Follow Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Facebook
Follow Us on Youtube
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
Jul 5

Promotion: “JUSTICE 4″ armbands!

No Gravatar

armband11


Tags:

Possibly Related posts

28 Responses to “Promotion: “JUSTICE 4″ armbands!”

  1. PaarlBok says:

    Pretty sure Bakkies wont give you a write again.

    They just show their support to the man and even Hoskins understand it.

    For me its a sign the team sure stick together as a team.

    Thinks is fair, Bakkies gets two week for rucking, BoD & Sheridan even not penalise for taking out our two back up locks , not cited no nothing.

    The whole citing system is a fuck up , everyone knows it and those bitching about Schalks only getting 8 weeks, sure should back the arm bands, but now thowing tantrums about it.

    Its not about , Bakkies Schalk or the coach , blame the system and if this is the way the players feels about it, well then its OK, at least its about rugby and not some shite kind of political party or someone important that got a heart attack.

    Current score: 0
    • Cowra Eagles says:

      You pillock! Since when is questioning the officials of the game something rugby teams actively do and encourage? This is just pure arrogance from the SA coach. And he is a laughing stock outside your small country.

      Arrogance, ignorance and contempt. Maybe they should remove the Springbok from the jersey and replace it with a penis.

      Current score: 7
    • cookmesomeeggs says:

      PaarlBok,

      Perhaps you don’t see justice like the rest of us.

      If you were to eye gouge a civilian in the street you could possibley be charged with grevious bodily harm.

      The System has been very leaniant with Burger on this one.

      He should have got 8 months.

      cook

      Current score: 0
  2. rob says:

    can i get one, I’m English and Simon Shaw just got a 2 week ban…he won’t miss anything important but I want to complain to someone…

    Current score: 4
  3. CanadianRugby says:

    Can Lote wear one for himself?

    Current score: 3
  4. Juan Cote says:

    Why didn’t Stuey Dickinson wear one in honour of Steve ‘Pints’ Walsh?

    It could have read “Just-pissed”

    Current score: 2
  5. Sagerian says:

    My fave bit of this rubbish is:

    The Springboks launched an unsuccessful appeal and then called for rugby’s judicial system to show greater consistency in the application of the law.

    No mention that the Shalk Burger banning was soft as shite and wasnt consistant with what’s in the IRB guidelines (which is a 6 month ban).

    My armband will have the number for the wahbulance on it for the saffas to call.

    Current score: 3
  6. Lance Free says:

    Free Nelson Mandela!

    Current score: 2
    • Moses says:

      Is there any truth in the rumours that Bakkies will be serving his 2 week suspension in cell 46664 on Robbin Island?

      Current score: 6
  7. Moses says:

    I’m surprised Bakkies didn’t get Brendan Cannon to appear as a character witness

    Current score: 2
  8. Moses says:

    It really is a disgrace to wear armbands for such a trivial matter. Until now they have been worn as a mark of respect to remember the passing of someone close to the team. The Brumbies honouring the memory of Shawn MacKay in this way is a recent and very appropriate example.

    Throwing your toys out of the cot is behaviour more becomming of Indian Cricketers than Scumboks, and they’ve lost a lot of respect through this action.

    I would go closer to understaning their motivation if it were an all round nice guy with a glowing record, but to put up Bakkies freaking Botha as the posterchild for onfield morality defies belief. Look up Bakkies Botha on youtube and you’ll find a catalog of foul play and indescretions. Biting, eye-gouging, flying headbutts and cheap high late shots are his modus operandi.

    Current score: 8
    • Leg Break says:

      And the irony of this happening at the same hearing as Burger’s criminally lenient treatment seem to be lost on the boneheads too.

      Current score: 6
      • PaarlBok says:

        OK so you agree the citing process is a vokop?

        Current score: 0
        • Moses says:

          I do agree the citing process is kak – Bakkies should have got two weeks for his illegal cleanout on Mortlock last year, 8 weeks for biting Brendan Cannon, 16 weeks for biting Steven Hoiles (with the prior)… and these are just the incidents that immediately come to my mind.

          Schalk should have been given 26 weeks minimum, certainly it should be a long enough period for his mentor to agree that he did something (anything) wrong.

          Current score: 3
  9. Patrick says:

    Don’t worry they can wear their favorite dinosaur stickers for all I care, even if they do get a sniff against us master-coach will sub Broussouw, du Preez and du Plessis off at 55 mins and we’ll romp home..

    Current score: 1
  10. PaarlBok says:

    Well you all run into the personal stuff because its Bakkies or Schalk or Snor , I understand that.

    If you think the citing system is nice and cosey co ahead , help yourself.

    Strange no one find much wrong in the Bakkies incident, go to your Ask Bakkies thread , the players have gone through their official channel, Sarpu and obvious they still feel strong to show their view, even Hoskins backing them.

