SuperRugby: Bulls v Crusaders

[sonnench]

Well actually, I was using my dog as a front as I was embarrised about the issue, but you actually raped me. I was lieing in my room, surrounded by live cameras, and you rape'd me. It was terrible. Why would you do that? Once again there is no evidence that you did on the footage, but you did. You are a rapist. I nickdnz, am accusing you sonnech of raping me, with no evidence other than my word that you rape'd me. Alright?

Fair enough, it's my word against yours, and like the eye gouge claim, we will probably never really know.

 

[nickdnz]

Fair enough, it's my word against yours, and like the eye gouge claim, we will probably never really know.

That's fair enough? So slander and libel is fair game?

 

[sonnench]

That's fair enough? So slander and libel is fair game?

Simple as this, if Chilliboy and Flip believe they were eye gouged, they have every right to make the claim that it had been done and should be investigated.

 

[nickdnz]

Simple as this, if Chilliboy and Flip believe they were eye gouged, they have every right to make the claim that it had been done and should be investigated.

Sure, but when he leaves a ruck with no fingers near his eye, not holding his eye, walks away from the ruck, and then tells a referee he was gouged, it doesn't look good. No better than me accussing you of something you didn't do, with no evidence of it despite being filmed from several angles. It makes me look like a liar.

 

[madflyhalf]

Sorry... I just saw a little clip of that call from the south african TJ.

Does the rule 10.1 (c) say "Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick", doesn't it?

IMO Carter obstructed Basson, in a subtle way, but he did, beacause we all (and Carter himself) know that position isn't useful at all.

Min. 1:08

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Crusaders cleared over eye-gouge claim

​

The Crusaders have had allegations of eye gouging thrown out by a citing commissioner after the claims could not be substantiated.

http://www.espnscrum.com/super-rugby-2012/rugby/story/162556.html
​

 

[nickdnz]

Sorry... I just saw a little clip of that call from the south african TJ.

Does the rule 10.1 (c) say "Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick", doesn't it?

IMO Carter obstructed Basson, in a subtle way, but he did, beacause we all (and Carter himself) know that position isn't useful at all.

Min. 1:08

Interesting point, I did think that myself. He could well claim that we was running a support line, and as he was in front of the defender he would have every right.

I have noticed blocking becoming a bigger thing over the last few years. I remember this fantastic try and thinking that it was obstruction, ever though it was ruled legal.



I'd be interested in hearing smartcookie's views.

 

[madflyhalf]

Other thoughts: Should Carter walked away allowing Basson to tackle 'saders n.5? The answer could be funny, because... who would have done that?!?! "Cm'on go tackle my mate!"

But the infringement, to me, remains! And it is intentional...

Maybe the fairest sanction would be a scrum to Bulls, but the rules doesn't say that! :huh:

 

[smartcooky]

Interesting point, I did think that myself. He could well claim that we was running a support line, and as he was in front of the defender he would have every right.

I have noticed blocking becoming a bigger thing over the last few years. I remember this fantastic try and thinking that it was obstruction, ever though it was ruled legal.



I'd be interested in hearing smartcookie's views.

Anyone who thinks either of these is obstruction has very little understanding of the Laws of the Game. If these are obstruction, then no player would ever be allowed to run a support line, because they would always be in the way of a potential tackler.

Read and understand this...

A player who is not blocking the ball carrier must not move into a position that does so, but a player who is already in a position that blocks the ball carrier DOES NOT HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!!

In this case, Carter passed the ball, and then continued to run the same line in support of the ball carrier. He did not change his direction in order to get in the way of a tackler, nor did he speed up or slow down to block a tackler. What he did is run in support, which he is entitled to do.

 

[madflyhalf]

In that case there is ONE and ONLY possible tackler (Basson), and he's been obstructed by Carter, IMO.

That's why Carter's one matters more than the other (5 tackler).

 

[smartcooky]

In that case there is ONE and ONLY possible tackler (Basson), and he's been obstructed by Carter, IMO.

That's why Carter's one matters more than the other (5 tackler).

