Boks may have killed the game for me :(

peterako

I am gutted at the throwing away of another Lions match....

But more so at Burger getting EIGHT weeks for Gouging !!! And others Boks getting 2.

Makes a farce of the game and rules.

I have three young children into all of whom I have been trying to instill a love of the game.

I always have seen it as a tough, but well regulated game. Where injuries can happen, but are not an integral part of the game.

The way the Boks have played turns this on its head. They have gone out to hurt and injure iopponents.

I am seriously considering whether I love/respect the game anymore.

It looks like it’s going back to old bully boy years where causing serious injury to your opponent is acceptable....and playing rugby is secondary.

And...NO i would not like to see my children in a situation where it's alright to try and injure someone on purpose.

Peter

NickNolte

I'd agree that it's lenient... IMO anyway. What do you think is an appropriate ban for gouging?

thomond2006

I'm annoyed about the length of the ban too, but they have to be consistent I suppose, Parisse also got 8 weeks.

They should have a suspended ban of a year if he tries it again. That would stamp it out of the game imo.

peterako

thomond2006 wrote: »

They should have a suspended ban of a year if he tries it again. That would stamp it out of the game imo.

Yes. 100%

Maybe even a lifetime suspended ban. A player would certainly think twice.

Amabokke

peterako wrote: »

I am gutted at the throwing away of another Lions match....

But more so at Burger getting EIGHT weeks for Gouging !!! And others Boks getting 2.

Makes a farce of the game and rules.

I have three young children into all of whom I have been trying to instill a love of the game.

I always have seen it as a tough, but well regulated game. Where injuries can happen, but are not an integral part of the game.

The way the Boks have played turns this on its head. They have gone out to hurt and injure iopponents.

I am seriously considering whether I love/respect the game anymore.

It looks like it’s going back to old bully boy years where causing serious injury to your opponent is acceptable....and playing rugby is secondary.

And...NO i would not like to see my children in a situation where it's alright to try and injure someone on purpose.

Peter

Seriously now, I feel for your pain and your kids. BUT the boks killed the game for you? You're having a laugh. I believe it is just sour grapes. I do however agree that the boks have been alot more physical in the second test.

Did you miss BOD tackle without arms on Roussouw? BOD injured himself too.
Did you miss Shaw's two high tackles?
Did you miss Nathan Hines dangerous tackle that got him banned?
Did you miss ROG's dangerous tackle on Fourie?
Did you miss Parrisse eye gouging on the weekend against ABs?
Did you miss Quinlann's eye gouging on Cullen?

The list is endless.

peterako

Amabokke wrote: »

Seriously now, I feel for your pain and your kids. BUT the boks killed the game for you? You're having a laugh. I believe it is just sour grapes. I do however agree that the boks have been alot more physical in the second test.

Did you miss BOD tackle without arms on Roussouw? BOD injured himself too.
Did you miss Shaw's two high tackles?
Did you miss Nathan Hines dangerous tackle that got him banned?
Did you miss ROG's dangerous tackle on Fourie?
Did you miss Parrisse eye gouging on the weekend against ABs?
Did you miss Quinlann's eye gouging on Cullen?

The list is endless.

The difference being....this is the WAY SA play...so it's ok?

Suggestion for the next tour (of any team) to SA.

Set up a Cage and have a No Holds Barred fight

Don't get me wrong. Rugby is a physical game, I understand and appreciate that. And accidents happen. But pre-meditated criminal violence with intent has no place.

On either side.

And yes, I saw all the incidents you mention above. I could comment on all but would not try and justify them.

If you get dragged down to SA's level what are your options when the Ref and Authorities are not going to do anything.

This is my thinking when I talk about being afraid for the game and my kids playing it.

