[RWC2019][Pool B] Round 1 - New Zealand vs. South Africa (21/09/2019)

[petite]

Seriously??!! is that all you're going to add to the discussion?? A bunch of dislikes to all my posts and then just this?? No rebuttle, or provision of more evidence to substantiate your claim??

I mean, are we wrong with saying that Faf and other onside players such as Kolbe who ran past PSDT while he was retreating, put him back onside during broken play??? That it's not like an SA player had kicked an up-and-under where the players in front of him has to retreat at least 10 metres back before they can play the man/ball...

that's what they do..

 

[petite]

Seriously??!! is that all you're going to add to the discussion?? A bunch of dislikes to all my posts and then just this?? No rebuttle, or provision of more evidence to substantiate your claim??

I mean, are we wrong with saying that Faf and other onside players such as Kolbe who ran past PSDT while he was retreating, put him back onside during broken play??? That it's not like an SA player had kicked an up-and-under where the players in front of him has to retreat at least 10 metres back before they can play the man/ball...

that's what they do..

Sigh...... Whilst some are at the bigger picture stage there's still a question on minutiae to be resolved. If I may offer my services between the Boks and the Blacks as a neutral(ish) observer. As I said before I'm somewhat of a laws aficionado and really enjoy these kinds of topics. I've looked at the footage several times and as stated before struggle to see how PSDT is ever onside. Here we go.

Effectively the whole question of offside is settled within a single second and it's not without its complexity

View attachment 7455

ALB at this point is "held and brought to ground" by Steven Kitshoff. ALB's knee in in contact with the ground and Kitshoff is holding him. Law 14 is thus satisfied

From the laws

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

The next image brings into the question whether offside lines are established The law reads:

"Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team's offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

Apologies the image is the best I can do but it very much appears as per the red arrow (His hands) that Kitshoff has managed to get to his feet (very nicely done by the way) and is over the ball which is on the ground. Thus offside lines are established for both teams (I've approximated these in blue)

View attachment 7456

However, should you disagree (and you may,) there's a further consideration. First can we deal with the question of Read's angle of entry? At time in question. There is no ruck as the following condition has not been met

"A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground. ".

The rule for "other players" in a tackle states the following. Other players must

"Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball."

There is no "gate" (a term not used in law). I believe that Read is joining a "tackle" rather than a "ruck" and is thus legal.

Then things get really interesting. As in the following image Read and I believe it's Crotty make near simultaneous contact with Kitshoff. However, not quite so. Read makes contact first and then Crotty touches Kitshoff's back. At this point Kitshoff is on his feet. Crotty is on his feet and the ball is on the ground. See above for the ruck law...........

View attachment 7458

So even if you don't accept that the tackle creates an offside, a ruck 100% does. As follows:

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

Again my rubbish blue line don't do it justice but they are about there.............

Just as an aside after the ball is passed away Faf appears..... I doubt he's onside either..... But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However the next person in question is PSDT......... If you accept that either the tackle or the ruck has created an offside line he's never been onside since either action

View attachment 7459

So what? Well the laws say this

"A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Interestingly (well for me a laws nerd at least) I can't see "tackle" there......

So PSDT is offside unless one of the following are met

1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

1) Nope, 2) hmmmm maybe! 3) nope. But before we get our hopes up the law is very specific in this regard:

1. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
   1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or

Now there is an element of judgement about whether PSDT has been subject to "an undue delay" but he's pretty much in the NZ attacking line and at that point he's in jeopardy. The "lazy runner" thing being the usual issue here. However, there's then the question of "benefiting". So even if under clause 2 (5 metre carry) he's not in the clear. He may be onside but he's passed the ball and us such clearly gains an advantage.

So if you believe a tackle was made. PSDT was offside at that point. I believe the laws are deficient in this regard so much as it's then not referred to in Law 10. However, if you believe a ruck was formed (I believe Crotty and Kitshoff momentarily do this) then PSDT is offside, He may be put onside by NZ carriers but this is irrelevant as he regains position in an advantageous position.

All of that said it's not as black and white as people want to make it. Most of the important actions happen in less than 1 second. Refs are fallible. I'd say most refs seeing an opposition player stealing the ball in the offensive line would immediately think "hold on, how can he be onside". Garces may have thought differently.