No. You can't call it obstruction because the player happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Either a player deliberately moves into a position to obstruct an opponent, or he doesn't. And Carter doesn't; he's already there, and he does not have to get out of the way. If we apply the Law the way you are wanting, then every time a scrum half runs around the back of the scrum after he has picked up the ball, it will be a penalty against his team, because in that moment, some of his forwards are obstructing opposing forwards from getting to him, merely because of where they are on the field. There is no exception in Law for the post-scrum situation, so there is nothing to prevent a referee from ruling this way; they just don't because that is not how its done..

Its the same as the situation where a player has kicked the ball upfield and is chasing it. He cannot simply run into a retreating defender and claim he's been obstructed. So long as the defender does not change his direction to run into the chaser's line, there is no obstruction. The defender doesn't have to disappear, and he doesn't have to get out of the chaser's way.

Now while this might not be specifically laid down in the Laws, its how the situation has been refereed for as long as I can remember.

 

[FlukeArtist]

I have got to say, I think it is shameful tactics by the Bulls to claim eye-gouging.
the worst kind of "gamesmanship" you will see or hear of.

At no point during the game does either Flip or Chiliboy look like they have been gouged.
Every other case of gouging I have heard or seen, the player that is gouged will at least get up holding their eyes (if they even get up immediately)
There is not a single piece of evidence that shows either of these players affected at all.

As I say; the worst kind of "gamesmanship", and affront to fair play.

Disgusting tactics by the Bulls.

I hear this morning they are refusing to apologise. I guess because that would mean admitting to participating to these cowardly tactics.

Disgusting and shameful behaviour. These players and their management need to take a long hard look at themselves.

 

[FlukeArtist]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10797592

More suspicion cast on them - no offical complaint after the game??
Surely if you have been eye-gouged you;re going to make a complaint?

Bull's players = full of Bull 5hit.

 

[smartcooky]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10797592

More suspicion cast on them - no offical complaint after the game??
Surely if you have been eye-gouged you;re going to make a complaint?

Bull's players = full of Bull 5hit.

I have got to say, I think it is shameful tactics by the Bulls to claim eye-gouging.
the worst kind of "gamesmanship" you will see or hear of.

At no point during the game does either Flip or Chiliboy look like they have been gouged.
Every other case of gouging I have heard or seen, the player that is gouged will at least get up holding their eyes (if they even get up immediately)
There is not a single piece of evidence that shows either of these players affected at all.

As I say; the worst kind of "gamesmanship", and affront to fair play.

Disgusting tactics by the Bulls.

I hear this morning they are refusing to apologise. I guess because that would mean admitting to participating to these cowardly tactics.

Disgusting and shameful behaviour. These players and their management need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Absolutely agree. Of course they are not going to make a complaint now, because that would mean an investigation and some very close scrutiny, which these lies will not stand up to.

The concept of the White Card is a very good one, because it allows a channel for the captain (and I believe only the Captain should be allowed to approach the referee, not every man and his dog as happened on Sunday morning) to let the referee know about gross acts of foul play.

However, they are not going to continue with it if this kind of lying goes on, making a false complaint to get a white card.

There will become an element of "the boy who cried wolf" if this is allowed to continue.




IMO SANZAR need to rigorously investigate this.

 

[Sam Owen]

A real tough one the eye gouging incident. It'll be slowly 'swept under the rug' because unless they got a camera angle that picks it up or they get a doctor who can prove something, it'll just fade into nothing.

Eye gouging is not tolerated in any sport, not even MMA. A lifetime ban is appropriate, whether the victim goes blind or not. Just cant let anyone get away with even attempting it because to attempt it is to go well out of your way and well out of Rugby.

 

[FlukeArtist]

A real tough one the eye gouging incident. It'll be slowly 'swept under the rug' because unless they got a camera angle that picks it up or they get a doctor who can prove something, it'll just fade into nothing.

Eye gouging is not tolerated in any sport, not even MMA. A lifetime ban is appropriate, whether the victim goes blind or not. Just cant let anyone get away with even attempting it because to attempt it is to go well out of your way and well out of Rugby.

Thats not really the point here.

