Official Super14 2010 Thread

Which South African Super 14 team do you support?

  • Bulls

    Votes: 46 31.1%

  • Sharks

    Votes: 33 22.3%

  • Lions

    Votes: 9 6.1%

  • Stormers

    Votes: 54 36.5%

  • Cheetahs

    Votes: 6 4.1%
  • Total voters
    148
Devill said:
:erm: i see the stormers nr1 doing the same thing.... only difference is bakkies came in harder.

As for aplon not contesting the ball? Are you blind? He binds to the ruck about 2 secs before bakkies comes into it.

Also watch from about 1:10 where you can clearly see in the slow motion (the reverse angle) that bakkies binds to another bulls player with his left hand! He still has his jersey in his left hand when he goes in thus he binds and thus he is not, not trying to bind. By the way the stormers nr 1 does not even try to bind....

Are we now going to start banning people for tackling too hard as well?

Watch from 20 secs in.

Anyway they must get clarity on this rule. If you are not allowed to enter the ruck at speed then make it a rule. If you are allowed to then the players should harden the hell up. Also if bakkies was sited why not the stormers nr1? Imo they did the same thing barring the fact that bakkies actually tried to bind....
Click to expand...

If he klapped Dan Carter, it would've been as you decribed and we'd cheer, unfortunately...
 
Ah i see still no reply as to why the stormers prop was not also cited.... but o well the bulls are racists and bullies and only play 10 man rugby and are in effect responsible for global warming and the burning of witches at the stake.
 
Devill said:
Ah i see still no reply as to why the stormers prop was not also cited.... but o well the bulls are racists and bullies and only play 10 man rugby and are in effect responsible for global warming and the burning of witches at the stake.
Click to expand...

8 man rugby when Fourie isn't playing.
 
alf101 said:
8 man rugby when Fourie isn't playing.
Click to expand...

Bulls: 13 games -> 436 points scored [avg: 33.5]
Stormers: 13 games -> 365 points scored [avg: 28.07]

such a pity that the stormers' fluent running, expansive rugby can average the same a game as the bulls' 8 man boring rugby ;)

EDIT: Bulls: 13 games -> 47 tries @ 3.61 tries/game
Stormers: 13 games -> 36 tries @ 2.7 tries/game

boring 8 man rugby indeed :p

PS. 3rd highest try scorer is the bulls' wing..... which is weird, does he form part or our 8man maul? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Devill said:
:erm: i see the stormers nr1 doing the same thing.... only difference is bakkies came in harder.

As for aplon not contesting the ball? Are you blind? He binds to the ruck about 2 secs before bakkies comes into it.

Also watch from about 1:10 where you can clearly see in the slow motion (the reverse angle) that bakkies binds to another bulls player with his left hand! He still has his jersey in his left hand when he goes in thus he binds and thus he is not, not trying to bind. By the way the stormers nr 1 does not even try to bind....

Are we now going to start banning people for tackling too hard as well?

Watch from 20 secs in.

Anyway they must get clarity on this rule. If you are not allowed to enter the ruck at speed then make it a rule. If you are allowed to then the players should harden the hell up. Also if bakkies was sited why not the stormers nr1? Imo they did the same thing barring the fact that bakkies actually tried to bind....
Click to expand...

As for the No 1 doing the same - are you blind? He basically pushed under Bakkies and then lifted him off/out the way. Bakkies went in straight for Aplon's head. First point of contact was head on face. Intentions were clearly different.

Aplon was part of the ruck, but the ball was well away from him.

You should email Freek Burger and the citing commissioners (including Bakkies' defence) with your views.
 
Bizkit87 said:
PS. 3rd highest try scorer is the bulls' wing..... which is weird, does he form part or our 8man maul? :confused:
Click to expand...

Thats why Habana leaving for the Stormers does not worry me at all. I was not happy at first but if you look at their S14 stats, van den Heever has had a much better S14.
 
Devill said:
:p:D Well he said he wanted to experience a different culture so maybe the stormers can offer him a place after the 2011 WC :)
Click to expand...

Januarie should be back in form by then.

BTW... I don't see the Province #1 hitting Aplon, so you have no argument.
Only Bakkies hit him.
 
Last edited:
alf101 said:
Januarie should be back in form by then.

BTW... I don't see the Province #1 hitting Aplon, so you have no argument.
Only Bakkies hit him.
Click to expand...

:p But he hit bakkies! Shame if only bakkies was half his size and got a knock to the head then the stormers 1 would also have got a citing...

elysian said:
As for the No 1 doing the same - are you blind? He basically pushed under Bakkies and then lifted him off/out the way. Bakkies went in straight for Aplon's head. First point of contact was head on face. Intentions were clearly different.