Just for fun. If Kitshoff had simply knocked ALB to the floor (not held and grounded) and not contested the ball (no ruck). PSDT would have been onside...... Strange game

very good post but in away it probes my point you need this kilométric post and 5 pics to show this was off side and you are probably right. but is comprehensiveble that the ref missed it. in the other hand read' s tacking a player with no ball o moodys 2 shoulder charges need no photo no explanation whatsoever. and went unpunished in the game and after.
if lavanini fats loud he gets the call..

 

[Kiwiwomble]

that's what they do..


very good post but in away it probes my point you need this kilométric post and 5 pics to show this was off side and you are probably right. but is comprehensiveble that the ref missed it. in the other hand read' s tacking a player with no ball o moodys 2 shoulder charges need no photo no explanation whatsoever. and went unpunished in the game and after.
if lavanini fats loud he gets the call..

they?

 

[petite]

no...we're not...you're arguing with a couple of people, the rest of us are looking forward to the next game

they?

yep I thought I need to clarify and was going to. this is a small minority. most kiwis here geve their arguments and it's just a few who started personal attack and even send privates with insults

 

[Zerobound]

The Kiwi's seem to cop a fair bit on these boards! Surprised there's any posters from down under left!

Fascinating game of rugby, South Africa really came out off the blocks in both halves. The AB's as usual managed to weather the storm then score a couple of beautiful tries in typical AB sucker punching fashion and you find yourself rolling your eyes expecting the inevitable. Both teams have their weaknesses that I feel can be exploited by a disciplined side. The Kiwi's are definitely not shoe-ins for the tournament like the last 2 previous world cups, which gives some of us a little more hope

Garces seems to be a contentious subject on this board. I felt he was consistently inconsistent both ways .

You know what it was a great game of rugby. Hopefully the rugby Gods are watching over this tournament and game 100 between the nations will be a Rugby World Cup Final...

 

[Zapphod]

that's what they do..

Bit rich from a guy that hands out dislikes himself isn't it or are you part of the "they" grouping?

 

[petite]

Bit rich from a guy that hands out dislikes himself isn't it or are you part of the "they" grouping?

nop just returning the favor

 

[Zapphod]

nop just returning the favor

Can you tell me how many I have sent you so I can catch up then, because by my count I have sent 0 thumbs down and 0 private message to anyone and don't want to go into half time behind.

 

[petite]

Can you tell me how many I have sent you so I can catch up then, because by my count I have sent 0 thumbs down and 0 private message to anyone and don't want to go into half time behind.

you got one? I had never gave a dislike before this thread in 7 years. it **** me off sorry about that

 

[OneBlackEye]

Sigh...... Whilst some are at the bigger picture stage there's still a question on minutiae to be resolved. If I may offer my services between the Boks and the Blacks as a neutral(ish) observer. As I said before I'm somewhat of a laws aficionado and really enjoy these kinds of topics. I've looked at the footage several times and as stated before struggle to see how PSDT is ever onside. Here we go.

Effectively the whole question of offside is settled within a single second and it's not without its complexity

View attachment 7455

ALB at this point is "held and brought to ground" by Steven Kitshoff. ALB's knee in in contact with the ground and Kitshoff is holding him. Law 14 is thus satisfied

From the laws

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

The next image brings into the question whether offside lines are established The law reads:

"Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team's offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

Apologies the image is the best I can do but it very much appears as per the red arrow (His hands) that Kitshoff has managed to get to his feet (very nicely done by the way) and is over the ball which is on the ground. Thus offside lines are established for both teams (I've approximated these in blue)

View attachment 7456

However, should you disagree (and you may,) there's a further consideration. First can we deal with the question of Read's angle of entry? At time in question. There is no ruck as the following condition has not been met

"A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground. ".

The rule for "other players" in a tackle states the following. Other players must

"Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball."

There is no "gate" (a term not used in law). I believe that Read is joining a "tackle" rather than a "ruck" and is thus legal.

Then things get really interesting. As in the following image Read and I believe it's Crotty make near simultaneous contact with Kitshoff. However, not quite so. Read makes contact first and then Crotty touches Kitshoff's back. At this point Kitshoff is on his feet. Crotty is on his feet and the ball is on the ground. See above for the ruck law...........

View attachment 7458

So even if you don't accept that the tackle creates an offside, a ruck 100% does. As follows:

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

Again my rubbish blue line don't do it justice but they are about there.............

Just as an aside after the ball is passed away Faf appears..... I doubt he's onside either..... But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However the next person in question is PSDT......... If you accept that either the tackle or the ruck has created an offside line he's never been onside since either action

View attachment 7459

So what? Well the laws say this

"A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Interestingly (well for me a laws nerd at least) I can't see "tackle" there......