The sad thing is that SA have the talent to win anyway. No it's not sour grapes.
I fully expected SA to win at the start of the tour.
I do get dissapointed when the team I support loses, but at the end of the day it's a game. I have no great love for the Lions or SA, more a love for the game of Rugby.
I DO support my national, provincial and local teams....then there may be sour grapes

In the past I have been happy in the thought that offenders would be penalised, some glaring exceptions like the NZ Spiking on the last Lions tour but by and large the game has been well disciplined.

Now we have Ve Villiers, a NATIONAL COUACH, saying that Gouging etc. are a valid part of the game.....

Hmmmm.....

T-Maxx

They were banned. Move on.

Nothing but sour grapes here.

peterako

Don't misunderstand me. Please.

I have loved Rugby for most of my life.

The Amature game had a LOT of this underhanded stuff.

When the game went pro it cleaned up a lot and for the first time I felt more comfortable about seeing my kids play.

This is not intended to be a SA bashing thread.

Rather to express my discontent with the way discipline has been handled on this tour.

It seems to me that a lot of the injuries have been intentionally inflicted, with the knowledge that no, or little, consequence will result.

This, in my opinion, is a sad state for the game to be in.

Call it sour grapes if you want.

I presonally think that SA would have won the series anyway.

qbasic

OP......Alan Quinlan.

Not the only team to have a dirty player and certainly not the last. Get over it.

Amabokke

peterako wrote: »

The difference being....this is the WAY SA play...so it's ok?

Don't get me wrong. Rugby is a physical game, I understand and appreciate that. And accidents happen. But pre-meditated criminal violence with intent has no place.

If you get dragged down to SA's level what are your options when the Ref and Authorities are not going to do anything.

This is my thinking when I talk about being afraid for the game and my kids playing it.

Now we have Ve Villiers, a NATIONAL COUACH, saying that Gouging etc. are a valid part of the game.....

Hmmmm.....

Which does SA play?? The fact that they are big, strong and physical and softened their opponents to submit to them? What's wrong with that?

What violence? In the first 5 minutes there was a scuffle between Matfield and BOD because Victor pushed him. That's not violence. What about Sheriden punching Bekker in the balls? Is that acceptable or you probably going to say SA did it too?

Drag down to SA's level? The ref was good and consistent and dealt with all illegal and dangerous play. Burger and Botha were both cited and banned so the authorities have dealt with it somehow. Burger ban was lenient, Botha should've been and BOD, Sheriden should've been cited too.

peterako

qbasic wrote: »

OP......Alan Quinlan.

Not the only team to have a dirty player and certainly not the last. Get over it.

Read the post above.

Alan Quinlan was lucky to only get the ban he got!

MG

peterako wrote: »

Read the post above.

Alan Quinlan was lucky to only get the ban he got!

Based on the Burger ban (and indeed the Parisse decision), he was extraordinarily unlucky to get 12 weeks. It's the inconsistancy and the politics which is so frustrating.

Riskymove

Amabokke wrote: »

Did you miss BOD tackle without arms on Roussouw? BOD injured himself too.
Did you miss Shaw's two high tackles?
Did you miss Nathan Hines dangerous tackle that got him banned?
Did you miss ROG's dangerous tackle on Fourie?
Did you miss Parrisse eye gouging on the weekend against ABs?
Did you miss Quinlann's eye gouging on Cullen?

The list is endless.

all sides do things illegally

but there is a big difference between tackling someone illegally and gouging someone

mistiming a tackle can be bad and you can have things that look bad..like high tackles..but it can be just mistiming or someone much taller attempting to grap a smaller person who ducks etc....there was one incident where JP was penalised for a late high tackle on kearney which looked very bad first time but on replay you can see he had nowhere to go

but... at least they are stand up looking someone in the eye kind of things

not cowardly gouging or sneaky punches on guys in vulnerable positions on the ground etc

Amabokke

peterako wrote: »

I have loved Rugby for most of my life.

This is not intended to be a SA bashing thread.

Rather to express my discontent with the way discipline has been handled on this tour.

It seems to me that a lot of the injuries have been intentionally inflicted, with the knowledge that no, or little, consequence will result.

