• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

The Gloves are off!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Let me present to you the facts, nothing more, nothing less.

My client was on the field to play the game of rugby. But there was another man on the field not interested in rugby. No sir. He wasn't watching the rugby ball at all. Ladies and gentlement, as you can plainly see in this video which has captured Mr O'Driscoll's actions in perpetuity, the accused runs - from a position well offside - directly at my client, pulling back his arm to strike, then renders him unconscious with an illegal and viscious blow with the elbow.

The video evidence speaks for itself at this point. My client staggers about the field, trying to play the game he loves in a fair spirit, but down he crashes again and again. And what was the penalty for such unwonted aggression? Such a mindless attack? Nothing. That's right, as unbelievable as it seems, there was no penalty upon the attacker at all.

Ladies and gentlemen, the man that stands accused before you is no rugby player. This was a deliberate and mean-spirited attack on the head of his fellow rugby player. An attack which left my client concussed and in danger of missing further games, and even of developing longer term issues which affect his ability to continue in his chosen employment. My client reserves his right to pursue this issue in a civil case.

But I am reminded that those among us who would defend this behaviour have shown us a still photograph. When you consider your decision, ask yourself this: why would they run from the video evidence? Why would they concoct angles and excuses for what we have seen with our own eyes.

I ask you, nay, urge you, to play your part in removing such outrages from the game that they play in heaven. Convict the accused and allow His Honour to send him away from our game for the maximum allowable period.

God bless you.
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Thomond78 said:
Le Scarf said:
OK, I kind of want to get involved here on an official level.
Not all Boks are thugs, not all Poms are whingers. But yes, if you wanted to look for it, there's a bit of a tendency there on both sides.
This Bok side is terrific - 15 man rugby at last. I love to watch them, and I even think that Bakkies is one of the best players of the professional era. The Martin Johnson English side was pretty close to the dirtiest international side I've ever seen, so it's a bit rich for the BILs to be crying about it.
And of course - yes - in slow motion the gouge was a red card, but unless there is systematic bias or incompetence from the ref it's a bit rich to blame the loss on one decision.
Let's put it this way - Bakkies, Burger are complete fuckwits on the pitch. Phillips' claim that the Lions "were by far the better side" reveals a lot about him. But let's not get too carried away with the national stereotypes, OK?
Scarfie, Bryce Lawrence's own words were:
"I could see it clearly, clearly fingers in the eye, you know? Six green."
And when he's asked by Berdos - whose first language is French, btw - "Yellow card?", says, "I think it's at least a yellow card" - emphasis in the original.
He saw it, thought it was deliberate, but didn't want to be the one to say "red" for Burger clearly reaching up and putting his fingers into the eyes of a winger when the two were flat on their back on the ground. He bottled it.

Here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X__kjEjTNro

Although it is not entirely clear to us on this teeny weeny Yutude - Burgers hands had no place anywhere near the face/head of the Lions player, so one could begin to question what was he thinking putting his hands in such a position when clearly the ball was not an option.
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Le Scarf said:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Let me present to you the facts, nothing more, nothing less.

My client was on the field to play the game of rugby. But there was another man on the field not interested in rugby. No sir. He wasn't watching the rugby ball at all. Ladies and gentlement, as you can plainly see in this video which has captured Mr O'Driscoll's actions in perpetuity, the accused runs - from a position well offside - directly at my client, pulling back his arm to strike, then renders him unconscious with an illegal and viscious blow with the elbow.
The video evidence speaks for itself at this point. My client staggers about the field, trying to play the game he loves in a fair spirit, but down he crashes again and again. And what was the penalty for such unwonted aggression? Such a mindless attack? Nothing. That's right, as unbelievable as it seems, there was no penalty upon the attacker at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, the man that stands accused before you is no rugby player. This was a deliberate and mean-spirited attack on the head of his fellow rugby player. An attack which left my client concussed and in danger of missing further games, and even of developing longer term issues which affect his ability to continue in his chosen employment. My client reserves his right to pursue this issue in a civil case.
But I am reminded that those among us who would defend this behaviour have shown us a still photograph. When you consider your decision, ask yourself this: why would they run from the video evidence? Why would they concoct angles and excuses for what we have seen with our own eyes.
I ask you, nay, urge you, to play your part in removing such outrages from the game that they play in heaven. Convict the accused and allow His Honour to send him away from our game for the maximum allowable period.

God bless you.

I am sorry for my learned friend's misplaced evidence.
When one slows the said incident and watches frame by frame, it is clear for all the world to see that the arms of my client, the much respected Mr. O'Driscoll are clearly attempting to encompass the poor injured Mr. Rossouw around the waist, yet when the heads clash, which is clear in frame by frame viewing, the arms of my client are thrown upwards as a result of kinetic energy and in fact miss the head of Mr. Rossouw completely.
Once the jury views this episode in such fashion a verdict of not guilty can be the ony result.
 