So PSDT is offside unless one of the following are met

1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

1) Nope, 2) hmmmm maybe! 3) nope. But before we get our hopes up the law is very specific in this regard:

1. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
   1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or

Now there is an element of judgement about whether PSDT has been subject to "an undue delay" but he's pretty much in the NZ attacking line and at that point he's in jeopardy. The "lazy runner" thing being the usual issue here. However, there's then the question of "benefiting". So even if under clause 2 (5 metre carry) he's not in the clear. He may be onside but he's passed the ball and us such clearly gains an advantage.

So if you believe a tackle was made. PSDT was offside at that point. I believe the laws are deficient in this regard so much as it's then not referred to in Law 10. However, if you believe a ruck was formed (I believe Crotty and Kitshoff momentarily do this) then PSDT is offside, He may be put onside by NZ carriers but this is irrelevant as he regains position in an advantageous position.

All of that said it's not as black and white as people want to make it. Most of the important actions happen in less than 1 second. Refs are fallible. I'd say most refs seeing an opposition player stealing the ball in the offensive line would immediately think "hold on, how can he be onside". Garces may have thought differently.

Just for fun. If Kitshoff had simply knocked ALB to the floor (not held and grounded) and not contested the ball (no ruck). PSDT would have been onside...... Strange game

Just want to say thanks for this post, not because it validates what I thought but it is just great well written content you rarely see here.

Using game photos and actual quotes of the laws to show how any situation can be interpreted in multiple ways is really educational and interesting. I'm sure that took a bit of time to put together!

You should consider making a blog or something, I feel like the average rugby fan (including me) could do with a bit more education. So much online content is biased *****ing in favor of your home side or against a side you dislike. This thread being a great example.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sigh...... Whilst some are at the bigger picture stage there's still a question on minutiae to be resolved. If I may offer my services between the Boks and the Blacks as a neutral(ish) observer. As I said before I'm somewhat of a laws aficionado and really enjoy these kinds of topics. I've looked at the footage several times and as stated before struggle to see how PSDT is ever onside. Here we go.

Effectively the whole question of offside is settled within a single second and it's not without its complexity

View attachment 7455

ALB at this point is "held and brought to ground" by Steven Kitshoff. ALB's knee in in contact with the ground and Kitshoff is holding him. Law 14 is thus satisfied

From the laws

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

The next image brings into the question whether offside lines are established The law reads:

"Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team's offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

Apologies the image is the best I can do but it very much appears as per the red arrow (His hands) that Kitshoff has managed to get to his feet (very nicely done by the way) and is over the ball which is on the ground. Thus offside lines are established for both teams (I've approximated these in blue)

View attachment 7456

However, should you disagree (and you may,) there's a further consideration. First can we deal with the question of Read's angle of entry? At time in question. There is no ruck as the following condition has not been met

"A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground. ".

The rule for "other players" in a tackle states the following. Other players must

"Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball."

There is no "gate" (a term not used in law). I believe that Read is joining a "tackle" rather than a "ruck" and is thus legal.

Then things get really interesting. As in the following image Read and I believe it's Crotty make near simultaneous contact with Kitshoff. However, not quite so. Read makes contact first and then Crotty touches Kitshoff's back. At this point Kitshoff is on his feet. Crotty is on his feet and the ball is on the ground. See above for the ruck law...........

View attachment 7458

So even if you don't accept that the tackle creates an offside, a ruck 100% does. As follows:

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

Again my rubbish blue line don't do it justice but they are about there.............

Just as an aside after the ball is passed away Faf appears..... I doubt he's onside either..... But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However the next person in question is PSDT......... If you accept that either the tackle or the ruck has created an offside line he's never been onside since either action

View attachment 7459

So what? Well the laws say this

"A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Interestingly (well for me a laws nerd at least) I can't see "tackle" there......

So PSDT is offside unless one of the following are met

1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

1) Nope, 2) hmmmm maybe! 3) nope. But before we get our hopes up the law is very specific in this regard:

1. An offside player may be penalised if that player:
   1. Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or

Now there is an element of judgement about whether PSDT has been subject to "an undue delay" but he's pretty much in the NZ attacking line and at that point he's in jeopardy. The "lazy runner" thing being the usual issue here. However, there's then the question of "benefiting". So even if under clause 2 (5 metre carry) he's not in the clear. He may be onside but he's passed the ball and us such clearly gains an advantage.