If you love rugby, you'd understand it and if you understand it then you'd know it is very rare that things go 100% with regards to games, outcome, officials, discipline, etc. That's part of rugby, if you don't like it switch the channel and take up golf.

If you don't want to bash SA why the title then "Boks may have killed the game for me "

Discipline on this tour has been handed well. Have you got any prove that injuries have been intentional? BOD took himself and a bok player out because of his own stupidity.

Amabokke

Riskymove wrote: »

all sides do things illegally

but there is a big difference between tackling someone illegally and gouging someone

mistiming a tackle can be bad and you can have things that look bad..like high tackles..but it can be just mistiming or someone much taller attempting to grap a smaller person who ducks etc....there was one incident where JP was penalised for a late high tackle on kearney which looked very bad first time but on replay you can see he had nowhere to go

but... at least they are stand up looking someone in the eye kind of things

not cowardly gouging or sneaky punches on guys in vulnerable positions on the ground etc

I'm not disputing the gouge, think it is dispicable. No excuse there but Fitxgerald was not injured. Big difference between illegal and dangerous tackle. BOD did both, illegal with no arms but also dangerous (with intent to injure), that is cowardly too. He injured a bok player and himself. It's cowardly to punch someone in the balls, ask Sheriden.

Riskymove

Amabokke wrote: »

I'm not disputing the gouge, think it is dispicable. No excuse there but Fitxgerald was not injured. Big difference between illegal and dangerous tackle. BOD did both, illegal with no arms but also dangerous (with intent to injure), that is cowardly too. He injured a bok player and himself. It's cowardly to punch someone in the balls, ask Sheriden.

I think you have decided my post was critical about the boks...bit defensive there:pac:...


I am simply talking about the difference between cowardly, malicious, illegal actions and illegal tackling...by any team

BOD was not cited...if it was so bad, then why not?..as for "intent to injure" that's crap

Sheirdan definetely lucky not be cited, probably as they would have no props left if he was suspended:pac:

Amabokke

Amabokke wrote: »

Discipline on this tour has been handed well. Have you got any prove that injuries have been intentional? BOD took himself and a bok player out because of his own stupidity.

Amabokke wrote: »

Big difference between illegal and dangerous tackle. BOD did both, illegal with no arms but also dangerous (with intent to injure)

Any proof it was intentional?

Amabokke

Riskymove wrote: »

I think you have decided my post was critical about the boks...bit defensive there:pac:...


I am simply talking about the difference between cowardly, malicious, illegal actions and illegal tackling...by any team

BOD was not cited...if it was so bad, then why not?..as for "intent to injure" that's crap

Sheirdan definetely lucky not be cited, probably as they would have no props left if he was suspended:pac:

I don't get defensive mate. The big thing for me is when some posters post things here on rugby forum with limited knowledge of the game, laws, players, officials, etc. and then trying to tell everyone that was illegal, cowardly, and against the rules

BOD was not cited because I believe he punished himself, not sure why not. Same can be asked of Sheridan. Tackling a player without arms is not "intent to injure" - Explain to me then what was his reason for doing that??

Riskymove

BOD was not cited because I believe he punished himself, not sure why not. Same can be asked of Sheridan. Tackling a player without arms is not "intent to injure" - Explain to me then what was his reason for doing that??

I think if you wanted to injure a player the size of that Boks lad you could try something different to running head first into him...

it was an illegal challenge....but again your claim of "intent to injure" seems to be just semantics as you are suggesting any tackle without arms would be "intent to injure" I disagree

Amabokke

Deleted User wrote: »

Any proof it was intentional?

Yes, look at the videoclip and you'll see BOD went high and just charge into him. What else is the intend for something like that? He had plenty of time to get to Rossouw and do a normal tackle around the waiste.

