Carter faces ban
9 Nov 2009
Dan Carter will appear before a disciplinary hearing after his high tackle in the All Blacks’ victory against Wales on Saturday.
Carter will face IRB judicial officer Jeff Blackett in Milan for his ‘head-high tackle’ on scrumhalf Martin Roberts in the All Blacks’ 19-12 win at the Millennium Staduim.
The flyhalf was not punished by match referee Craig Joubert during the game, but could face a minimum of a one-week ban.
If found guilty, Carter will be the third All Blacks player to be suspended, following wing Sitiveni Sivivatu and prop Tony Woodcock who were banned after the Bledisloe Cup Test against the Wallabies a fortnight ago.
100 Comments
9 Nov 2009, 06:47 am
Ban this A4Y Dragon!
9 Nov 2009, 07:02 am
carter will come away unscathed from this…watch…
9 Nov 2009, 07:17 am
#2 Transformation: of course, it’s window dressing
9 Nov 2009, 07:31 am
If they ban Carter, it’s too late anyway. Should have been 3 points and 10 mins. Wales may have won.
This is a big test for the judiciary, cause if it was a Saffa it would be a given 2 weeks or more. Lets see if they got the balls……….
9 Nov 2009, 07:37 am
Carter did a JP Nel!
9 Nov 2009, 07:42 am
I really don’t think it deserves a citing… let alone a ban… This is over-reaction of the highest order…
The guy ducked forward into Carter’s arm which then slid up onto the side of the guy’s face due to the momentum of the clash…
There have been many worse things that have gone uncited in recent rugby games…
just one case… Simon Shaw doing his WWF immitation knee-drop onto the unprotected back of Fourie Du Preez… No citing, yellow card… nada…
If Carter gets banned it will be a travesty of (in)justice…
9 Nov 2009, 07:49 am
#6 ufo: Dont be surprised though , stranger things have happened ( but only if you are a SA player LOL)
9 Nov 2009, 07:52 am
#6 ufo: well the only thing baakies did was clean out a ruck and look where that landed him.
9 Nov 2009, 07:56 am
#5 Lions_Soutie: lol tis true, JP Carter
9 Nov 2009, 07:57 am
#7 stew:
#8 Transformation:
yeah, I know guys… still doesn’t make it right to ban Carter…
They always mention ‘track records’ so they should look at Carter’s and he should get off with no ban…
9 Nov 2009, 08:03 am
#6 ufo: Shaw was yellow carded and banned for two weeks.
9 Nov 2009, 08:05 am
The citing commisioners need to get it through their thick skulls that they can only site a player if they think it is a direct red. How many players have been given a red card for a high tackle in the last 20 years of rugby?
Anyhow it was virtualy impossible for the ref to see the high tackle from behind. From the first camera angle I thought it was a brilliant tackle.
9 Nov 2009, 08:08 am
He doesn’t deserve a citing – if Joubert had seen it would he have given him a yellow card? I doubt it, so why does he now deserve to be banned for a week? Are we going to be silly about it and examine every piece of foul play that doesn’t get pinged and cite everyone? What about they guy who took McCaw off the ball? Why hasn’t he been cited?
This is an abuse of the citing process in order to pacify the Welsh, nothing more nothing less. In my opinion citings should only be used where there are serious acts of foul play, eg eye-gouging, punching, stamping, cheap shots, etc.
9 Nov 2009, 08:10 am
#11 Big Hit:
you sure…? Must have missed it… can you post a link to an official site that carried the announcement???
I was having a heated email ‘debate’ with one of the english rugby writers… an ex-Lion no less… and even he never mentioned that Shaw got banned…
but still could’ve missed it would like to see it…
9 Nov 2009, 08:14 am
#14 ufo:
Lions 2009: Simon Shaw banned after Lions restore pride
England lock Simon Shaw received a two-week ban for dangerous play on Sunday, drawing a line under a Test series that the British and Irish Lions doctor, James Robson, described as the most physical he had ever witnessed.
