IRB bias. Again.

SA should flip the IRB the bird if the old farts want to slap a fine on SA Rugby for the players wearing armbands showing support for Bakkies Botha's unfair 2 week suspension following a completely legal cleanout of a ruck against the pansy-assed Lions.

I hope the political boys tell the IRB to stuff it where the sun don't shine.
What will they do? Stop the boks from playing? Please, we're the WORLD NUMBER ONE side and it's about time we made our voices thick.
For too long this bias has been plaguing only SA players because we are perceived to be bullies.


And now Matt Giteau gets off scot free after almost decapitating Fourie du Preez.

What a crock!

No one likes the IRB because they are a self serving toffee nosed bunch of prats but you'll never be happy until your choice of South Africans own rugby lock stock and barrel from terms to refs.

Your opinion is one eyed in the extreme and you need moderation
nothing anyone says here will change your mind.

Please. Your "one eyed" BS is getting old.
You are just as guilty of what you accuse me of. You've decided that Crowley doesn't weigh up both sides too well and now you seemingly don't even care about the facts either, as long as it's the opposite of what I post.
At least you're not as bad a boreman - he'll probably post that the world is flat if I say it's round...

1. Do you think Botha's cleaning out of Jones (who had his hands in the ruck, but was not penalized. Again!) at the ruck was dangerous? Or is there a chance that Bakkies was merely cited just because he's a perceived troublemaker and Jones hurt his shoulder?
2. Do you think the IRB should fine a country, because the players feel they made a mistake? Are they under the illusion that they are infallible?
3. Do you think Matt Giteau got what he deserved, ie: a yellow card and no citing after slow motion replays show him never even looking at the ball and going elbow first into a SA player?

Honestly I can't stand the IRB and would love to support sanctions against them for several thing over the years but you do stick to the line that everyone is anti sa, refs IRB everyone!. It's simply not true.

You knew the armband wearing was against the rules and were warned.. you did the crime ...do the time simple.

Gitteau is nothing to do with it.. I didn't watch the replays

One thing I am for is two refs on the field... none up top.. stop the replay nonsense because the cams get it wrong anyway.. one ref with flag one with whistle.

Originally posted by Tirau Dan
Honestly I can't stand the IRB and would love to support sanctions against them for several thing over the years but you do stick to the line that everyone is anti sa, refs IRB everyone!. It's simply not true.

You knew the armband wearing was against the rules and were warned.. you did the crime ...do the time simple.

Gitteau is nothing to do with it ...[text shortened]... he replay nonsense because the cams get it wrong anyway.. one ref with flag one with whistle.

We were warned? Where did you read that?
It's BS plain and simple. Bakkies did nothing illegal, was banned and the IRB believes they are infallible, which they plainly are not. Why the players aren't allowed to voice their opinion is beyond me.
Anyway, I don't care. I just hope the politicians tell the IRB to stuff it and then we'll all see how ineffectual that old boys club really is.


This is the thing that pisses us South Africans off, because if you think back to the world cup, Schalk Burger got cited and received a 4 week ban for going up for a high ball and tackling a Samoan player. Video replays are still inconclusive whether he went for the ball or not, but I can live with the outcome of a ban, because it ended up as a dangerous tackle and he received no card on the field.

This instance of foul play and no citing then REALLY leaves a bitter taste, as the double standards are plainly visible.
It's just disgusting.

The video replays and citing after the final whistle are necessary and have nothing to do with the TV official.

Originally posted by Crowley
We were warned? Where did you read that?
It's BS plain and simple. Bakkies did nothing illegal, was banned and the IRB believes they are infallible, which they plainly are not. Why the players aren't allowed to voice their opinion is beyond me.
Anyway, I don't care. I just hope the politicians tell the IRB to stuff it and then we'll all see how ineffectua d citing after the final whistle are necessary and have nothing to do with the TV official.

Swings and roundabouts, Crowley. Burger's ban of 8 weeks is tied at the second shortest ban a player has ever recieved for gouging. Everyone always thinks their own side have been hard done by.

I've seen the replays of Giteau, and he should have been cited. But that's just the way of it -- some players get away with it, and others don't around the world. We often only remember the ones that hurt us.

Edit: "Jones (who had his hands in the ruck, but was not penalized. Again!)"

Watch any replay, Jones had his hand on the ruck. On a small scale this is the kind of thing that TD is talking about.

