• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

SA vs Manu Samoa

B

Boggle

Guest
This is the biggest load of toss I've ever seen.

If this is the way IRB are doing things, Vickery should be out for 5 weeks, and Lima should just be banned for the rest of the tournament, if he isn't out allready.
:eek:

Do they want schalk to -stop- going for the ball ?, he's a fetcher for goodness sake, if some poor Samoan got between him and the ball it's not his fault.

Even if It was malicious (which it wasn't) how does Schalk end up with 4 games and Vickery with 2 ?
And I still feel it's way too harsh for something that happens every single day in modern day rugby, next they'll be telling us to not tackle but rather ask the attacker to kindly stop so we may contest the ball, they're turning Rugby into football.

AND I, DO NOT WANT !
 
N

nam97

Guest
This is the biggest load of toss I've ever seen.

If this is the way IRB are doing things, Vickery should be out for 5 weeks, and Lima should just be banned for the rest of the tournament, if he isn't out allready.
:eek:

Do they want schalk to -stop- going for the ball ?, he's a fetcher for goodness sake, if some poor Samoan got between him and the ball it's not his fault.

Even if It was malicious (which it wasn't) how does Schalk end up with 4 games and Vickery with 2 ?
And I still feel it's way too harsh for something that happens every single day in modern day rugby, next they'll be telling us to not tackle but rather ask the attacker to kindly stop so we may contest the ball, they're turning Rugby into football.

AND I, DO NOT WANT !
[/b]


You talk filth, Schalk's a dirty f**k. Always has been, regardless of how brilliant a player he is, he clearly went for the guys head when he realised he wasnt going to get it.
Listen to yourself! Your saying Schalk's wasnt as bad as Vickery's? Lol, at least Phils could pass of as a reflex reaction being unintentional and get some belief from it. But Schalk had cheap and dirty all over his face afterwards. He's a disgrace
 
D

Dmx#1

Guest
<div class='quotemain'>
This is the biggest load of toss I've ever seen.

If this is the way IRB are doing things, Vickery should be out for 5 weeks, and Lima should just be banned for the rest of the tournament, if he isn't out allready.
:eek:

Do they want schalk to -stop- going for the ball ?, he's a fetcher for goodness sake, if some poor Samoan got between him and the ball it's not his fault.

Even if It was malicious (which it wasn't) how does Schalk end up with 4 games and Vickery with 2 ?
And I still feel it's way too harsh for something that happens every single day in modern day rugby, next they'll be telling us to not tackle but rather ask the attacker to kindly stop so we may contest the ball, they're turning Rugby into football.

AND I, DO NOT WANT !
[/b]


You talk filth, Schalk's a dirty f**k. Always has been, regardless of how brilliant a player he is, he clearly went for the guys head when he realised he wasnt going to get it.
Listen to yourself! Your saying Schalk's wasnt as bad as Vickery's? Lol, at least Phils could pass of as a reflex reaction being unintentional and get some belief from it. But Schalk had cheap and dirty all over his face afterwards. He's a disgrace [/b][/quote]

Have a plus rep cullen, I couldn't have said it better myself. Schalk is a dirty prick period.
 
C

candybum

Guest
looking at the vids of schalk's illegal tackle, he doesn't derserve a ban of that mangitude, but those who are disagreeing about the ban he deserves a couple weeks atleast.
watch the vids again, schalk jumped for the ball no question about that, but he had his eyes on junior (not the ball) and still made contact with him (his head area also) he didn't need to tackle him, even if he tried pulling out and body checked junior, it would've been better than to grab his head.
 
B

BOKean

Guest
schalk is the dirty one yet

lima tries to kill people, but its ok hes a legend, and he hurt himself instead so he wont even get penalized...

toughen up you you kiwis - the samoans didnt even complain as much as you whiners... you are not without your share of dirty players too- its rugby, not lawn bowls!


the argument is not whether it was a cheap shot, dirty, etc... its the ridiculous length of the suspension. There is NO consistency with the ruling.. if there was then lima would be on the plane home
 
O

ozzy

Guest
Bullshit Bokean Lima did nothing, his shoulder never made contact with the player. Lima made contact with his head only and was knocked out before he even got to make the tackle let alone wrap his arms around the player. I repeat there was no contact with his shoulder so unless tackling with your head is illegal where you come from then you're screaming about nothing. Lima is a fair, but hard player, who doesn't need to shoulder charge to make a big hit.
The citing commission saw the same thing I did and thus there was no citing. Man at least get your facts straight and read the thread I have pointed this FACT out a million times. Stop making unfounded sledges against our local legend until after you have done your homework.
 