Video on rugbydump

Amabokke

Riskymove wrote: »

I think if you wanted to injure a player the size of that Boks lad you could try something different to running head first into him...

it was an illegal challenge....but again your claim of "intent to injure" seems to be just semantics as you are suggesting any tackle without arms would be "intent to injure" I disagree

Ok, I'll give you the benefit. Why do players then tackle without their arms? As a rugby player you should know that when you run towards someone and decide no arms you can seriously injure them. Butch James did that for years and hurt alot of guys. Did you have a video of any player tackling without arms that can show it was not intentional?

Riskymove

Amabokke wrote: »

Ok, I'll give you the benefit. Why do players then tackle without their arms? As a rugby player you should know that when you run towards someone and decide no arms you can seriously injure them. Butch James did that for years and hurt alot of guys. Did you have a video of any player tackling without arms that can show it was not intentional?

look basically i think if you want to say tackling without arms is an intent to injure then for me it would have to be like a shoulder charge or similar...not what occurred with BOD

did BOD tackle the guy without arms, yes

was it illegal...yes

was he "intent" on injuring the guy....I don't think so

d'Oracle

Right.

Three things.

1. I frickin Hate this hyperbole crap. 8 week ban bit lenient, but sfw? He is gonna miss half the tri nations at least.
Its not a sportsmans job to raise your kids.
Burger is a bit of a headcase, always has been. But he is also a great player.
Tell them to watch his tackling technique. Rough stuff happens in rugby. I dont like gouging either.

2. I frickin hate this hyperbole crap. THE BOKS DID NOT PLAY A DIRTY GAME IN GENERAL. Yeah we all know the reputation, change the frickin record. They hit hard and physical. The Lions got up to some messy stuff too. Its demeaning to rugby to spout the crap OP spouted.

3. Am I the only person who can see that BOD tried to use his arms?
This tackle muck is ruining rugby. If you hit with the shoulder, then swing your arms in, 9/10 times you will get a good hit. Problem here is BOD got hit so damn hard he bounced off before he could get a grip. These things happen. Pretty soon we will be watching international tip rugby.

LightningBolt

Amabokke wrote: »

I don't get defensive mate. The big thing for me is when some posters post things here on rugby forum with limited knowledge of the game, laws, players, officials, etc. and then trying to tell everyone that was illegal, cowardly, and against the rules

BOD was not cited because I believe he punished himself, not sure why not. Same can be asked of Sheridan. Tackling a player without arms is not "intent to injure" - Explain to me then what was his reason for doing that??

On the BOD tackle it seems like he was bringing his arms up and then he hit his head off the carrier sending him backwards. Watch it slowly and you'll see the arms coming up.

Op, quit being sensationalist. There was ****e from both sides and the Boks came out the better for it. We took them on their game and lost.

Edit:Only read d'Oracle's post there. Well said.

Amabokke

BOD might've tried to bring his arms up and hit his head before they could wrap around. Issue here is why did he try to tackle him around the neck? Also, why did he not use his arms sooner? For a player like BOD to try and tackle with late arms (whether it was the head clash or not) he could've done better, we know he is good and don't do this quiet often.

Nilther

Amabokke wrote: »

Seriously now, I feel for your pain and your kids. BUT the boks killed the game for you? You're having a laugh. I believe it is just sour grapes. I do however agree that the boks have been alot more physical in the second test.

Did you miss BOD tackle without arms on Roussouw? BOD injured himself too.
Did you miss Shaw's two high tackles?
Did you miss Nathan Hines dangerous tackle that got him banned?
Did you miss ROG's dangerous tackle on Fourie?
Did you miss Parrisse eye gouging on the weekend against ABs?
Did you miss Quinlann's eye gouging on Cullen?

The list is endless.

I can't find a clip of it but Habana put in a tackle on Bowe and didn't wrap him because he was so high his arms were above Bowe's head. I guess he should be on your list.

peterako

Amabokke wrote: »

t's cowardly to punch someone in the balls, ask Sheriden.

Don't tell me you punched Sheridan in the balls???