Bulls rock Thread

O and why is no one saying anything about McCaw not binding properly for the last scrum?! That was a penalty right infront of the posts.... That was enough for the win.
 
Devill said:
Picture one: http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/15935/title/yes-the-guy-behind-the/cat/all
Picture two: http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php/photo/15937/title/bulls-vs-crusaders-2/cat/all (Look kids on this one you can see he is actually now passing the ball.....)

In picture two you can clearly see hougaard is still behind the man passing (maku). NO offside.

Now how do you pass forward if you pass it against the opposing players hand that is clearly not infront of you?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are trying to prove with the pictures. I did not say that Hougaard was in front when Maku passed the ball...where do I say that, please read again.

Roll the tape and don't post selective shots. The hand of the Crusader is in front of Maku who passes it forward, the Crusader knocks it (back probably because maku's head is behind) against Maku's head, and from there it bounces forward to Hougaard who collects it.

So again slowly...forward pass, knock on, then offside. First infringement is the forwrd pass, but if you deny forward pass, then you also have to deny Crusader knock on as in agreement with linesman (with me?...because you are assuming that maku is in front of Crusader), ...then you can't deny the offside because it comes off Mku's head last to Hougaard ahead of Maku by then...show me that pic please.

Either way, if linesman didn't see forward pass, and said that Crusader knocked back...then the only infringement is that it came from the head of Maku to Hougaard.

cheers
 
No he is not offside:

He passes with Hougaard behind the passer
Crusader knocks it back
Hits Maku’s head
Touches Crusader hands again
Hougaard picks it up

Hougaard is not offside because the ball was last handled by a Crusader player.

This is even admitted by kiwi commentators:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRHNrXuHUfQ

The only thing against that try is the initial forward pass from Maku.

It was a dodgy 50/50 call and all the action happened in one second. Jonker didn’t have the luxury to consult myBB forums. Also he didn’t have a blackberry to load youtube. He’s touch judge was sure the try was legit. Try awarded. All to the IRB rule book.

I can live with the fact that the pass was forward (because in a top down nice slow motion it did look forward) and a mistake was made by the linesman. Whats getting stale now is the fact that everyone seems to think Jonker blew the Crusaders off the park.

get over it.
 
Last edited:
How is that so difficult to understand? LOL

Kabraal, are you from PTA by any chance? LMAO

:D
 
Heh yeah. I'm a dumb brandy drinking dutchman :(
 
Last edited:
OzzieCapie said:
Not sure what you are trying to prove with the pictures. I did not say that Hougaard was in front when Maku passed the ball...where do I say that, please read again.

Roll the tape and don't post selective shots. The hand of the Crusader is in front of Maku who passes it forward, the Crusader knocks it (back probably because maku's head is behind) against Maku's head, and from there it bounces forward to Hougaard who collects it.

So again slowly...forward pass, knock on, then offside. First infringement is the forwrd pass, but if you deny forward pass, then you also have to deny Crusader knock on as in agreement with linesman (with me?...because you are assuming that maku is in front of Crusader), ...then you can't deny the offside because it comes off Mku's head last to Hougaard ahead of Maku by then...show me that pic please.

Either way, if linesman didn't see forward pass, and said that Crusader knocked back...then the only infringement is that it came from the head of Maku to Hougaard.

cheers
Click to expand...

Still waiting on some pictures.

PLease show me how you can conclusively say the ball was passed forward from the 0.5m meters that the ball traveled before it hit the crusaders player.....
 
Devill said:
Still waiting on some pictures.

PLease show me how you can conclusively say the ball was passed forward from the 0.5m meters that the ball traveled before it hit the crusaders player.....
Click to expand...

Thought I said you should get some better (non selective pictures).

Ball moves forward out of hand...which is how it is observed by ref, not in terms of how far it travels or how much it goes forward by...but we know refs can't chew gum and think . Others support this view too, so lets bury this.

Moving on to supporting Bulls, have you guys seen the pre-emptive whinging, lining up excuses that our friends here at SMH- Guinness and Growden et al - are coming up with?

See Tahs ready to act if Bulls field second-stringers against Stormers about the possibility that Bulls will rest 13 players.
However the poll is running against them 58%/42% and the comments from Tah supporters (at end of earlier article about it) also say that the Bulls can do what they wanty if they are on top.
Anyway they don't understand the Bulls/Stormers rivalry and if the SA teams were colluding then why did Sharks beat Stormers?
 
Details on the semi-final ticketing and transport: News24

Bulls supporters will be able to purchase tickets for the Super 14 semi-final on May 22 at Orlando Stadium from Monday.

Season ticket holders will be able to obtain tickets which can be collected from SuperSport Park. The Blue Bulls Company's CEO Barend van Graan said there would also be a standard allocation for suite holders.

Van Graan confirmed that the union had booked 150 buses to transport supporters from SuperSport Park to Orlando Stadium. There will also be a bus service operating between Nasrec - where 10 000 parking bays are available - and the stadium.

A train service, with four stops, will run from Pretoria with the initial departure from Pretoria station. The train will stop at a temporary station 70m from the stadium.

The prices of the tickets have not yet been determined.
Click to expand...
 
OzzieCapie said:
Others support this view too, so lets bury this.
Click to expand...

Your point being? Some people support my view, some people even support Juliass Malema :rolleyes:

Moving on to supporting Bulls, have you guys seen the pre-emptive whinging, lining up excuses that our friends here at SMH- Guinness and Growden et al - are coming up with?

See Tahs ready to act if Bulls field second-stringers against Stormers about the possibility that Bulls will rest 13 players.
However the poll is running against them 58%/42% and the comments from Tah supporters (at end of earlier article about it) also say that the Bulls can do what they wanty if they are on top.
Anyway they don't understand the Bulls/Stormers rivalry and if the SA teams were colluding then why did Sharks beat Stormers?
Click to expand...

I agree 100% that the bulls got themselves into this position so they are allowed to rest 13 players if they feel like it.
 
Devill said:
Your point being? Some people support my view, some people even support Juliass Malema :rolleyes
Click to expand...

FFS Devill...my point "being" is just that its in the past.... ok, maybe I should say that some people support your view too, i.e. that a ball moving forward out of hand is not conclusively forward. Anyway, the ref supports your view and the touchie supports your view too...happy?

...and why do you support Malema?:D

Anyway, its last week's news.

cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X