N

nam97

Guest
Ozzy I think you should get of you high horse!
[/b]


Get off HIS high horse? Ha, it is you Saffas who need to get off your high horses and just realise how cheap and nasty your beloved Schalk is.
 
H

hamo

Guest
What about the stamping on the SA players by Samoa? Or the high tackles? [/b]



What about the numerous high tackles by SAF which were consecutive sometimes, they didnt get pinged.. only for the most obvious head high in the air tackle. Pathetic. Just watch the game with the commentary on and your own biased thoughts away, you will learn a lesson.



And what about no.8 smashed through russouw and burger and when he drove bakies botha 5 metres onto his ass. classic
 
B

Boggle

Guest
:eek:
You people are completely missing the point here arn't you ?

It's not about Schalk, it's about the complete failure that is the disciplinary process within Rugby, especially in this world cup.

You can jump and scream and argue as long as you want, Limas tackle was 20 times -worse- than what Schalk did, and Juan Smith actually threw a punch, a f***ING punch !.

were they suspended ?

No

like I've said before, it's about the 4 match ban that would in any other game in any other test match bar the world cup been a yellow card maximum. Same for Vickery, same for Alfie Vaeluaga.... owait, he only got 1 match becuase he 'pleaded guilty'

again, my point is that the system is messed up.
 
B

Bull

Guest
<div class='quotemain'> What about the stamping on the SA players by Samoa? Or the high tackles? [/b]



What about the numerous high tackles by SAF which were consecutive sometimes, they didnt get pinged.. only for the most obvious head high in the air tackle. Pathetic. Just watch the game with the commentary on and your own biased thoughts away, you will learn a lesson.



And what about no.8 smashed through russouw and burger and when he drove bakies botha 5 metres onto his ass. classic

[/b][/quote]



Mate you're biased aswell so don't be pointing only a finger at me.



He may have smashed through them, but the camera showed him lying next to the field with a ice pack on his chest and Samoa still lost big time.
 
F

Fa'atau82

Guest
Any dangerous play should be a 2 game ban.

In my opinion, Vaelauga's push on Percy was OTT and could have caused injury. I'd say a 2 game ban.

Schalk Burger should have got a 2 game ban. It was OTT as well, whether it was intended or not. He got 4 games because SA will progress.

Vickery's trip should get a 2 game ban. Unneccessary foul play.

Emerick should be banned for 2 games and fined for the spear tackle. USA are 90% out and banning him for 5 weeks or whatever is pointless really as he won't be playing anyway.

Lima's 'tackle' was just horribly executed, and he felt the pain of it. Pretorius hasn't complained has he? As Ozzy said, he messed up his tackle and he paid. No ban needed there.
 
D

Dmx#1

Guest
The SA team is dirty az hell. Not every player though but i dont think its coincidence that most people (who dont support SA) think the same. I could ask aussies, Kiwis, Samoans etc who they would label the dirtiest team and I can guarentee you that most would say SA. If SA cleaned up their act maybe they wouldnt be more likely to recieve unfair (well at least you guys think so) charges from a unfair (well at least you guys think so) system.
 
B

Boggle

Guest
Any dangerous play should be a 2 game ban.

In my opinion, Vaelauga's push on Percy was OTT and could have caused injury. I'd say a 2 game ban.

Schalk Burger should have got a 2 game ban. It was OTT as well, whether it was intended or not. He got 4 games because SA will progress.

Vickery's trip should get a 2 game ban. Unneccessary foul play.

Emerick should be banned for 2 games and fined for the spear tackle. USA are 90% out and banning him for 5 weeks or whatever is pointless really as he won't be playing anyway.

Lima's 'tackle' was just horribly executed, and he felt the pain of it. Pretorius hasn't complained has he? As Ozzy said, he messed up his tackle and he paid. No ban needed there.

[/b]



Allthough I still disagree with the Lima point, that's about the most sense anyone has made in this entire thread.



-Consistancy- is the word that comes to mind, or rather the lack therof.
 