The sanction took the edge off the celebrations of the Lions’ rousing third-Test victory, and was indicative of an undercurrent of violence that at times brought equal measures of drama and shame to a series described by the tourists’ coach, Ian McGeechan, as “the most outstanding” he had been involved with.
Shaw was found guilty of striking Springbok scrum-half Fourie du Preez with his knee just before half-time. He received a yellow card for the offence from Australian referee Stuart Dickinson, but was cited for dangerous play and suspended at a disciplinary hearing yesterday.
The 35-year-old Wasps player’s ban – deferred to conclude at midnight on August 22 – made Shaw the fourth player to be suspended during the course of the bruising tour.
Telegraph (UK)
9 Nov 2009, 08:14 am
#13 jonnymain:
100% agree. He only got cited because the Welsh tv crew decided to play the incident a hundred times on the big screen.
9 Nov 2009, 08:17 am
i watched the game it needed a yellow that tackle bue i doubt it affected the outcome
9 Nov 2009, 08:19 am
#15 Big Hit:
cool… thanks BH… good to hera… however belatedly…
9 Nov 2009, 08:21 am
#18 ufo:
@^&*#&*()
good to hear…
don’t know how I missed it but am obviously wrong about it…
9 Nov 2009, 09:31 am
funny how the welsh tv crew decided t play carter’s beautiful cover tackle a hundred times but neglected to show Brendan Leonard getting his hea kciked or mccaw getting takled of the ball and getting penalised for his trouble
9 Nov 2009, 09:36 am
I really didn’t expect this kind of tackle from Carter. He seems to be a pretty straight-up, by the rules character. But this was clearly a swinging forearm to the head and not just a high tackle. As someone mentioned earlier, it’s the JP Nel technique down to a T (except that JP And Matfield use their “arm guards” for added impact). Certainly worth a citing, and probably at least two or three weeks out of the game. The same rules apply to the god of rugby as to us SA “thugs”.
9 Nov 2009, 09:45 am
#21 katman:
This is not tiddly winks they playing. Do you want them to start wearing tutu’s?
9 Nov 2009, 10:24 am
Only thing worse than listening to the Welsh commentators go on and on about the high tackle is logging into Keo and reading all the Saffas feeling sorry for themselves (i.e. if he was a SA player he’d get two weeks)
Boo hoo. It’s rugby boys, harden the **** up!
9 Nov 2009, 10:25 am
It wasn’t even a bad tackle. No one even noticed it as it happened. It was only after the replay that everyone saw it. I think it was a bit high and probably deserved a penalty but no more than that!
9 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
#6 ufo:
or Bakkies the Thug following thru with his knee on to Donalds head in the 1st Qter at Bloem (or may have been Durban). It was blatant and he got off scott-free as Donald needed extensive treatment for concussion.
#21 katman:
talk it up. How many swinging-arms did Butcher James get away with in his Test career ? In fact, DC was on the receiving end of many of them.
Let them Ban DC. Noone from AB Management or Players will even consider disgracing the jersey with any arrogant armband protests.
9 Nov 2009, 10:32 am
It was high and his arm was swinging… if that was Bakkies it would be 3 weeks.
9 Nov 2009, 10:39 am
Bunch of sissies
9 Nov 2009, 10:40 am
#26 seamus: Why don’t you write to the IRB urging all citing officials to wear armbands reading WWBG – “what would Bakkies get”
That way you can console yourself with the fact that everybody is being penalised equally and nobody is picking on your beloved Bakkies
9 Nov 2009, 10:46 am
#28 Richie_7:
‘picking on Bakkies’…….its a nationwide ruse to disguise how much he actually gets away with.
Woodcock got banned for 1 match for doing what Bakkies does repeatedly every match he plays. What did we hear from Woodcock or Sivivatu after Tokyo ?
nada,
The way it should be.
