The refereeing of the 2010 Tri Nations

[squirrel]

yeah man were not blaming the ref for defeat, not once have we said it but people trying to take a moral highground keep drawing that conclusion, my point is the consisitency of punishments being given out and some players being labelled thugs while another does the same thing but people say nothing and just say the same old blame the ref you sore loser
and as i keep saying im not south african

 

[Sam Owen]

yeah man were not blaming the ref for defeat, not once have we said it but people trying to take a moral highground keep drawing that conclusion, my point is the consisitency of punishments being given out and some players being labelled thugs while another does the same thing but people say nothing and just say the same old blame the ref you sore loser
and as i keep saying im not south african

Yeah I see what you mean but for me McCaws supposed eye-gouge was McCaw making an attempt to get the ball that happened to be around about Burger's face when he made an attempt for it. Also Burger did not retaliate then again neither did Pocock when he was obviously gouged and the crowd who were right there didnt react to it. McCaw might push the boundaries in things Rugby but dirty things that aint Rugby is not McCaw as far as I know, he certainly doesnt have a history like most repeat offenders. I hope we can get some video footage uploaded to settle this, I think it was a nothing but Im not 100% sure so you might be right squirrel.

I know your not South African you already told us your Australian.

 

[lynam1104]

It wasnt a gorge it was a gene for the ball it hr miser the and hit burgers face by acident.

 

[squirrel]

yes i know it wasnt a gouge but it looked just the same as the incident in wellington when the bok got sent off, mccaw just pushed burgers face out of frustration which put mcaw in the wrong but it doesnt mean hes a thug

 

[User1245]

McCaw's hands were definitely not going for Burgers eyes, he looked annoyed that Burger had thrown the ball away (which is a delaying cheating tactic, but let's not mention that squirrel) and gave him a shove near the top of his head. It was a bit of push and shove. Which is wrong, yes, but every player does that kind of push and shove.

If he went for the eyes squirrel, then the current internet term for unproven allegations applies, "Proof, or it didn't happen".

There's heaps of video out there of the game, go for it. Show us the famous eye-attack! :lol:

I too believe it was a nothing incident but I want to point out it was actually the Boks ball, it came off an All Black player, and McCaw still went for it. Not sure why Burger threw it away. Maybe to avoid confrontation?

 

[Sparty]

yes, you're are right about the Dickinson incident ... was his Refereeing consistently below par in the match against Italy ... did the same Paddy O'Brien not advocate the use of technology in this last match to eliminate mistakes like the forward pass preceding the McCaw try ... seems as if your damned if you do do something, and damned if you don't

Yes, refs and assistants are human and they miss stuff like the forward pass, but please don't insinuate that it always goes against the boks or for the All Blacks ... those same guys missed the Boks lazy runners leading up to the same try.

Maybe Franks and McCaw should go to the judiciary, although i'm not sure that you'd get the result you're looking for in the McCaw case (i'd have to view the shoulder charge to have an opinion on that)

As for karma/when the AB's get knocked out of the cup, I guess i'll cope at least as well as if it happens to your team ... i've watched all of the tournament, so if I haven't learn't to live with disappointment by now, I never will.

... it will be ok with you if I celebrate on the off chance we win though, right

To be honest I dont think either warrants a citing or card , at best a penalty for Franks and a chat to Mccaw in the game, I just ask the same courtesy for a guy like Burger , he accepted it and walked away.

As for the WC I am divided as to whom I want to win , long being an advocate of total rugby and running rugby I often say that one cannot help but admire the ABS playing rugby, fact is up until 95 I too like the majority of my friends and family supported the All Blacks. So off course I would love nothing more than watch the Boks take the cup but if it was the ABS then I would be happy as well , They owe it to themselves. We won the dam thing twice and while NZ did win in 87 many Kiwi supporters tell me it does not count (well the cape town ones anyway) unless the Boks are in it.