They aren't going to find a camera angle on something that didn't happen (which I SUSPECT is exactly what has occured -or not- here)

The issue now becomes one of these Bulls players putting the game into disrepute by claiming foul play that simply did not occur.
It casts a pall over the Crusaders team and the Crusader players, and leaves the judiciary system geting bastardised in the name of "gamesmanship"

IF the Bulls had really been eyegouged, the players would have made the complaint offical after the game.
They weren't eye-gouged, so they didn't.

And by making these claims to a referee during the game, they are attempting to curry favour with the referee by claiming they are the victims of foul play, in the hope of getting the ref to scrutinse the Crusaders players more heavily.

The fact they didn't make an official complaint makes them all the more guilty as far as I am concerned.

 

[smartcooky]

Thats not really the point here.

They aren't going to find a camera angle on something that didn't happen (which I SUSPECT is exactly what has occured -or not- here)

The issue now becomes one of these Bulls players putting the game into disrepute by claiming foul play that simply did not occur.
It casts a pall over the Crusaders team and the Crusader players, and leaves the judiciary system geting bastardised in the name of "gamesmanship"

IF the Bulls had really been eyegouged, the players would have made the complaint offical after the game.
They weren't eye-gouged, so they didn't.

And by making these claims to a referee during the game, they are attempting to curry favour with the referee by claiming they are the victims of foul play, in the hope of getting the ref to scrutinse the Crusaders players more heavily.

The fact they didn't make an official complaint makes them all the more guilty as far as I am concerned.

Not only this, but there were no less than 10 camera angles available to the Citing Officer. The cameramen, TV producer and VTO, who are responsible for providing the footage to the CO, were all South Africans and therefore well motivated to find something if it was there to be found.

For these two allegations to be true when none of the camera angles caught anything under the circumstances described above, and for this to happen twice in one game, stretches my suspension of disbelief beyond breaking point.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Wow, 4 pages already on this game, and it's just *****ing and moaning about 2 incidents??

Not one single person saying anything good about this game?? Seriously guys... stop acting like a woman.

It was a fantastic match!! Both teams throwing everything at the other team throughout the game. Crusaders used some brilliant tactics in the first half by not committing to the mauls at line-out time and them not comitting many guys at ruck to get some more guys in the defensive line and if they saw not many bulls players at ruck, then they will go in and turn it over.

And how often do you see the 2 leading All-time scorers in Super Rugby play against each other in a match?? Show some gratitude FFS!!

And how about Dean Greyling's try?? Bucking Frilliant if you asked me!!

On the eye-gouging incidents... the way I see it and the reason there was no formal complaint lodged by the Bulls, was as I see it, because they were unsure of what happened. Both Chilliboy and Flip Mentioned something happend to their eyes at the rucks, Flip even went off at one stage to get stitches. They said something happened to their eyes at ruck, and it was the referee's choice to pursue the matter and JACO PEYPER issued the White Card as he felt there were merit in the accusation. Neither Chilliboy nor Flip had the authority to do that, and Jaco Peyper did. If he thought that it was just bully tactics or distasteful, then it was JACO PEYPER'S choice to leave it be...

While nobody likes their team or country being accused of foul play, there are a process to be followed to prove the innocence or guilt of the accused, which happened in this case. DONE! have you ever heard a lawyer go to an accused murder suspect after he was found not guilty to say sorry?? Seriously guys, grow up!

 

[austingtir]

The only good bit that i liked was when read steamrolled through the bulls defensive line like it was non-existant (spies was to scared to tackle him). Best try of the game imo. There you go. By the way who else thinks spies is a PUSSY on D?

The rest of the game was marred by ridiculous officiating and chiliboy the liar.

Please, the only reason why the bulls didnt lodge a formal complaint is because they knew it didnt exist in the first place.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

If a tree falls in the woods and there isn't a camera angle that shows it did it really fall? Bulls fans will say yes and Crusaders fans will say no. While a lack of evidence does not disprove anything one will have to accept it at that and say that it didn't happen on the basis of one having to give the benefit of the doubt to the Crusaders players because of the concept of a person being innocent until proven PROVEN guilty. At the same time I can't agree with people saying here that the bulls are this and that because they too should be given the same reasonable doubt; a stray finger/elbow whatever in a breakdown could easily have found its way to the eye areas of these players even by accident and they could believe it whether it happened or not. Just my 2 cents worth