9 Nov 2009, 10:49 am
if only GH could come out now and say in his usual monotone drawl. “we saw the tackle and we didn’t think it deserved a card, i watched last night with Dan and he was as suprised as the rest of us that he is cited. I don’t think Dan did it on purpose, if you know the character of the man like i do, you would know that it’s not in his nature to do something like that, he is physical & his tackling technique is up to scratch”
9 Nov 2009, 10:59 am
#30 Transformation: Oi Transformation, think the Springboks who believe in “Justice 4 All” might pop down to the local IRB citing offices and put in a good word for Dan? Maybe wear little pieces of tape on their arms too Friday night?
9 Nov 2009, 11:04 am
Lol! Disgracing a jersey with an armband protest? Sacrilege! No wonder you guys failed in the World Cup to win in those grey jerseys.
Why doesnt NZ go the Barcelona FC route and promote Unicef on their jerseys?? Or would that be sacrilege?
9 Nov 2009, 11:39 am
#31 Richie_7: ey Richie…you & wankanathan must stop painting all south africans with the same brush, if we wanted to eye gouge lions we would head to the bushveld & gouge away and see if they can haul us in
9 Nov 2009, 11:47 am
lot of short memories here that have forgotten what it’s like to be cited for no reason. it was a high tackle, nothing more, nothing less. penalty sure, but that’s it.
9 Nov 2009, 11:56 am
#12 Sonito:
Agree 100% Sonito, even the Commentary Team didn’t pick it up first up.
9 Nov 2009, 11:57 am
However…….it was high.
So give Danny Boy a week off.
He was never going to play against Italy anyway. So WtF.
9 Nov 2009, 12:02 pm
#26 seamus:
Yes seamus. But Bakkies has history of filth that stretches across 3 Continents.
9 Nov 2009, 12:14 pm
The armguard theory for added impact – the irb requirements for padding and protection is 5mm of foam. If anything it would soften the blow
9 Nov 2009, 12:28 pm
Give him a weeks ban then !! Hopefully that will stop the welsh moaning about how unfair that were treated. I dont think the kiwis will be that worried he was probably having a week of anyway.
Lets not get carried away here though it was a tackle that slipped up as the player was coming down. A weeks ban not really if so this game is getting softer by the minute
9 Nov 2009, 12:36 pm
What….Kiwis are going to surrender meekly to this blatant act of injustice? Oh come on, at least put up a fight.
There’s a part of me that says ban the b@stard…..nothing rational, just out of sheer vindictiveness esp when you consider some of the inconsistencies we had to endure but then again I saw the incident and I have to concede that the citing is a bit of a joke.
9 Nov 2009, 12:49 pm
#25 WakaNathan:
get a grip waka… read my post again… said IMO he didn’t deserve a citing let alone a banning…
you’re so one-eyed you can’t recognise when a saffa supporter is suporter a AB player…
sad man…
9 Nov 2009, 12:58 pm
#41 ufo:
but if you prefer waka… if it makes you feel better to meet your stereotype that all saffas are one-eyed idiots…
I can jump on the bandwagon too…
Carter is a vile and dirty player who deserves a 12 month ban for his heinous act of cowardice…!!!
you feeling more comfortable now waka…???
Sheesh dude…
9 Nov 2009, 13:05 pm
#38 Partizan: The arm guard serves two purposes: To help clobber harder and to prevent the forearm from breaking. Surely even you must find it suspicious that the one guy who keeps on being blown up and cited for a swinging forearm, wears a massive piece of strapping on the arm that does the swinging.
9 Nov 2009, 13:41 pm
#41 ufo:
as you said “Ive seen way worse things gone uncited”. Well, yes, quite.
Your reference was clearly to Simon Shaw, supposed low penalty (compared to Boks) etc. After a Lions series where the locals accused the Brits of media stitchups after public outcries, we then had to hear about ‘Sheridan punching Bekkers todger’ when it was clear and plain for all to see that it was unintentional.