So yes its will be more than ok with me if the ABS win , a team cannot be that dominant in a sport and yet the WC alludes them. It would fitting for this team to take the CUP , they would deserve it.

 

[Shaggy]

To be honest I dont think either warrants a citing or card , at best a penalty for Franks and a chat to Mccaw in the game, I just ask the same courtesy for a guy like Burger , he accepted it and walked away.

As for the WC I am divided as to whom I want to win , long being an advocate of total rugby and running rugby I often say that one cannot help but admire the ABS playing rugby, fact is up until 95 I too like the majority of my friends and family supported the All Blacks. So off course I would love nothing more than watch the Boks take the cup but if it was the ABS then I would be happy as well , They owe it to themselves. We won the dam thing twice and while NZ did win in 87 many Kiwi supporters tell me it does not count (well the cape town ones anyway) unless the Boks are in it.

So yes its will be more than ok with me if the ABS win , a team cannot be that dominant in a sport and yet the WC alludes them. It would fitting for this team to take the CUP , they would deserve it.

All far enough comments (except maybe the 87 one not counting lol) ... I might have to make the springboks the second team I support if you keep posting like that

 

[squirrel]

**** i would rather my team win 95% of tests and lose the world cup than win the world cup and have 4 years of crap

 

[Shaggy]

**** i would rather my team win 95% of tests and lose the world cup than win the world cup and have 4 years of crap

yep, I like the 95% but would like the world cup included in it for a change :0

 

[Sam Owen]

We won the dam thing twice and while NZ did win in 87 many Kiwi supporters tell me it does not count (well the cape town ones anyway) unless the Boks are in it.

What??...lol never thought I'd hear AB fans say something like that. The world doesnt wait for no-one to sort themselves out and that was the case in 1987.

 

[smartcooky]

We won the dam thing twice and while NZ did win in 87 many Kiwi supporters tell me it does not count (well the cape town ones anyway) unless the Boks are in it.

Rubbish mate.

Firstly, it wasn't NZ's fault that the Boks weren't in it. Only one small group of racists to blame for that state of affairs.

Secondly, the Boks were crap in the late 1980s. They struggled to beat a NZ "B" team (Cavaliers), the Jaguars (effectively Argentina with a couple of Uruguayans thrown in as tokens). In 1989, they struggled to beat a scratch "World" XV, and all of that time with their own biased and corrupt home-town referees. Even if they had been at the 1987 World Cup, there is no guarantee they would have won it. Even if they had made it out of their group (Pool 4 instead of Zimbabwe), they would likely have met NZ in the quarter final.

In short, the 1987 World Cup counts as a World Cup, and no-one anywhere else in the world (other than South Africa) gives a f**k that you weren't there. Those South Africans who say it doesn't count are just suffering from sour grapes. If it was important enough to the average white Saffa to be there, they would have voted their racist government out.

I am old enough to have been there and experienced the 1987 World Cup. South Africa's absence didn't even get a mention.... they weren't missed.

 

[User1245]

What??...lol never thought I'd hear AB fans say something like that. The world doesnt wait for no-one to sort themselves out and that was the case in 1987.

Yeah agreed.

But I understand where he coming from although it's tainted. Sparty is coming from a community which supported the All Blacks in order to appose the Boks. Not out of nationality or pride.
The All Blacks were the only team who could challenge the Boks back in the day, and they involuntary became a symbol for the coloured Cape community.

This kind of sentiment towards the '87 WC from that faction of AB supporters is as of a result. It's tainted and serves it's own needs, and has nothing to do with sport. You won't hear the same tune about the '91 Wallabies from them.

 

[Sam Owen]

Sparty is coming from a community which supported the All Blacks in order to appose the Boks. Not out of nationality or pride.
The All Blacks were the only team who could challenge the Boks back in the day, and they involuntary became a symbol for the coloured Cape community.

This kind of sentiment towards the '87 WC from that faction of AB supporters is as of a result. It's tainted and serves it's own needs, and has nothing to do with sport. You won't hear the same tune about the '91 Wallabies from them.