So if you believe a tackle was made. PSDT was offside at that point. I believe the laws are deficient in this regard so much as it's then not referred to in Law 10. However, if you believe a ruck was formed (I believe Crotty and Kitshoff momentarily do this) then PSDT is offside, He may be put onside by NZ carriers but this is irrelevant as he regains position in an advantageous position.

All of that said it's not as black and white as people want to make it. Most of the important actions happen in less than 1 second. Refs are fallible. I'd say most refs seeing an opposition player stealing the ball in the offensive line would immediately think "hold on, how can he be onside". Garces may have thought differently.

Just for fun. If Kitshoff had simply knocked ALB to the floor (not held and grounded) and not contested the ball (no ruck). PSDT would have been onside...... Strange game

Did the referee at any point call it a ruck? If not, then by omission the players are under the impression no ruck was formed, and therefore it's open play...

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Did the referee at any point call it a ruck? If not, then by omission the players are under the impression no ruck was formed, and therefore it's open play...

Players can be under whatever impression they want. What they think (or hear for that matter) doesn't define reality. I've just watched a whole game reffed by Nigel Owens and he doesn't always call "ruck" to indicate one has formed. Does that mean there weren't any and thus no offside lines were established? In the same way refs don't call "tackle" all the time (it would be nonsense). As I've repeatedly said it's a complex call and the ruck formed by Kitshoff / ALB is fleeting. Indeed the only conclusion I can draw is that Jerome Garces did indeed think that no ruck had been formed (though how he ignores the tackle is beyond me). That's why he allowed play to continue. However, as demonstrated up-thread in my view he has erred in his judgement.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Just want to say thanks for this post, not because it validates what I thought but it is just great well written content you rarely see here.

Using game photos and actual quotes of the laws to show how any situation can be interpreted in multiple ways is really educational and interesting. I'm sure that took a bit of time to put together!

You should consider making a blog or something, I feel like the average rugby fan (including me) could do with a bit more education. So much online content is biased *****ing in favor of your home side or against a side you dislike. This thread being a great example.

Thanks for the kind words. You're welcome. I enjoyed doing it.

I have loved rugby for nearly as long as I can remember and I've always had an interest in the Laws. It's especially important to me now as I coach children to play the game. I'd like to think I'm relatively non-partisan even when it comes to England. I'm interested in exploring interpretations and to be honest I'm not that interested in being "right". Ultimately even in the case we're discussing here the referee on the field is the arbiter that actually matters..... They are human and will get stuff "wrong". But without them and without showing due respect to their role there is no game.

I'll consider setting something up that will allow other similarly minded fans to join in.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Players can be under whatever impression they want. What they think (or hear for that matter) doesn't define reality. I've just watched a whole game reffed by Nigel Owens and he doesn't always call "ruck" to indicate one has formed. Does that mean there weren't any and thus no offside lines were established? In the same way refs don't call "tackle" all the time (it would be nonsense). As I've repeatedly said it's a complex call and the ruck formed by Kitshoff / ALB is fleeting. Indeed the only conclusion I can draw is that Jerome Garces did indeed think that no ruck had been formed (though how he ignores the tackle is beyond me). That's why he allowed play to continue. However, as demonstrated up-thread in my view he has erred in his judgement.

I get that. And yes, the refs don't always call it a ruck, and in this situation everything happened so fast that it's very hard to come to a clear conclusion, as there is enough for both parties to substantiate their case/doubt in opposing argument.

What is surprising is that this portion of play is getting the most discussion, when heinous acts such as Kieran Read's coathanger on PSDT is being shovelled to obscurity. Why are we bothering with this issue and not that?

 

[Yoshimitsu]

I get that. And yes, the refs don't always call it a ruck, and in this situation everything happened so fast that it's very hard to come to a clear conclusion, as there is enough for both parties to substantiate their case/doubt in opposing argument.

What is surprising is that this portion of play is getting the most discussion, when heinous acts such as Kieran Read's coathanger on PSDT is being shovelled to obscurity. Why are we bothering with this issue and not that?

A reasonable point. But please don't make me frame by frame the entire match... that's too much even for me

I think the reason for this particular focus is due to what effectively kicked this discussion off. That being the one sided video posted which focused solely on All Black transgressions.

The obvious counter being that if Garces was being "bent" rather than consistently incompetent why on earth would he allow a try where 99/100 refs would have blown PSDT offside?