And in the week when Boks armbanded themselves in to rugby notoriety was the same when the Eye-Burg/lar was given a slap on the hand and a lollipop. Bakkies the falsely-accused Victim 1 minute, forget about Eye-Burg/lar the Villain the next ? Did you not agree with Transformation on #6 on this point ?
1 Ring to Rule them all….
#42 ufo:
UFO, youre talking to yourself. Phone home !
9 Nov 2009, 14:55 pm
#44 WakaNathan:
Waka… could well well give you the ‘N’ you deserve but won’t…
For someone who’s alleged to be somebody to NZ rugby you’re really dof bud… I’ll type slowly for your benefit…
I’m talking about the Carter tackle… simply saying IMO opinion he didn’t deserve a citing… as far worse incidents haven’t been cited…
That’s my point… Get it…?
Doubt it… your insistence of arguing with someone who agreed with you indicates you’ve been in the moonshine shed again…
Your insistence on dredging up up incidents of evil Boks players just to start a rumble and feel self-righteous says more about your self-esteem than it does about mine…
but you go ahead and play with yourself until you feel all justfied and warm and fuzzy…
9 Nov 2009, 15:05 pm
#45 ufo:
Actually, twas not I that ‘dredged up incidents of Evil Boks’, scroll up and I think you’ll find it was your cheerleaders, Whatever and Transformation, who had their trigger-happy fingers on the ‘Bakkies’ button. The usual pandering to the Victimisation theories about over-zealous citing of Boks and how everyone else gets away with worse. Give them an inch and they’ll make a ‘Global Conspiracy’ theory out of it next.
Ban Carter I say. As Safas said at RWC 07 when the Eye-Burg/lar was banned for reckless play “its just not in his character”.
Yeah, right.
9 Nov 2009, 15:13 pm
#46 WakaNathan:
twas not I either… I deliberately chose a non-SA player… to try and make my point… seems you’re not upfor rational debate though…
perhaps you should address your issues to those cheerleaders… at least get that right…
Must say you’re sounding remarkably similar to the cheerleaders you’re so indignant about…
Forgive Carter I say…
Ban Wakanathan…
9 Nov 2009, 16:02 pm
LOL!!!
Wanka
9 Nov 2009, 16:37 pm
1 week will be enough.
9 Nov 2009, 17:25 pm
Barely a penalty for a high tackle, now is cited, and talk of ban…..madness!
I agreed with the comment: had it not been shown on the big screen a thousand times, people would have just thought is was a good tackle.
For the record, Butch tackled with his shoulder, not swinging arm. Tackle is legit, as he used his arms too, just some soccer players who also watch rugby when there is no soccer on decided the tackle isn’t legal.
I think this is typical of Welsh rugby commentators, so don’t find it suprising that someone feels it is worth a ban. Who cites and bans the “Man of the match” ? Madness
9 Nov 2009, 17:36 pm
#50 WP-Stormers-SA: the welsh were simply looking for someone to blame rather than blame their under par team .and it seems theres a trend developing with NH teams
” they should have played with 14 men” this same line was used in the lions series and again last last saturday . are the SH teams so good tht the home nations believe they can only compete if they have a 1 man advantage ???
9 Nov 2009, 17:42 pm
Ban Dan for 4 matches the cheating playboy b’stard.
9 Nov 2009, 17:48 pm
Well, in the UK there seems to be an attraction for drama, pehaps the commentators do voice overs for some BBC radio show.
Ban, hell no. I wouldn’t even send a lawyer with Carter.
Sorry Sir, the tackle did creep a little high as the player ducked under my arm, but there was no intent. Sorry the Ref didn’t see it, but that is your business, not mine. Perhaps his boss Neville will speak to him about it when he gets to SA.
9 Nov 2009, 17:52 pm
#53 WP-Stormers-SA: “Sorry Sir, but I am an All Black and I play for Canterbury. It is stated in the law that it is impossible for me to get banned for anything.”
9 Nov 2009, 17:55 pm
#51 mbaxman93:
To be fair, the gripe re ’14 men’ had more legs after the Eye-Burg/lar incident in the Lions 2nd Test, committed as it was in the 1st min, than against a marginal high-tackle committed in the 72nd min of a Home Test.
