Official Tri-Nations 2009 Thread

Who will take it? SA or NZ?

  • SA

    Votes: 71 89.9%

  • NZ

    Votes: 7 8.9%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Total voters
    79
To top it all, the tribunal (hearing) of the IRB case vs Boks wearing armbands supporting Bakkies will be start today.

Any bets that we get a huge fine??
 
They cannot stop us dominating rugga no matter how who tries to decapitate us and cite us for rubbish.

We will brush it off and just keeping winning :D
 
Geewizz, what a farce?!!!!!

I guess the mitigating factor is Matt isn't considered a dirty player but if it were Schalk the inquiry would have found that Schalk, being the thug that he is, intended breaking the players neck while simultaneously gouging out his eyes and chewing his testicles and therefore a life ban is in order..

It's a bloody disgrace and a farce... DUCKERS!!!
 
sandmanm34 said:
Geewizz, what a farce?!!!!!

I guess the mitigating factor is Matt isn't considered a dirty player but if it were Schalk the inquiry would have found that Schalk, being the thug that he is, intended breaking the players neck while simultaneously gouging out his eyes and chewing his testicles and therefore a life ban is in order..

It's a bloody disgrace and a farce... DUCKERS!!!
Click to expand...

Sadly using schalk here is not the best idea, i think we all say what he did, use bakkies rather.
 
There should be a way of nailing that sob.

Maybe the next game we play against them someone should do him in in a ruck or something?:D
 
sandmanm34 said:
Geewizz, what a farce?!!!!!

I guess the mitigating factor is Matt isn't considered a dirty player but if it were Schalk the inquiry would have found that Schalk, being the thug that he is, intended breaking the players neck while simultaneously gouging out his eyes and chewing his testicles and therefore a life ban is in order..

It's a bloody disgrace and a farce... DUCKERS!!!
Click to expand...

Du Preez wasn't injured, If he went off on a stretcher, Matt would probably have been punished.
 
If i where a lawyer i would tell the irb our protest has now been proven valid by the overlooking of Mattie the decapitator.

Sure they would still say dissent is a crime, but hey, it would feel good.
 
alf101 said:
Du Preez wasn't injured, If he went off on a stretcher, Matt would probably have been punished.
Click to expand...

The only reason he was not injured is because SA's are tougher than tough, we are super human :D

Alf it is not about injuring a player, it should be about intent and if you watch when matt goes in he has eyes only on nailing fourie and was not even looking at the ball.
 
killadoob said:
Sadly using schalk here is not the best idea, i think we all say what he did, use bakkies rather.
Click to expand...
Schalk did nothing other than play to hard for these pussies then when we the recipients of dangerous play nothing happens probably because the infringer has a clean record.

What I'm trying to illustrate here is Schalk has built himself a reputation of being a dirty player when the truth of the matter is he is a physical player. He farts when he shouldn't and he gets banned...

Giteau blind sides a player waiting to catch a dropping ball and gets off scott free.

I remember in the rugby world cup Schalk got a 4 week ban for a similiar tackle on a Samoan. I mean what gives? Any excuse to ban Schalk and it's done.
 
Yea sandman sure maybe in thepast with schalk you are correct.

Hahaha jak very true man cept the bullet never missed. I reckon if fourie was ronaldo he would be dead :D
 
killadoob said:
Yea sandman sure maybe in thepast with schalk you are correct.

Hahaha jak very true man cept the bullet never missed. I reckon if fourie was ronaldo he would be dead :D
Click to expand...

haha The bullet didn't penetrate the head, thus i am innocent ;)
 
sandmanm34 said:
I remember in the rugby world cup Schalk got a 4 week ban for a similiar tackle on a Samoan. I mean what gives? Any excuse to ban Schalk and it's done.
Click to expand...

That Burger tackle is actually less intentional than Giteau's ...as you can see the ball is between players at contact.
Giteau was no where near the ball.
 
OzzieCapie said:
That Burger tackle is actually less intentional than Giteau's ...as you can see the ball is between players at contact.
Giteau was no where near the ball.
Click to expand...
Well thank you!!! Schalk caught the man and ball same time so to speak yet the infringement was deemed serious enough for a 4 week ban (later reduced to 2 after Schalks lawyer got stuck in).

supersport article
 
Last edited:
Spot the similarity:

The Giteau Incident:
Giteau was one of three Australians sent from the field during the match. He floored Fourie du Preez in the 35th minute while the Springbok scrumhalf was waiting for a high ball. Giteau knocked him down with his elbow and made no attempt tp play the ball.

He could easily have been given a red card for his offence, but the New Zealand citation official David Gray decided not to pursue the matter.
Click to expand...

The Armband Issue:
The Springboks were so upset with Botha's suspension, which surprised even their opponents, that they wore white armbands with the words "Justice 4" referring to Botha, in the third Test against the Lions on 4 July.

This led to fierce reaction from the IRB and it was announced that South Africa would on Monday appear before a disciplinary hearing.

The chairperson of the disciplinary committee is New Zealand's John Hansen, with Argentina's Guillermo Tragant and Australia's John Eales as the other members. The hearing will take place via telephone conference and the general feeling is that South Africa will be given a hefty fine.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X