Aplon was part of the ruck, but the ball was well away from him.

You should email Freek Burger and the citing commissioners (including Bakkies' defence) with your views.
Click to expand...

As for intention... both used the same amount of arms... only difference was bakkies was bound! Also why the fusk would you charge in with your head?! Do you think these guys really want to break their necks?

Erm I think i will go in head first risk a neck injury and then not get a new springbok contract or any offerings from overseas clubs and lose about R2 mil or a year because I feel like leading head first into a ruck with more than 5 people in it....

Go have another look. If bakkies is guilty so is the stormers nr 1.
 
Devill said:
:p But he hit bakkies! Shame if only bakkies was half his size and got a knock to the head then the stormers 1 would also have got a citing...



As for intention... both used the same amount of arms... only difference was bakkies was bound! Also why the fusk would you charge in with your head?! Do you think these guys really want to break their necks?

Erm I think i will go in head first risk a neck injury and then not get a new springbok contract or any offerings from overseas clubs and lose about R2 mil or a year because I feel like leading head first into a ruck with more than 5 people in it....

Go have another look. If bakkies is guilty so is the stormers nr 1.
Click to expand...

I agree, why would anyone lead in with the head? But Bakkies did exactly that, go have a look. He knew that Aplon's face would take more damage than the top of his head. And there was virtually no chance of him breaking his neck, as he knew he wasn't leading into anything solid.

What does intention have to do with the amount of arms used? Intention refers to what they wanted the outcome to be.

Just wish he didn't do it and was on the park over the next couple of weeks.
 
elysian said:
I agree, why would anyone lead in with the head? But Bakkies did exactly that, go have a look. He knew that Aplon's face would take more damage than the top of his head. And there was virtually no chance of him breaking his neck, as he knew he wasn't leading into anything solid.

What does intention have to do with the amount of arms used? Intention refers to what they wanted the outcome to be.

Just wish he didn't do it and was on the park over the next couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Lets have a read:
A ruck, which can take place only in the field-of-play, is formed when the ball is on the ground and one or more players from each team are on their feet and in physical contact, closing around the ball between them.
If the ball in a ruck is on or over the goal line the ruck is ended.

(1)
A player joining a ruck must have his head and shoulders no lower than his hips. He must bind with at least one arm around the body of a player of his team in the ruck.
Penalty:- Free kick at the place of infringement.

Note:-

(i)
The placing of a hand on another player is not binding. Binding involves the whole arm, from hand to shoulder.
Click to expand...

The Stormers nr 1 did not even attempt to bind at the ruck. Bakkies at least tried to (even he did not complete the bind).

And he is coming from the side of the ruck! That is a penalty.

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=16133&cat=500

All I am saying is that if Bakkies is guilty then so is
 
I got an ugly suspicion that there is going to be at least one SA team upset this weekend.

I really, REALLY hope not though...
 
http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_10_en.pdf

10.4 (h) of the rugby rules state:

A player must not charge into a ruck or a maul. Charging includes any contact made without using the arms, or without grasping a player.
Click to expand...

Bakkies can cleary be seen holding onto a bulls players jersey... so he is at least trying to bind. Also go have a look where he uses his right arm to clear! Now the stormers player on the other hand enters from the side (penalty) AND he is not trying to bind to anything. Now tell me about intent.

I am not saying bakkies does not willingly toe the line but if Aplon was not knocked out there would have been no citing. And now that there is why not make it fair? If bakkies is guilty then so be it but then the stormers player should sure as hell also have been cited.

I will now drop the subject but I still think it was an unfair call :(
 
Last edited:
Devill said:
http://www.irblaws.com/downloads/EN/law_10_en.pdf

10.4 (h) of the rugby rules state:



Bakkies can cleary be seen holding onto a bulls players jersey... so he is at least trying to bind. Also go have a look where he uses his right arm to clear! Now the stormers player on the other hand enters from the side (penalty) AND he is not trying to bind to anything. Now tell me about intent.

I am not saying bakkies does not willingly toe the line but if Aplon was not knocked out there would have been no citing. And now that there is why not make it fair? If bakkies is guilty then so be it but then the stormers player should sure as hell also have been cited.

I will now drop the subject but I still think it was an unfair call :(
Click to expand...

Shot in the dark here, but are youe upset about Bakkies getting cited?

On a positive note... He'll be rested for the end of year tour, and then one of the Pom refs can have him cited, then he'll be rested for the WC as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X