• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

RWC 2011 - Quarter final 3 : Springbokke v. Wallabies CLOSED

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Staff member
Lawrence didn't make Aus lose vs Ireland, however if Aus had won, then both SA and Aus might still be in the tournament! :)
In your dreams

I thought before the QF that I would prefer the Wobs to play the Boks rather than Wales, the way Wales were playing. The Boks were playing OK but we knew how to beat them and their style of rugby - though being able to do it was another matter.

That Wales team, I didn't know, because we hadn't played a good game against a good team since we beat the All Blacks in Brisbane at the end of August, and the team in red looked as good as any Wales teams since their great days and even better than their Slam team a few years ago. But we could find a way to beat the Boks, thought I.

The QF didn't conform to what I thought would happen. It was like watching something from the "Twilight Zone", you know: those stories where everything in the show is back to front; where, for example, people we consider beautiful or handsome are the outcast ugly ones and the rest of the actors are made to look repulsive by the makeup people.

In this Twilight Zone game the Boks tried to be what the weren't. We saw a team that had thrived on 10-man laager rugby, going away from their strengths and, with 76% territory stats, trying to score tries instead of points. For them it was madness, rugby madness. It was like the 1991 England team changing their tactics for the Final.

We couldn't believe our luck - as though we were watching Tendulkar playing a straight bat instead of flicking his wrists and dispatching leg-side balls to the boundary.

Now I am not glad we are playing the Kiwis instead of the French who we also know how to beat. Mind you, we have won 2 of the last 3 against the Blacks, and it should have been 3 out of 4 IMO but for, yes, an error in Sydney by a referee called Lawrence.

Swings and roundabouts; fans of all teams think they are dudded from time to time.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Staff member
Wouldn't it be interesting to have a TIMELINE of the match reflecting (1.) ALL penalisable infractions missed by Bryce Lawrence, (2.) transgressed by BOTH sides.

...Now that would set the cat amongst the pigeons!? ....just wonder how the Burger / Pocock incident* would be categorised... Do you penalise Burger for excessive raking (note: I mentioned raking and NOT eye-gouging!) across the Pocock's face or do you penalise Pocock for 'holding on / not releasing the tackled player'.... Hhhmmmm??!! *thinking*

* Which one came first.... The chicken or the egg??

From your remarks it seems that you want to equate every infringement.

Schalk has eye gouged before, against the Lions, so he no longer gets the benefit of the doubt; not from me. Even if we go along with you and say it was just a raking and not an eye gouging, you don't rake a fellows face in order to get the ball. You do it to make him fear for his eyesight so that he is distracted from what he is doing.

And if you want to add up a list of infringements add two more in that one incident, for Burger being on the ground when he raked/eye gouged and another for not going back to last feet when he released Pocock's face to do another. How Lawrence missed those other two things are as mysterious as the things you come up with.

And before the eye gouge/raking Pocock did nothing more or less than the admirable Brussouw would have done had he not been injured.

But that is not why I started this post. I digressed.

Many fair minded SAffers using this board have deplored the actions of Schalk and mentioned, correctly, that he doesn't need to do those things as he is otherwise a great player.

By reading your suggestion for a timeline of infractions I think that you and some other Saffers on other forums don't get what we Aussies think about some of the stuff individual Bok players have done: the eye gouging by Burger and the head butting by Botha.

We aren't angels and you could point our some stupid stuff that Cooper has done with McCaw, and some Butch James specials from the Wobs: shoulder charging then grabbing and sometimes missing the grab.

But eye gouging and head-butting? We won't cop that. If any Wallaby does that I hope he never wears the gold jersey again and I don't care what his name is.
.
 

Swat

Chilla Wilson (44)
Agree Lee, although I honestly don't see how headbutting is looked at any differently from throwing a punch. Eye gouging is just totally fucked. Get this shit out of the game for good.
 

Lee Grant

John Eales (66)
Staff member
I know it's a bad example for the youngsters but I don't mind a punch up so long as there are no king hits from behind.

But that's just me I suppose, and my generation - the one before TV replays and the touchies talking to the refs on their radios.

Well before actually.
 

Swat

Chilla Wilson (44)
Sorry, don't know if I made that clear. I don't mind the odd punch on too as long as it is a) stays on the field and b) No one else runs in to join in. If you're going to do it at least keep it one on one and be ready to cop the consequences.
 

PaarlBok

Rod McCall (65)
Sorry, don't know if I made that clear. I don't mind the odd punch on too as long as it is a) stays on the field and b) No one else runs in to join in. If you're going to do it at least keep it one on one and be ready to cop the consequences.

Vokket Boet, have you ever thrown a punch in a rugby match? You dont care vokol about Plan A,B or C when you lose your nuts.
 

Blue

Andrew Slack (58)
But eye gouging and head-butting? We won't cop that. If any Wallaby does that I hope he never wears the gold jersey again and I don't care what his name is.
.

Agree 100%

Can we add kneeing an opponent to the head to that list? Otherwise referred to as "niggle" when an Australian does it. :fishing
 

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member

No because someone who may or may not have purposely tapped someone in the head with his knee is nothing compared to deliberately and repeatedly raking your fingers across someone's eyes.


Sent using Tapatalk
 
I

Ilie Tabua's Shadow

Guest
No because someone who may or may not have purposely tapped someone in the head with his knee is nothing compared to deliberately and repeatedly raking your fingers across someone's eyes.


Sent using Tapatalk

I like the theme to your comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top