Lindommer

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
And how are your legal studies going, whispers? You treating this episode as a moot?
 
F

formeropenside

Guest
I'm surprised anyone really cares what some saffa does to some northern lout, or vice versa. Its only relevant in that the saffa should have been outed for longer, so as to be unavailable for the 3N.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I'm happy to have Burger play the 3N. I'm sure he will give us a few penalties along the way.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Scotty said:
I'm happy to have Burger play the 3N. I'm sure he will give us a few penalties along the way.

Guaranteed. And you will face only 14 men for 70 minutes. It's amazing we ever win with him in the team.
 

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Personally I am disturbed by any outbreak of legalese on this board - bad enough having Thomo litigating against us from afar, but now we have some local talent trying to impress the bench. We need more rampant parochialism and extremism, rather than reasoned arguments from learned counsel.
Also, has Whisperer stolen Scarfy's "Zen"? I notice the increased piety in the avatar, as opposed to Scarfy who has just become more garlicky!
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Agree re Lawrence copping out, but jeez it would take ueber-big balls to insist on a red, 3o seconds into the game, roughly 30,000 angry Boere sitting right behind you. Can understand that he wanted to leave it up to the ref. Maybe IRB should pay for English classes for all foreign refs.

Anyhoo, Burger is Goneburger. He has bee banned, and I admit for not long enough. I hope SARU tears up his contract for bringing the game into disrepute.

I think it's time to move on now, no?
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Lindommer said:
And how are your legal studies going, whispers? You treating this episode as a moot?
Just great - yes - it was nice to have an arguement.
Try doing that on Sportal
 

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Hugonaut said:
Le Scarf said:
A clash of heads?? Be reasonable, man, it was a premeditated swinging arm to the head.

God damn it, I'm trying to be reasonable! ;D I have an innate bias towards O'Driscoll, I admit.

Don't see a swinging arm catching Danie Roussouw in the head though ... actually just made a screen grab from the YouTube of the incident, but I'm not sure how to post it here - any pointers?

This is my black leather glove evidence* - "And if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!"

*Johnny Cochrane for OJ [although maybe my comparing O'Driscoll's innocence to OJ's "innocence" sort of shoots my argument in the foot ... or the head  ;) ]

My learned friends, I attach Hugonaut's exhibit B

odriscoll_russouw.jpg
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Gagger said:
Hugonaut said:
Le Scarf said:
A clash of heads?? Be reasonable, man, it was a premeditated swinging arm to the head.

God damn it, I'm trying to be reasonable! ;D I have an innate bias towards O'Driscoll, I admit.

Don't see a swinging arm catching Danie Roussouw in the head though ... actually just made a screen grab from the YouTube of the incident, but I'm not sure how to post it here - any pointers?

This is my black leather glove evidence* - "And if the gloves don't fit, you must acquit!"

*Johnny Cochrane for OJ [although maybe my comparing O'Driscoll's innocence to OJ's "innocence" sort of shoots my argument in the foot ... or the head ;) ]

My learned friends, I attach Hugonaut's exhibit B

odriscoll_russouw.jpg

Hey! That's a high tackle! :yay
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Gentlemen - I implore you, please view the evidence frame by frame.
You will see the right arm being thrown upwards as a result of the collision and not even making contact with the other player - or so it seems.
As it is, the incident didn't rate with the refs, assistant refs or any post match review so I put it to you that in the absence of any official interference, BOD is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Thank you for your time.
 

Newb

Trevor Allan (34)
rugbywhisperer said:
As it is, the incident didn't rate with the refs, assistant refs or any post match review so I put it to you that in the absence of any official interference, BOD is innocent of any wrongdoing.

as it is, BOD is out of the 3rd match with concussion related symptoms. being the saint :angel: he is, he must have given himself a one week ban, solely to appease the masses ;D
 

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
And, given that he came out of that a lot better than Roussouw, begs the question how Glass-Temple Danie can be playing. He was fucked, utterly and completely. If it was boxing, a ref would have stopped him fighting, and he wouldn't be allowed near the ring for an age. Putting him back in a week later is playing silly buggers with people's health. :angryfire:
 

Thomond78

Colin Windon (37)
cyclopath said:
Personally I am disturbed by any outbreak of legalese on this board - bad enough having Thomo litigating against us from afar, but now we have some local talent trying to impress the bench.

Is it my fault I'm just such an obvious style icon...? O0
 
R

rugbywhisperer

Guest
Latest is BOD is on his way home as his injuries are rather substantial and he will have to watch the third test from home.
So for all those who feel he is guilty - you win.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
Thomond78 said:
And, given that he came out of that a lot better than Roussouw, begs the question how Glass-Temple Danie can be playing. He was fucked, utterly and completely. If it was boxing, a ref would have stopped him fighting, and he wouldn't be allowed near the ring for an age. Putting him back in a week later is playing silly buggers with people's health. :angryfire:

Yeah. He could have died you know. Oh, wait...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top