B

Bull

Guest
The SA team is dirty az hell. Not every player though but i dont think its coincidence that most people (who dont support SA) think the same. I could ask aussies, Kiwis, Samoans etc who they would label the dirtiest team and I can guarentee you that most would say SA. If SA cleaned up their act maybe they wouldnt be more likely to recieve unfair (well at least you guys think so) charges from a unfair (well at least you guys think so) system. [/b]



The Boks play hard and sometimes they step over the line, but they aren't consistenly dirty as you make them out to be. Burger does cross the line anymore than a guy like Rocky Elsom or Ali Williams does.



If the players can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.
 
C

Caledfwlch

Guest
What the hell are the players doing in the kitchen in the first place?!? They should be on the pitch! :D
 
T

TheBokke

Guest
It was a slightly sloppy and reckless challenge which could warrant a ban and say 2 games ban with which it has been reduced to.



He has been yellow carded in his career for professional fouls but only slowing down the ball so is he more dirty than Mccaw? No they are just playing the game to their ability to push the boundaries.



Now on the basis of him being a dirty player punching, biting & Eye, gouging & dangerous tackles this is record so far: "During 34 Tests for South Africa, 42 Super 14 games and 22 Currie Cup games for his province, he had never been before a disciplinary committee for such an offence." Quote Planet Rugby



Enough said!! Give some examples of his dirty play besides this sloppy tackle. For some one who tackles as much as he does he has not ever been cited for a dangerous tackle.
 
B

BOKean

Guest
Bullshit Bokean Lima did nothing, his shoulder never made contact with the player. Lima made contact with his head only and was knocked out before he even got to make the tackle let alone wrap his arms around the player. I repeat there was no contact with his shoulder so unless tackling with your head is illegal where you come from then you're screaming about nothing. Lima is a fair, but hard player, who doesn't need to shoulder charge to make a big hit.
The citing commission saw the same thing I did and thus there was no citing. Man at least get your facts straight and read the thread I have pointed this FACT out a million times. Stop making unfounded sledges against our local legend until after you have done your homework. [/b]

so i can fly kick tackle someone to the head now, just because my shoulder never made contact with the player?

i agree that lima is fair, but hard, but i was just trying to demonstrate the lack of consistancy with the schalk ban...
his tackle really wasnt that bad. it wasnt even yellow carded... what annoys me as well is that the sighting came so late as well.


either way we will beat england, samoa will beat england too hopefully, and we will get schalk back in time for the semis
 
B

BokMagic

Guest
Right, here is how things stand at present:

1- The particular incident happened right under the noses of both the referee, and the touch judge. This can be seen from the fact that the touch judge flagged the incident, and the referee took action, awarding a penalty to Samoa, and giving a verbal warning to Schalk. Since the match officials saw the incident and took action, there is absolutely no prescedent for the citing commissioner to get involved. If the citing officials can get involved in incidents seen, and actioned by match officials, well that directly undermines the authority of the match officials. Anybody who disagrees with this statement, will have to agree with the Darryl Hair suspension as a cricket umpire. Either that, or you`re a hypocrite. Plus if the citing commissioner can get involved in an issue where the referee took action, well then Carl Hayman should`ve gotten a mandatory sentence for punching in the Italy game too, yellow card notwithstanding.

2- The citing commissioner banned Schalk for 4 weeks, stating that the tackle was sloppy, dangerous and reckless. The part about it being reckless and dangerous implies that there was malicious intent.

3- Upon appeal, the original decision was actually overturned, not reduced. By looking at the wording of the appeal, the citing official clearly states that Schalk went for the ball, but the execution was sloppy. The suspension was reduced to 2 weeks. For a sloppy tackle. So basically, the appeal decision is a clear admission by the citing committee that they erred in the original judgement. Also, getting any sort of a ban for sloppy play is just ridiculous. But well, because of the fact that the initial sentence proposed a ban, I guess that the reduced sentence probably had to find reason for a ban too. Seeing as the citing commissio would`ve looked even more foolish had the entire thing been thrown out, as it should have.

So basically, I`m pretty happy that the appeal found in favour of Schalk, admitting the initial mistake, even if the sentence wasn`t removed completely. Kinda makes everyone out here calling Schalk a dirty c**t look pretty ignorant.....
 

Similar threads

Top