Lions Tour Thread

[Thomond78]

Thomo what is Bliksems in red tale? :nta:

Ag, far too many options to just opt for the one, Oom; I'd usually go for "bastards" as used in Aussie English - more or less fits the bill in terms of strength of swearing. I went for "whoors" here, just because I'm in a Father Jack mood. O0

 

[PaarlBok]

So the armband thread went into a jaillock but the final outcome:

Blame Saru for it, they back the effort
SARugby.com

Hoskins supports rebel Boks
Monday, July 13 Print | Send Submit South African Rugby Union president Oregan Hoskins supports the Springboks' white armband protest during the third Test against the British and Irish Lions in Johannesburg on June 4.

Springbok players and management wore white armbands with the words ‘Justice 4 Bakkies’ on them in protest of the second rower’s two-week suspension for a dangerous charge on Lions prop Adam Jones in the second Test at Loftus Versfeld.

The IRB has since charged SARU over the incident, claiming it brought the game into disrepute. Hoskins said the matter was discussed by the Presidents’ Council and they were unanimous in their support of the Boks’ stand.

Hoskins told the Sunday Times: “I'm going to write to the IRB to voice our unhappiness at the judicial system. The Boks are being victimised and are the only players found guilty when cited.

"While the general feeling is that it’s wrong for them to wear armbands, we're taking into account the whole issue about Bakkies.

"We are in full solidarity with the players on Bakkies. He has been unfairly prejudiced and the judicial system needs to be looked at

Gagger, ask Bakkies, he is still de moer in about all of it.

 

[Thomond78]

Hoskins told the Sunday Times: “I'm going to write to the IRB to voice our unhappiness at the judicial system. The Boks are being victimised and are the only players found guilty when cited.

Hmmmm...

Quinlan; reckless but unintentional, no contact with the eyes, remorse, victim testified for him, nothing wrong with victim at all, victim agreed an accident provoked by victim, no aspersions at all cast on victim, apology to victim and accepted, experience an aggravating factor: 12 weeks.

Burger; found to be both intentional and unintentional (I know), fingers in eye, no plea of guilty, cast aspersions on victim, victim testified against him, utterly unprovoked by victim, damage to victim, no apology to victim, experience a mitigating factor: 8 weeks.

Thin ice there, Mnr. Hoskins. Very thin ice.

 

[Blue]

If you had to ask me to write possibly the most childish and ill advised response from SARU on this matter, I would have come up with something similar to those quotes from Hoskins.

If the rest of the rugby world think SA players, coaches and administrators are acting like morons, it is becuase they are morons.

The IRB is goign to throw a wobbly over this and it will likely have the total opposite result to what these clowns want. What do they think, the IRB will tell the refs to go lighter on SA players? :nta:

The buck stops with the coach and whatever management was in the change room. They should never have allowed the players to walk onto the field with those armbands.

Hoskins is just trying to save face (but he is digging a deeper hole in the process).

How totally embarrassing as an SA supporter to watch this circus unfold. although I am not at all surprised.

 

[Burkey_The_Dog]

Hoskins told the Sunday Times: “I'm going to write to the IRB to voice our unhappiness at the judicial system. The Boks are being victimised and are the only players found guilty when cited.

Hmmmm...

Quinlan; reckless but unintentional, no contact with the eyes, remorse, victim testified for him, nothing wrong with victim at all, victim agreed an accident provoked by victim, no aspersions at all cast on victim, apology to victim and accepted, experience an aggravating factor: 12 weeks.

Burger; found to be both intentional and unintentional (I know), fingers in eye, no plea of guilty, cast aspersions on victim, victim testified against him, utterly unprovoked by victim, damage to victim, no apology to victim, experience a mitigating factor: 8 weeks.

Thin ice there, Mnr. Hoskins. Very thin ice.

The only case they can make is that Brian O'Driscoll probably should have been yellow carded for his hit on Danie Rossouw, mind you he got a week anyway for giving himself a concussion.

 

[PaarlBok]

The only case they can make is that Brian O'Driscoll probably should have been yellow carded for his hit on Danie Rossouw, mind you he got a week anyway for giving himself a concussion.

You maybe wrong about one, add Sheridans job on Bekker but only Gagger caught that one.
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ask-bakkies-i-cant-see-straight/

 

[Thomond78]

Hoskins told the Sunday Times: “I'm going to write to the IRB to voice our unhappiness at the judicial system. The Boks are being victimised and are the only players found guilty when cited.

Hmmmm...

Quinlan; reckless but unintentional, no contact with the eyes, remorse, victim testified for him, nothing wrong with victim at all, victim agreed an accident provoked by victim, no aspersions at all cast on victim, apology to victim and accepted, experience an aggravating factor: 12 weeks.

Burger; found to be both intentional and unintentional (I know), fingers in eye, no plea of guilty, cast aspersions on victim, victim testified against him, utterly unprovoked by victim, damage to victim, no apology to victim, experience a mitigating factor: 8 weeks.

Thin ice there, Mnr. Hoskins. Very thin ice.

The only case they can make is that Brian O'Driscoll probably should have been yellow carded for his hit on Danie Rossouw, mind you he got a week anyway for giving himself a concussion.

Initially, and watching it there, I thought that, but when I watched it again, it was the clash of heads did the damage to both, not an arm. He was a bit high with the arm, but the arm never made contact - not least because both were off in an orbit around Pluto by the time he'd have swung the arm through if he meant to do damage. It more sort of waved around in mid-air because for both of them all mental activity had, by that stage, gone for a smoko... :lmao:

 

[PaarlBok]

Ag Thomo you just prove Hoskins and Bakkies right. : Everything is wrong when it is a Bok but when its a Ier, everything is right. There was no arms there, so suck it Boet.

 

[Burkey_The_Dog]

Initially, and watching it there, I thought that, but when I watched it again, it was the clash of heads did the damage to both, not an arm. He was a bit high with the arm, but the arm never made contact - not least because both were off in an orbit around Pluto by the time he'd have swung the arm through if he meant to do damage. It more sort of waved around in mid-air because for both of them all mental activity had, by that stage, gone for a smoko... :lmao:

Well that still kinda shows there were no arms in the tackle and it was dangerous.

 

[Thomond78]

Gentlemen, you're missing my point.

There would have been arms in the tackle; O'Driscoll was bringing them around. That's the difference with Bakkies, who was making no attempt use his arms either to tackle or to bind.

It's just that the pair of them knocked each other to buggery before he could bring the arm around to complete it. Hence the lack of arms; simply, too concussed to complete it as intended.

It was the clash of heads that did the damage, not the arm.

Not illegal; just shit luck for both.

 

[Blue]

Gentlemen, you're missing my point.

There would have been arms in the tackle; O'Driscoll was bringing them around. That's the difference with Bakkies, who was making no attempt use his arms either to tackle or to bind.

It's just that the pair of them knocked each other to buggery before he could bring the arm around to complete it. Hence the lack of arms; simply, too concussed to complete it as intended.

It was the clash of heads that did the damage, not the arm.

Not illegal; just shit luck for both.

Based on what?

You can't tell either way.

You're guessing. We're all guessing.