Its a complete British media stitchup anyway. Listening to the BBC female interviewer speak to DC, McCaw and Wayne Smith in the immediate aftermath and she must have brought it up 3-4 times with each of them. Her earpiece obviously had instructions being relayed with much urgency and exclamation marks. BBC performing tricks perfected by The Sun, no less.
9 Nov 2009, 17:56 pm
#54 goyougoodthing2:
It didnt help Brad Thorn after he game Smit a fairground ride up the Matterhorn.
9 Nov 2009, 17:58 pm
#56 WakaNathan: Thorn should have been banned for 6 months the farker
9 Nov 2009, 18:00 pm
Danny must not be banned. he is too perfect to be banned .
9 Nov 2009, 18:02 pm
#58 rugbygenius: Earl is even more perfect than that!
9 Nov 2009, 18:04 pm
#59 Big Hit: No Carter is still better
Earl has many years to be like Carter .
9 Nov 2009, 18:09 pm
#57 goyougoodthing2:
Smit provoked him, so he got the exact reaction desired.
Thorn didnt drive Smit down, he had no control after releasing him.
If the Citings Officer uses the same slo-mo they needed to Get Carter, then they would have seen that too.
6 months ? yes, thats the predicted period of rehab for Bakkies victim, for which he only got 2 matches banned, being the same offence he was previously banned for. 2 matches for a repeated offender and a seriously injured victim ?!
I contend that the whole JUSTICE4 Bakkies protest was a mere ruse, ala Sir Alex after any ManU loss, to divert the publics awareness away from Burgers eye-gouing for which he received a paltry 3-match ban, and thereby protecting his ‘reputation’.
9 Nov 2009, 18:53 pm
lol he had no control after releasing him…. with his head pointed towards the ground…that sad I believe the carter citing is bullshit…I suggest armbands….
9 Nov 2009, 19:00 pm
#62 gunther: Cmon, just watch the youtube one more time. Thorn dropped Smit on his backside, in other words, Smit landed on his arse. At no point whatsoever he was not head-down. Bolloks.
Sure, he deserved card for that and a ban. Meanwhile, I do remember seconds before that Smit pushing Brad’s head into dirt. So – while it was stupid and potentially dangerous act – Smit cannot pose as an innocent lamb.
9 Nov 2009, 19:01 pm
#63 Nils: At no point whatsoever he was head-down, that is.
9 Nov 2009, 19:01 pm
Poor Daniel in the Dragons den.
I’d wear the armband.
9 Nov 2009, 19:41 pm
#61 WakaNathan: you talking smack as always, Brad went into the ruck with an elbow on conrad janjties’ head, that’s whay smit reacted & checked him, next thing Thorne the brute that he is is up-ending Smit… you can spin whiever way you like wanka it doesn’t change the facts…LOL
9 Nov 2009, 19:42 pm
#61 WakaNathan: “he had no control after releasing him” why did he have him airborne inthe first place?
9 Nov 2009, 19:46 pm
Daniel Hechter remains the Top 1st 5-8; ban or no ban
9 Nov 2009, 20:32 pm
#61 WakaNathan: Nonsense, the kiwis see the Boks as bullies cos it takes one to know one. ABs have played the same dirty game for years and years but cry like babies when it goes against them.
I care less if Thorn or Barney or Rip van Winkel deserved a ban in 1867. I do know that little Danny Boy would have been carded and taken an early shower if he wasn’t the golden boy from Kiwiland.
9 Nov 2009, 20:51 pm
#61 WakaNathan:
in the broadcast of the game i watched, the cardiff crowd reacted immediately to the high tackle – not only when watching the replays.
having said that;
it was a penalty offence and not much more
the media creams situations like this to court controversy and sell pages
9 Nov 2009, 23:49 pm
Now they’re complaining that since the judicial officer is English there may be a conspiracy at work.
