Sam Owen
First XV
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2010
- Messages
- 2,315
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
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.
Good point.
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.
Good point
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...
Good point.
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
Good point. Like I said before, it is a tough one because no-one knows for sure. Theres no proof of any eye gouging and no proof that there wasnt any eye gouging. All Im saying is eye gouging is a serious matter.