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

    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
    • Unless you're 5 years old or have been living in a cave for several decades you can't be for real. I don't believe that you're genuinely confused by this, no one who has access to newspapers, the tv news, the internet would ask this. Either you're an infant, or have recently woken up from a coma after decades, or you're a supercilious tw*t
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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