Oh yes I've seen this an old documentary. Oh ok I see where Sparty's comin from now. Thanks.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Downgrade the '87 cup all you like, but at the end of the day, that has absolutely no relevance to this thread. This thread is about this years refereeing. I'd love to know the purpose and relevance of it to this years refereeing please? It's just mindless baiting. The issues in this thread are involved enough.

Starting another one on the '87 world cup is suggested.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

I too believe it was a nothing incident but I want to point out it was actually the Boks ball, it came off an All Black player, and McCaw still went for it. Not sure why Burger threw it away. Maybe to avoid confrontation?

It would be obvious to anyone and beyond dispute that for a tackling player to be going after the ball, when the tackled player has just been involved in a tackle which may look as though he's carried it into touch, the attacking player is highly likely to be going for a quick throw in. McCaw obviously wasn't aware that the ball had come off an All Black.

Still that's besides the main point. I think the question is simple. Squirrel contends that McCaw's contact with the head was an (presumably deliberate) attack on Burger's eyes, which in turn would deserve as much punishment as what Burger did during the Lions series.

Just out of interest, who from South Africa believes on actually seeing what McCaw did, that it is the same kind of situation?

 

[Sparty]

Rubbish mate.

Firstly, it wasn't NZ's fault that the Boks weren't in it. Only one small group of racists to blame for that state of affairs.

Secondly, the Boks were crap in the late 1980s. They struggled to beat a NZ "B" team (Cavaliers), the Jaguars (effectively Argentina with a couple of Uruguayans thrown in as tokens). In 1989, they struggled to beat a scratch "World" XV, and all of that time with their own biased and corrupt home-town referees. Even if they had been at the 1987 World Cup, there is no guarantee they would have won it. Even if they had made it out of their group (Pool 4 instead of Zimbabwe), they would likely have met NZ in the quarter final.

In short, the 1987 World Cup counts as a World Cup, and no-one anywhere else in the world (other than South Africa) gives a f**k that you weren't there. Those South Africans who say it doesn't count are just suffering from sour grapes. If it was important enough to the average white Saffa to be there, they would have voted their racist government out.

I only mentioned it becos I was trying to highlight why I thought NZ deserved to win , as a WC win without SA in it is not the same. It was the same for us in 2007 , yes we will take the win for sure but many feel it was gifted to us with a easy passage to the finals and Iwould have prefered to beat NZ on our way to the finals.

I am old enough to have been there and experienced the 1987 World Cup. South Africa's absence didn't even get a mention.... they weren't missed.

I think u kidding yourself , just this past w\end All Black legend said that the ABS vs Boks is the ultimate in world rugby , our history is too strong and we have been the only team to trouble the ABS in the past (well besides France in WC games).

Downgrade the '87 cup all you like, but at the end of the day, that has absolutely no relevance to this thread. This thread is about this years refereeing. I'd love to know the purpose and relevance of it to this years refereeing please? It's just mindless baiting. The issues in this thread are involved enough.

Starting another one on the '87 world cup is suggested.

sorry mate it was not about downgrading the 87 win and yes you correct it has no relevance. I was certainly not baiting anyone to clear matters.

Yeah agreed.

But I understand where he coming from although it's tainted. Sparty is coming from a community which supported the All Blacks in order to appose the Boks. Not out of nationality or pride.
The All Blacks were the only team who could challenge the Boks back in the day, and they involuntary became a symbol for the coloured Cape community.

