Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Got to be in with a big shout after the Boks have overhauled their team with 10 changes!


South Africa: Kirchner (Bulls); Ndungane (Sharks), Fourie (Lions), Olivier (Bulls), Nokwe (Cheetahs); M Steyn (Bulls), Du Preez (Bulls); Mtawarira (Sharks), Ralepelle (Bulls), Smit (Sharks), Muller (Sharks), Matfield (Bulls), Brussow (Cheetahs), Smith (Cheetahs), Kankowski (Sharks).


Replacements: B du Plessis (Sharks), Steenkamp (Bulls), Carstens (Sharks), Sykes (Sharks), Spies (Bulls), R Pienaar (Sharks), F Steyn (Sharks).


Their coach has criticised the Lions media over their coverage of the Burger incident.


"We had negative media from Britain in 1974 and 1980 and now I've allowed it again in 2009, I've learnt that if they can't win on the field then they will try to win anywhere else they can."

Hope Vickery has more of a chance this time. No expert on forward play but presume Shaw's bulk will help. See they've changed to a 5/2 split on the bench. Would have liked for Earls to have had a chance. I'm not convinced by either of our wings. What happened to Fitzgerald? Is he injured or dropped?

This De Villiers character is a bit of a joke, he?s that drunk guy you meet in the pub who thinks he?s an expert on everything but just ends up embarrassing himself. Apparently he isn?t even involved in the training that much. I suspect his appointment is more political than anything else.


He does have a point about the British press though. Their sense for, often ill-informed, sporting melodrama is second to none. All the press has to say about rugby at the moment is, eye-gouging this and eye-gouging that when the IRB has been quite clear that no eye-gouging occurred. Then there is the, ferocious test this and brutal match that. Have these journalists ever watched a match between the Springboks and the All Blacks and seen how ferocious proper rugby is?

I have to admit I always thought eye gouging meant sticking the finger(s) into and under the eye ball - but from the reaction assumed this had by Rugby Law now been extended to cover stroking finger on face beneath eye socket.. or was Burger yellow carded more for intent?


Who is right and who is wrong?

IMO whether he actually got his fingers in Fitzgerald's eyes or not, it seems clear that is what he intended/hoped to do. He deliberatley went for Fitzgerald with his fingers in the eye area and the ball was nowhere near them. It looked like a nasty move, whether he was successful in actually gouging or not.


I have never seen such an obvious attempt at gouging on television before. Bad advert for rugby. As O Driscoll says if parents are considering whether or not to encourage their kids to play rugby, they would have their minds made up for them right there.

Maybe he was just helping Fitzgerald re-adjust a contact lense? I see they SA's have now accused O'Gara of gouging. I can only presume they are being sarcastic give his contribution of missing a tackle and giving away the winning penalty which surely wouldn't have happened if there wasn't some self abuse of the eyes involved.
as much as you're all just joshing, i got gouged on the field years back (well, attempted - I still have my eye). It's fecking painful and extremely dangerous. If i was playing now and felt finger "stroke cheek under eye" i'd instantly let go of the ball and protect my face, even if he "didn't really mean it", and using that to your advantage even if you don't actually intend to scoop out someones eye is a professional foul and unsportsmanlike. Burger was pretty obviously aiming for the eye. he is, therefore, a c&nt, and deserves to be cited.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No - apparently he was found guilty of a lesser

> charge, not guilty of gouging.

>

> Cleared


Interesting the press here still refer to it as gouging. I think Quinlin got a longer ban for possibly a lesser offence!

I'm at a BBQ today Matt - so not around in ED - but I will be watching it - I lost interest after last week but have regained my enthusiasm today - would be good to win one.


I have worked out that they have 54 points so far and we have 46 - so a >8 point win for the Lions and we can take a minor moral victory home with us. However unlikely that may be.


But in truth today I think we will get beten confortable today, too many big players have gone from the Lions team.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...