come on cooky i didnt claim to be the insider, besides they said the same thing about isaac ross needing a rest
^
No, that bad results are because your team played played poorly...
In every aspect were they bettered by the All Blacks. Poor reffing was not a factor. Ill discipline was.
is pretty silly lads.Why don't you Saffas grow a pair and take the hidings we've been giving yous like men.
Don't bother Steve-o.
We post valid arguments against sub par refereeing, all the while conceding that the opposition well and truly beat us fair and square, even lamenting our own game plan and out of form players, but all they read are "we didn't deserve to lose, the ref made you guyz win, waah waaah"
You'd think some people could take their blinders off for a second to have a rational debate over some ridiculous refereeing inconsistency, but I guess that would be too much to ask from some.
By the way, all this whining about our apparent whining is starting to make certain posters look like a bunch of childish brats.
Things like is pretty silly lads.
For the last time, we were well beaten by sides much better than us on the day, no doubt rubbish ref or not we would have been on the losing side of every game so far, this much we -know-.
What we are saying however, is that the refereeing has undoubtedly been a negative factor towards our game, and we would simply like this stupidity to stop.
When did South Africa win a third World Cup?
Anyway, the game is this Saturday, can everyone please just post constructive things about the game, eg on form players, or players who'd you'd like to see play well, even selection discussions. This forum has turned a bit too hostile recently.
yes they find little silly injuries to keep the media distracted,like i said they claimed burnout on ross last year,did the same with rocketman a couple of years back
are you counting 1987 as a WC ? And some guys reckon our 2007 WC was hollow , we were not even at the 87 one.
Hmmmn ... ok, if what you say is true, why hasn't Tony Woodcock got one of these injuries then ... it seems to me that he would be the logical choice to drop with an "injury" due to his lack of discipline and lack of punishment in the last test
are you counting 1987 as a WC ?
And why was that? I'll give you a clue... it begins with "A".
If you don't like my response, then don't throw the old "we weren't there" chestnut in our faces, because we will throw the "A" word right back at you.
Get it?
For that matter, Richie McCaw, if you listen to some of the Saffas and Ockers here, he's a walking yellow card risk!
is mike cron still the irb scrum consultant and the all black scrum coach? that to me shows the all blacks have an unfair advantage, i mean its a conflict of interest
And why was that? I'll give you a clue... it begins with "A".
If you don't like my response, then don't throw the old "we weren't there" chestnut in our faces, because we will throw the "A" word right back at you.
Get it?
For that matter, Richie McCaw, if you listen to some of the Saffas and Ockers here, he's a walking yellow card risk!
penalty to yellow card ratio is NOT a valid argument, this is a fact
Explain a little more please ? I tell you why I ask. I see it the other way and continuous penalties should result in a yellow card.
If I may break it down a little more , a penalty can be given for a foul like high tackle , late tackle etc etc , as a first time offense you can get away with it if the ref deemed it accidental - like example I think our FB was very lucky to get away with a borderline yellow card for a high in the SA-ABS game. Now I bet if he transgressed again he would have seen tha yellow so in that case penalty to YC rator is valid.
(by the way those that argue that Rene Ranger's shoulder charge was incorrectly called and justify it by pointing out that he was not sighted needs to then ask themselves if the high tackle of Zane was also called correctly cos he was also not sighted or is it sited ? ANyway....)
A penalty can also be given for prefessional fouls like hands in the ruck , offside play , truck and trailer , obstructioon etc etc and if a player should be say offside once he will in most cases get away with it but if he does it again the ref will caution him cos now it seems as if its not accidental and against the spirit of the game. A 2nd or 3rd trangression would normally mean a official warning and then a YC , so again penalty to YC is valid , the only reason I can see how its not is if say the opposing team gives away penalties but not of the same kind like for example a late tackle maybe , followed by hands in teh ruck , followed by offside etc etc , this way there will be no case for consecutuve tyoe of fouls , the problem with this is there is not much they can do too transgress and eventually they will have to commit a similar crime , there are simply not enough type of fouls to commit and I think the penalty ratio is something like 7/1 for the boks and Aussies while 27/1 for the ABS (note that this stats is thumbsuck and I mildly recall reading it somewhere so apologies if I am way off which I dont believe I am)
Anyway , thats how I look at it , looking forward to how you see it.