think its because they are such a small country and dont really make any difference on world views. Tall poppy syndrome i say.
8 Jul 2009, 08:43 am
#268 Hitlar: really… I think you’re wrong..
I love australian, its a beautiful country, and theres only one thing wrong with it…
AUSTRALIANS !!!
lmfao, see, now thats funny…
8 Jul 2009, 08:45 am
#269 poppa69: You wont be laughing when those two little islands become extra states to the might Australia empire
8 Jul 2009, 08:46 am
#268 Hitlar: hey, least NZ is not the lapdog of the almighty Americas… you guys actually give them land in your country that is designated American soil… whats up with that..
and Howard was Bush’ puppet for so long…you must be soooo proud..
thats where your problem with NZ lies, we told the Yanks to f@ck off, you guys havent got the kahunas to…
now I understand why you act like you do, sad Aussie, sad…
8 Jul 2009, 08:47 am
#270 Hitlar: they tried that at the turn of the 20th century, we declined… mate, you keep coming up with all this stuff that just keeps getting shot back down… how was school today ??? finished your homework ??
8 Jul 2009, 08:50 am
#269 poppa69: Hi Pops.
Now there you got mate, hanging out with us Aussies you not only developed a sense of humour but embrace what Hitlar refers to as ‘tall poppy syndrome.’ You think all that rubbing off or have you got yourself a special aussie tucked away?
8 Jul 2009, 08:51 am
#272 poppa69: Hahahaha nuff said.
8 Jul 2009, 08:53 am
#273 RugbyRulz: Hey Rulz… well I have lived here for the last 15 years, but when I first moved over from NZ I increased the IQ of BOTH countries…
8 Jul 2009, 08:56 am
#275 poppa69: Yeah, yeah, yeah… you believe it and that is what counts.
8 Jul 2009, 08:57 am
#276 RugbyRulz: lol ok ok… Ive mingled with the average aussie for a while now, no coincidence you guys were sent here on ships, the mentality hasnt changed much in 200 years
hahaha
:D:D:D
8 Jul 2009, 08:59 am
I’ve been getting the same line from a ***** relative… But I keep reminding him that the moment he married my cousin both SA & Australia regressed. He is a champion and welcomed to the fold… until the TN of course.
8 Jul 2009, 08:59 am
wheres Hitlar gone? he disappeared already… Mum must have called him for his dinner.. or perhaps he has chores to do
bwahahaha
8 Jul 2009, 09:00 am
#278 RugbyRulz: ahuh… so you’re PART KIWI ???? lmfao
makes the games more interesting though doesnt it, and bragging rights afterwards… gotta love the game
8 Jul 2009, 09:01 am
#277 poppa69: I’ve missed the boat there… Can’t lay claim to heritage beyond me being 3rd generation. Have friends that have boast their ancestors are First Fleet convicts. Fact remains they are proud of their ancestors and I am of mine.
8 Jul 2009, 09:03 am
#280 poppa69: German/Dane, English (fathers side)& French Irish (mothers side)… classic bitsa (some would say Euro trash mongrel).
8 Jul 2009, 09:07 am
#281 RugbyRulz: and so we all should be, we are the sum of all who come before us… its always a bonus knowing where you have come from in terms of ancestry…
8 Jul 2009, 09:08 am
Hitlar????
Who the heck calls themselves Hitlar????
8 Jul 2009, 09:09 am
#282 RugbyRulz: yeah, think we all are… Im Maori (Mum) /Croatian, but family has traces of German and European ancestors…
8 Jul 2009, 09:12 am
#284 Dawn: Does it matter?
Pffft factor.
8 Jul 2009, 09:15 am
#286 RugbyRulz: I called him up on the name the other day, then he tried to feed me some line that it was from an Indian movie… lol, one of the better specimens I think Rulz…
8 Jul 2009, 09:18 am
#287 poppa69: Thinks perhaps he is way too into the Da Vinci Code signs n $hit. He will have you believe the symbology (yeah I made that word up) symbolism is Indian… da swaztika.
8 Jul 2009, 09:25 am
#288 RugbyRulz:
and you didnt make up that word, it exists already…
8 Jul 2009, 09:34 am
#289 poppa69: Well there you go. Honestly thought I was pulling on the American and inventing a perfectly believable word for symbolism.
symbology <<< it has got to be American
lmao
8 Jul 2009, 09:37 am
#290 RugbyRulz: Like I said though Rulz, the IQ of BOTH countries
:eyes:
lmfao…
8 Jul 2009, 09:39 am
#291 poppa69: You use the MS spellcheck yes? Don’t answer if you do.
8 Jul 2009, 09:43 am
#292 RugbyRulz: never… I write and read a lot, best way to learn … so pride myself on my spelling.
8 Jul 2009, 09:45 am
#293 poppa69: Damn… Tackler your alter ego?
8 Jul 2009, 09:49 am
#294 RugbyRulz: nuhuh… no, hes all his own person… I dont have an alter ego, and I dont see the point in changing my nic.. I say what I say and do not hide behind a false name, like a lot seem to on here…
8 Jul 2009, 10:29 am
#295 poppa69: Only joking, it was the spelling that drew the jibe.
8 Jul 2009, 15:07 pm
MUNKIBOI
Earlier I posted the memo that came from the iRB about the “Zero tolerance to players charging into rucks without binding”
Well, one of the referees from the RugbyRefs website has posted part of the Official IRB video that accompanied hard copies of this memo.
youtube.com/watch?v=_hEvmfzNwAg
8 Jul 2009, 17:31 pm
#297 cooky:
which includes a short ‘highlights’ package of Bakkies taking out Mortlock last season with no arms anywhere to be seen; for which he was banned.
I counted 4 examples by Bakkies ?
JUSTICE 4 !!!!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.