Originally posted by HumeA
I've seen the replays of Giteau, and he should have been cited. But that's just the way of it -- some players get away with it, and others don't around the world.

You are right about that. Thing is, as long as you play the boks, you will "get away with it". Think back to the Tri Nations 2 years ago when Brad Thorn upended John Smit, landing him on his neck. How many weeks did he get? 2 weeks!
Bakkies Botha cleans out a ruck, hurts the little fat girl and gets 2 weeks.
Matt Giteau tries to decapitate a bok player and doesn't even get cited.

Do the math. It's double standards and bias, pure and simple.

BTW, Burger being cited for the eye-gouging I have no problem with. That kind of crap need to be rooted out of rugby. If it had been longer it would be fine.

Originally posted by HumeA
Edit: [b]"Jones (who had his hands in the ruck, but was not penalized. Again!)"

Watch any replay, Jones had his hand on the ruck. On a small scale this is the kind of thing that TD is talking about.[/b]

Be that as it may, if the useless ref had blown up the Lions for their continuous infringements at the breakdown then Bakkies may have been merciful.
Unfortunately he had allowed the Lions to do whatever they wanted and Bakkies had to go in hard, yet legally, to teach that fat little girl a lesson.

Originally posted by Crowley
Be that as it may, if the useless ref had blown up the Lions for their continuous infringements at the breakdown then Bakkies may have been merciful.
Unfortunately he had allowed the Lions to do whatever they wanted and Bakkies had to go in hard, yet legally, to teach that fat little girl a lesson.

Seriously ..is it just me or does this post sort of summ up the meaning of one eyed?

My honest opinion is that aside from being wonderfully skilled passionate rugby players; SA have a world wide rep for being bullying arrogant aloof hard nosed tough rugged bas tds on the field.

They have a great rep for generosity and kindness off the field. Supporters appreciate good rugby but hate anyone who disagrees with their point of view.

Listening to the Whetton twins on radio the other day.. SA needs to be taught control and need not get things their own way.. by hard play on the field and by judiciary off.

There is unfortunately a nasty side to SA and they have some growing up to do.

Recently The Chief went over to a thrashing by the Bulls.. filthy names and bottles hurled at their bus on the way to the stadium.. cops did nothing! In the stadium faced playing with SA ref and linesmen. (Certainly add that the best team crunched the chiefs and no ref problems). This sort of situation does not happen everywhere.

Originally posted by Tirau Dan
Seriously ..is it just me or does this post sort of summ up the meaning of one eyed?

My honest opinion is that aside from being wonderfully skilled passionate rugby players; SA have a world wide rep for being bullying arrogant aloof hard nosed tough rugged bas tds on the field.

They have a great rep for generosity and kindness off the field. Suppor ...[text shortened]... eam crunched the chiefs and no ref problems). This sort of situation does not happen everywhere.

A rep that is 30 years old and is dated now, unfortunately.

The boks are clean now.
We have the odd bad apple, just like any other team in world rugby. Unfortunately refs and the judiciary can only remember the teams from the 70's...

Dan Retief agrees with me.
http://www.supersport.com/rugby/columns.aspx?id=7958&headline=Justice+my+foot!

Hmmmm, must be all these "one-eyed saffas" eh? The fact that he is a world renowned sports journo notwithstanding...

The rep is still there and no way are they cleaned up. The day the rep is cleaned up is the day they all turn gay. SA psyche is hard on the field.. we lost it in the 80s when Buck Shelford hung Grant Fox on the dressing room hook for kicking possession away.
The IRB and there incessant nambie pambie rules changes wreck the game.
I like hard rucking including raking guys who lay all over the ball. The game is becoming more like league...I hate that.
Don't think that being call dirty filthy hard bast'd is all bad .. I wish the abs would regain their mongrel.

Originally posted by Tirau Dan
Don't think that being call dirty filthy hard bast'd is all bad .. I wish the abs would regain their mongrel.

No.
Hard is fine, but not dirty. Dirty in my mind is punching, kicking and "mountaineering" and shouldn't be in the game.

Originally posted by Crowley
No.
Hard is fine, but not dirty. Dirty in my mind is punching, kicking and "mountaineering" and shouldn't be in the game.

agreed.. dirty I meant was trickery to get penalties and anger the op...always part of the game.. great fun and point not seeing how far the ref will let you go..

Hi Crowley... after watching the athletics on the news I don't suppose any of your boy rugby players are really girls 😛