<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBokke @ Dec 2 2009, 08:48 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Monkeypigeon @ Dec 2 2009, 11:26 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jer1cho @ Dec 1 2009, 01:40 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Logorrhea @ Dec 1 2009, 03:31 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not clapping a team off is pretty pathetic. Either way, I presume you'll do the same when you play England, Scotland or Wales in the future yeah?
As is multiple citings from the Boks where the Irish let Bekkers knee to the back of Wallaces head go, and publicly calling Heaslip a gouger with no evidence in some form of retaliation for Heaslip calling Burger a gouger. Sad really.[/b]
I didn't hear you saying any of this when the Lions were moaning their asses off. Mike Phillips and BOD were absolute pricks after the series, and POC was just as bad.
(1.)
As for the gouging, who exactly made these claims? Do you know? It sounds like a farce to me, and it's got jack **** to do with our players.
Also, quite frankly, i wouldn't have clapped off the Irish either after what their media had to say about us in the build up. Gouger this, dirty that, thug this, hooligan that.
(2.)
[/b][/quote]
I decided Sunday that I wasn't going to get into any of this argueing if or when it happened because it's pointless but here goes:
1. Yeah, I remember that. After the first test Phillips said they could have won and maybe should have won and
some Saffers decided that he was whinging because he lost which was a bit daft because all he was saying was "we should have won it (but we blew it)" and not some great conspiracy against the glorious nation of South Africa with all of it's rugby splender.
You might have more of a point on the Heaslip and O'Driscoll thing in relation to complaining about Burger and now the IRFU complaining about the Heaslip citing. Difference is that every saw Burger stick his fingers in his eyes whereas nobody saw anything to do with Heaslip and Brussouw. And I don't think there'd be a complaint from the IRFU but
(a) The usual procedure when something is pointed out to the citing commissioner is that you tell him and not the media and then the name comes out if there's an actual citing because you need
evidence (new word for you) before you go tarnishing someone's career with that accusation, and
( B) The Bokke management made 2 more accusations (though at least these were unnamed) that they end up dropping before the day was out. All seems a bit suspicious to me and not at all well handled and
hence the IRFU complaining. Though I'd rather they'd let it go.
I don't get the compliant about O'Connell, maybe I've missed something and if you find me an interview then I'm happy to accept I'm wrong but the worst thing I remember him saying was either
(a) P Divvy was acting like a spa. Which he was or
( B) Our chances were dealt a blow by injuries (which they were) or
© We should have won the second test before going on to tell the interview who asked "did the best team win?" - "ah, of course, the best team is the team that wins". Which is all very wrong.
Happy to be proved wrong on any of the above. Perhaps Gatland was complaining, but that's to be expected.
2. I was watching out for that in the Irish media. None of the words "gouger, dirty, hooligan, or thug" appeared in the (Irish) Times or the (Irish) Indipendant at any point. Nor the examiner
There have been references to when Burger gouged Fitzgerald, but none have called him 'a gouger', merely pointed out that he did gouge.
The Indipendant used the word "Bully" refering to the physical attitude rather than any type of bad attitude. They used the word physical alot. In Praise rather than anything other way. "The Boks are a physical side, Ireland will need to front up and improve on their breakdown performance against the Aussies" - That kind of thing.
My advice to you - Stop reading tabloids if that's where you're getting it.
I'll admit there having plenty of complaints about South Africa putting Heaslip's name out without any evidence. But guess what, they're right.
People don't use names w/o something to back it up. In any other profession it would fall foul of the Defamation Act.
And don't complain about us because your coach has a bad attitude.
And a few people are getting ahead of themselves about where Ireland are at. We don't have a tighthead. Out Loosehead isn't a top notch scrumager (yet). All our scrumhalves run hot and cold. We need a better inside centre...Wallace and D'Arcy are way behind the standard of the rest of the outside backs at the moment. And we don't have an out and out 7. For 40 minutes we were playing with 3 number 8s in the back row on Saturday.
Edit:
Those smilies with sunglasses are meant to be the letter B in a bracket
[/b][/quote]
So just cause there is no Footage of the gouge it never happened. Suppose Woodcock was lying as well. Wow you Irish boys(on this website) really have an angleic view of all things Irish. Apparently the Irish guys on the tour were very poor sports; none of the other nations were blamed just the Irish, so a little food for thought.
SA hardly ever cites other players but this time they just decided to lie right? SA have never been blamed for being poor sports after the game, maybe physical and over the top some times but hardly murders.
If you think that only SA players are dirty look no further than the Quinlin incident were he tried to remove the Leinster locks eye! He was also selected for the Lions tour so hardly a low profile player.
Take the blinkers off boys open your eyes and trust me this is rugby all sorts of things happen at the bottom of rucks tht are not caught on camera that go unpunished. One example Ronan practically being strangled to death at the bottom of one ruck that could not be proved as the footage of the incident was unclear.
Dry your eyes enough of the :cryy:
[/b][/quote]
Nobody said iy didn't happen. what I said was that you can't accuse peoiple of doing something dirty w/o evidence. YES I KNOW you don't know if there's evidence or not untill the citing comissioner looks at the tapes but you wait untill he (the citing commissioner) says something rather than going to the media.
Maybe he did gouge, maybe he didn't, like you said we'll never know. But THERE'S A PROPER WAY OF DOING THINGS AND IT WAS IGNORED and that's my point.
And we may have blinkers but South Africans seem to have a fantastic talent for selective reading. Tarbh just saif that we have plenty of dirty players and you keep on insisting that our medai call your players dirty when we've all just made it clear that we don't. It's just YOUR media at their selective reading.
Though I'm sure you'll read this and only pick up the words 'gouge' and 'dirty' and have a go over that.
...Maybe i was a bit harsh and i would temper my judgement in saying that SA is above FR , EN , IRL but not at the same level of Aussies and AB . Though if you look at result from 100 years , you have beaten Aussies more often than them could have beaten you but i would say that in last ten years that is not really the case . In terms of the impression you can make on NH teams , i do not feel that it is the same feeling like having a match against aussies or AB ...