This kind of sentiment towards the '87 WC from that faction of AB supporters is as of a result. It's tainted and serves it's own needs, and has nothing to do with sport. You won't hear the same tune about the '91 Wallabies from them.

correct , many of my Dads friends and family represented the "colored boks" in their day but never got to play for the country hence the dislike (hate is such a strong word) the Boks. You will always hear that marvel about the ABS and the 70's Lions series as these are the teams that beat the boks. ALso our admiration comes from how the ABS play and its is a style more liked by us than the Boks bash em way or 10 man rugby. Today still many of these guys and their kids support the ABS and NZ super 14 teams , you should see them when any touring team plays in Cape Town. I have friends that welcomes the Blues at the airport 06H00 the morning

 

[Sparty]

Just out of interest, who from South Africa believes on actually seeing what McCaw did, that it is the same kind of situation?

Just out of interest who believed Danie Roussow deserved that yellow ? Or Jean De Villiers a 2 weeks vs Woodcocks nothing ? FYI I dont believe Mccaw is guilty but neither was Jean , Danie etc etc and they got punished so I believe its inconsistant. Simarly I think it was Franks shoulder charge into Juan De Jongh. The citing's has been one side to say the least and downright unfair in some cases.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

Just out of interest who believed Danie Roussow deserved that yellow ? Or Jean De Villiers a 2 weeks vs Woodcocks nothing ? FYI I dont believe Mccaw is guilty but neither was Jean , Danie etc etc and they got punished so I believe its inconsistant. Simarly I think it was Franks shoulder charge into Juan De Jongh. The citing's has been one side to say the least and downright unfair in some cases.

Oh answering a legit question with a question? Thanks, that says more than enough.

 

[smartcooky]

I only mentioned it becos I was trying to highlight why I thought NZ deserved to win.....................I have friends that welcomes the Blues at the airport 06H00 the morning

OK, I'll wind my head in Sparty. I completely misunderstood your post. Sorry pal. It just looked like yet another "1987 wasn't a real World Cup because the Boks weren't there" argument.

So you are what used to be referred to as a "Cape Coloured" (if that's not an appropriate term, I apologise again). Like Sam, I remember seeing documentary recently about the All Black supporters in Cape Town or more precisely, I think they referred to it as the "Cape Flats"?

Now you may find this interesting. The first Soccer world Cup was in 1930 (and no, I was not there!). It was won by Uruguay who beat Argentina in the final. The next world cup was in 1934, but Uruguay, the champions didn't go, nor did Argentina. They qualified, but withdrew, as did Peru and Chile. Brazil was the only South American team to go, but they got knocked out by Spain in the first round. Again in 1938, neither Uruguay nor Argentina went, even though they were qualified. I don't think anyone considers Italy (1934) or France (1938) as not being real World Cup holders of their era just because two of the most powerful teams in the world at that time, chose not to go.

 

[smartcooky]

IMO...

► The McCaw - Burger incident was nothing.

► The Rossouw - McCaw incident was nothing, but Rossouw acted stupidly in drawing attention to himself by upping the ante and going after McCaw after he got to his feet. If he had let it lie, nothing would have happened.

► de Villiers, Cooper and Fourie all deserved their suspensions. The Law is clear... TIP TACKLES THAT END WITH THE PLAYER BEING DROPPED OR DRIVEN ARE OUT!!! No argument!

► Rene Ranger's tackle was NOT a shoulder charge when you saw the slo-mo, but given that he was penalised, he probably should have been yellow carded. He would not have been suspended afterwards

► Bakkies Botha should have been red carded for the head butt. How did both the referee and the nearside touch judge miss it? Those who say it would not have happened if Cowan had been penalised for the pull back are talking ********; the referee would have played advantage, and Bakkies would have done it anyway. Thugs like Bakkies can't resist getting the filthy cheap shot in any chance they get. In fact, if the referee had seen Cowan and played advantage, he would also have been more likely to be looking at Cowan instead of the ball after he got the ball away, so he would likely have seen the head butt... then bye bye Bakkies!!!

► Tony Woodcock should have got a yellow card. Yes, Fa'ainga was loitering around on the NZ side of the ruck, but what Woodcock did was unacceptable. He could not be cited for reasons I have explained elsewhere, but he certainly should have spent 10 min. keeping the naughty chair warm.