FWIW the Read incident for me was a yellow card using the protocol.Moody also skated on thin ice. But without forensically dissecting the entire match I can't say what the Boks got away with (if anything). IMO the one eyed polemic intent of that video paints South Africa as the victims of a terrible injustice makes reasonable discussion difficult.

 

[TRF_heineken]

A reasonable point. But please don't make me frame by frame the entire match... that's too much even for me

I think the reason for this particular focus is due to what effectively kicked this discussion off. That being the one sided video posted which focused solely on All Black transgressions.

The obvious counter being that if Garces was being "bent" rather than consistently incompetent why on earth would he allow a try where 99/100 refs would have blown PSDT offside?

FWIW the Read incident for me was a yellow card using the protocol.Moody also skated on thin ice. But without forensically dissecting the entire match I can't say what the Boks got away with (if anything). IMO the one eyed polemic intent of that video paints South Africa as the victims of a terrible injustice makes reasonable discussion difficult.

I never expected anyone to analyse the match frame by frame, but thankyou for the contribution. Those one-sided videos are all over social media, and there's a lot of them.

I think a few of them are a bit OTT, but others do have some valid points. I think the bottom line was that this was a 50/50 call, and these are the type of incidents that will have a varied opinion on the the outcome and how the referee sees it.

But other instances like foul play, and hands on the ground at scrum time, which are all pretty obvious, shouldn't really be a point of discussion if the referee did a proper job in the middle.

Imagine if Garces did award numerous penalties to SA when Moody dropped at scrumtime. The game would have been a lot more stop-start. There might have been a bigger influence on the scoreboard and the pressures going with that. If it was a repeated infringement, the possibility was there that Moody would've been given a yellow card, and then that opens up other issues for the AB's with regard to switching personnel and so on.

The point is, that there is a point to be made that it appears that there is favouritism towards the AB's/against the Boks. And people will continue to have a tirade about it unless something is done to prevent it/stop it. In this day and age, everyone is pleading for equal treatment due to various reasons, why should it be different on the rugby field.

Everyone has their bias. Saffas are seen as bullies. Saffas see French referee's as Cheats. The list goes on and on and on...

 

[bushytop]

Apologies for my compatriot everyone.

Not all of us think like this. Garces didn't have a good game, but to start saying there is favouritism towards the All Blacks is just being a sore loser, therefore I apologize on behalf of Heineken, it is not within the spirit of the game to suggest such and thing and it's unfair on the All Blacks and attacks the credibility of their well deserved win, we just didn't do enough to win, that's the truth of it.

The All Blacks were the better team on the day, we are capable of beating them. If we meet in the final I think it could be a different story.

Great username!

 

[TRF_heineken]

Apologies for my compatriot everyone.

Not all of us think like this. Garces didn't have a good game, but to start saying there is favouritism towards the All Blacks is just being a sore loser, therefore I apologize on behalf of Heineken, it is not within the spirit of the game to suggest such and thing and it's unfair on the All Blacks and attacks the credibility of their well deserved win, we just didn't do enough to win, that's the truth of it.

The All Blacks were the better team on the day, we are capable of beating them. If we meet in the final I think it could be a different story.

Don't apologise on my behalf. You don't have to agree with my OPINIONS on these matters. I'm not expecting anyone to do that. I'm not speaking on behalf of my country. I'm speaking for myself.

To call my posts embarrassing is in my opinion a bit degrading. We are here to have open discussions on rugby related matters. I've never shy'd away from contentious topics, nor have I taken a backseat on matters that might rub people the wrong way.

I'm a big boy, I can fight my own battle.

If you want to be the nominated person to be the voice of Springbok Rugby on this forum, go ahead, but I don't think you'll be getting my support...

 

[bushytop]

Don't apologise on my behalf. You don't have to agree with my OPINIONS on these matters. I'm not expecting anyone to do that. I'm not speaking on behalf of my country. I'm speaking for myself.

To call my posts embarrassing is in my opinion a bit degrading. We are here to have open discussions on rugby related matters. I've never shy'd away from contentious topics, nor have I taken a backseat on matters that might rub people the wrong way.

I'm a big boy, I can fight my own battle.

If you want to be the nominated person to be the voice of Springbok Rugby on this forum, go ahead, but I don't think you'll be getting my support...

Notice his message is gone and his Profile is unavailable... banned already?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Notice his message is gone and his Profile is unavailable... banned already?

Yup. We have a zero tolerance for people creating new personas for banned profiles...