This incident proves once and for all that the British are a bunch of whingers.
10 Nov 2009, 00:23 am
#70 charo:
It has also been the general consensus in todays rags that the crowd only reacted after the slo-mo’s. But everyone else is probably wrong tho, Charo.
This over-reliance on tv cameras is now not only finding head-highs before there were none, disallowing tries that would have previously been allowed and highlighting all the stuff that we only knew about in urban myth.
#66 Transformation:
your version of the facts tends to differ from mine. I think we’re both happy about that too. My eyes saw Thorn drop/”release” Smit, not drive him downwards as you suggest. When theyre driving them down head-1st that tends towards the intentional end of the scale.
#69 goyougoodthing2:
Im hoping you can come to the Top Table with better arguments than “it takes one to know one” next time. You’ll be proclaiming to be King of the Cstle next.
10 Nov 2009, 00:25 am
WakaNathan Dude, you make me embarrassed to be a Kiwi.
10 Nov 2009, 00:38 am
#69 goyougoodthing2: “ABs have played the same dirty game for years and years but cry like babies when it goes against them.”
Who cried? Carter? Henry? Gatland? Ouch, he is Welsh coach.
And by the way, the referee was Saffa. He did see the replays on the screen. Then blame him for fear to pull out a card.
10 Nov 2009, 00:39 am
#73 Pencil:
Rest assured, Ive been regularly embarrassed by enough Kiwis on my travels to have reached comfortable levels of humility and self-respect.
Fair to say there has been a bit of ‘history’ to my theme today. Double-standards tends to be a preferred topic of mine.
kia kaha
10 Nov 2009, 01:39 am
#69 goyougoodthing2:
strange,cant remember the last time a kiwi bit someone while in a ruck.
If you think that carters tackle deserved a card then we all might as well pack up and watch soccer. It was a penalty and thats it. The welsh got away with professional fouls on their try line a couple of times and they wernt sent.
Anyway its done now,gatland is proved once again hes **** and a loud mouth,i vote him to stay in the NH
10 Nov 2009, 02:18 am
at least most reasonable people on here are in agreement that it is a lot to do about nothing… as most reasonable people on here agreed Bakkies was harshly treated over the charging into the ruck incident, though like a convicted criminal, once you have a history and reputation, it is always going to influence the decision makers…
Carter should be exonerated, due mainly to his previous good record, not because hes from Canterbury, not because hes the kiwi golden child (funny how those with the least cranial capacity always revert back to name-calling)… but because he has what is considered an exemplary record… over time he has not shown malice and the likelihood of foul play… unfortunately, Bakkies has…
crystal clear?
10 Nov 2009, 03:18 am
#77 poppa69:
Nope, clear as mud, your logic is!! You do the crime, you do the time, is a cry I’ve heard you blokes spew out when talking about Saffa’s. Screw past history. If you breach the law you need to pay. No exceptions. The fact he said sorry, does not mean he should get away with it. But watch, if he gets any time I will eat my cyber hat.
10 Nov 2009, 03:48 am
#77 poppa69:decrying name-calling yet the hog is firmly rooted in the sty.
#72 WakaNathan:i’m not arguing that he drove him down, i’m asking why did he have him in the air in the first place? It’s not like smit was carrying a ball, was he?
10 Nov 2009, 04:11 am
#79 Transformation: thats a cheek coming from you…
10 Nov 2009, 04:11 am
If he did the crime, he must do the time. I agree fully.
(And, hey, he only misses a gimme test versus Italy… heh heh!)
10 Nov 2009, 04:32 am
#78 whatever: hahah coming from one who lives in the country they so despise, explain that filthy logic? I honestly dont care if hes banned or not…
as waka already said, I notice no Saffas complained when Burger felt like eyes for lunch?? in the first minute of a test? lots of Saffa smarts in that one
yet no one here complained he should have got longer..
do the crime, do the time… should have got 6 months, dont you agree??
10 Nov 2009, 04:36 am
#81 TheTackler:
You sound as sorry and contrite as Hone!!
10 Nov 2009, 04:40 am
#82 poppa69:
Agree
10 Nov 2009, 04:42 am
#82 poppa69:
Hey Popps, not sure where you got the fact that I dispise NZ from?? You could not be further from the truth, I love the place. What I dispise are some of the two faced twats that live in the here! You know, the “butter would not melt”…”who me?” type of twats.
Burger got cited and did his time. I have no issue with that. What I have issue with is the inconsistancy which so often sees a Saffa facing an extra few weeks compared to anyone else for the same crime. And we can list the occasions in there tens dude! And I think that deep down you know that too…………
10 Nov 2009, 04:44 am
#79 Transformation: one only has to look at how you consistently speak to Waka to know that you’re just another boer stuck in the sty yourself, though I do love your holier than thou attitude… how does it feel to be so damn righteous???
10 Nov 2009, 04:49 am
#86 poppa69:
Come mate, don’t show your ignorance. Not all Saffa’s are Boers, just like not all Kiwi’s are Asians………
10 Nov 2009, 04:50 am
#85 whatever:
You despise the All Blacks,we all know that,no problem there.
You do know that we are not the only country that have two faced twats.
10 Nov 2009, 04:56 am
#88 Hurricane:
I know, Assie has them as well………..
And I do not dispise the AB’s mate. Again you have misread me.
10 Nov 2009, 05:16 am
#87 whatever: hey, I was speaking to one Saffa in particular mate, sorry you happened to identify with it haha… dont you mean not all kiwis are poached ??
10 Nov 2009, 05:23 am
#90 poppa69:
Nah, I just don’t think Transie is a Boer based on past posts, so just defending him in his absence!
Only a few poached ones are in your run on 15 nowdays so you guys are bringing your quota down. The Boks on the other hand……..eish
10 Nov 2009, 05:31 am
#91 whatever: I was just using his analogy, if you look at it a boar is a type of pig, yet its pronounced exactly like boer…
funny coincidence perhaps
but what I found hilarious was in the very same sentence hes chastised me and then gone ahead and done the very thing hes had a go at me at…
there you go, a SA two faced twat…
10 Nov 2009, 05:33 am
#92 poppa69:
10 Nov 2009, 06:54 am
#92 poppa69: #86 poppa69: hey poppa, you may perceive me as “holier than thou” or what-not. I really couldn’t care less. As long as we speak rugby & aren’t swearing @ one another – a bit of waka’s garrulous, caustic sarcasm is must though – it’s fine by me. I’m not interested in any kum ba ya, back slapping, ek stem saam, i-agree-all-the-time blogging experience, that’s not my scene.
I have driven my fair share of shanks in the past but i’ve never been OTT like you! If that makes me holier than thou, so be it.
10 Nov 2009, 06:59 am
#92 poppa69: call people cranially incapacitated or challenged then in the same sentence decry name calling…..there, a bonafide twoKface Kiwi tw@t.
10 Nov 2009, 08:35 am
#94 Transformation: OTT ? me, perhaps, Id like to think its just passion for my country and my team, if that makes me over the top so be it….but my comments are not half as bad as some of the comments Ive seen on this blog, normally directed at any kiwi thats logged on.. and, Ive acknowledged my mistakes when I get over zealous, can you?
seems the victim mentality forces you guys to hunt in packs… thats just sad…
10 Nov 2009, 10:36 am
#94 Transformation:
why thank you, my good man.
10 Nov 2009, 10:37 am
#96 poppa69: u know what it’s fine popps, as long as we can still laugh & banter about rugby i’m cool…don’t have time to get bogged down by nonsensical details
10 Nov 2009, 11:41 am
#92 poppa69:
since when are “boer” and “boar” pronunced exactly the same?
perhaps you guys shouldn’t bandy about words you cannot pronounce?
or understand?
10 Nov 2009, 13:00 pm
#99 charo: go headmaster charo!!! Lol
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.