    So ja carry on, nice.

    Current score: 0
    • beeza says:

      Bok bashing aside, I think Bakkies deserved a week! It seemed fairly obvious by the angle he hit the ruck, that his intent was to injure Adam Jones rather than to counter ruck. If it was anyone else you are right they probably would have got off – but that is what happens when you have a well earned reputation!

      Current score: 0
    • Moses says:

      Nice logic – the SARU president is backing the Scumboks, they must be right!

      I didn’t think there was much wrong in this Bakkies incident, but to carry out a protest when the dirtiest player in modern rugby gets a 2 week ban is laughable. To protest in the form of arm-bands is an insult to the tradition of remembering fallen comrades.

      Current score: 2
      • PaarlBok says:

        I am just stating Hoskins because everyone jump on the Snor train.

        Oh well I’ll file this one and those critizing them sure have to walk the plank and not critizising the IRB citing system just for fallen comrades sake.

        Current score: 0
        • Klempie says:

          For those foreigners reading this, Snor is P de Villiers. Snor being Afrikaans for ‘tache…

          Current score: 0
  11. Leg Break says:

    Moses,

    In 1992 Richard Loe (Carozza will remember him) eye-gouged Greg Cooper in an NPC final.

    He got 9 months for that. 9 months, not 9 games.

    It’s still a point of contention here that he should have got more.

    Current score: 0
    • Harfish says:

      Also Loe’s suspension was deferred for 6 months so he served it at the beginning of the NZ domestic season. He could have played in France during his deferment but they didn’t want him, effectively making his suspension 15 months.

      But then again, there was no way his gouge was accidental.
      .-= Harfish´s last blog ..Springbok arm bands reek of hypocrisy =-.

      Current score: 1
  12. Klempie says:

    I’m a Bok fan and I’m appalled. What a bunch of babies.

    Current score: 3
  13. PaarlBok says:

    Regarding Schalks matter.
    NZ Herald

    Rugby: Burger cleared of eye-gouging accusation
    8:00AM Friday Jul 03, 2009

    JOHANNESBURG – Hard-tackling Schalk Burger has been trying to defend his reputation after being cleared of eye-gouging Lions winger Luke Fitzgerald, but found guilty of a lesser offence.

    The flanker was banned for eight weeks for making contact with his opponent’s eye area after 32 seconds of South Africa’s 28-25 victory over the British and Irish Lions at Pretoria.

    When the full transcript of the disciplinary ruling emerged last night (NZT), it was revealed that Canadian judicial officer Alan Hudson had found him guilty of the lesser charge and cleared him of eye-gouging.

    Burger defended his approach to the sport on Thursday in a statement issued through the South African Rugby Union.

    “As a proud South African and Springbok rugby player, I only have the utmost respect for the traditions of the wonderful game of rugby,” he said.

    “Through my life and career I have always approached the game with the intention only of playing it hard and fair.

    “I am not a rugby thug and will never intentionally engage in eye-gouging or similar illegal actions.

    “This was also the case in the second test against the Lions. I am therefore grateful that the judicial officer confirmed my stance with his conclusion that there was no deliberate eye-gouging as charged by the citing official.”

    Burger has been ruled out of Saturday’s final test at Ellis Park along with Springboks lock forward Bakkies Botha, who was found guilty of dangerously charging into a ruck.

    Botha was banned for two weeks after his action left Lions prop Adam Jones with a dislocated shoulder and put him out of the final test.

    “I will always play the game as hard as possible within the rules,” Burger said.

    “I apologise to my supporters and fellow teammates for the fact that I have been absent for the first 10 minutes of the second test. I look forward to returning with zest in due course.”

    SARU issued a statement on Thursday which gave full details of Hudson’s ruling.

    “I do not find this to be an intentional act on the part of Burger,” Hudson said.

    “I accept Burger’s evidence that he did not intend to make contact with the eye area of Lions No 11.

    “In my view his actions were clearly reckless. That is he knew or should have known that there was a risk that his actions could result in an act of foul play, that is contact with the eye area of Lions No 11.

    “While there was no significant injury to the eye … the contact could not be described as simply trivial,” Hudson said.

    “It is clear on the report of the Lions doctor that there was initially redness and swelling about the left eyelid and there was some short lived tearing and blurred vision.

    “I am unable to conclude that there was eye gouging in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area, but I do conclude that there was contact in the left eye area which while not serious in the result, cannot be described as insignificant.

    “Contact with an opponent’s eye area is a serious matter because of the vulnerability of the human eye and the potential of a permanent injury to one of the key sensory organs of the body.”

    Burger’s foul play led to a conflict between the Lions and Springboks coach Peter de Villiers, who said immediately after the game that it was an accepted part of rugby.

    He later apologised for the comment and said eye-gouging had no place in the game.

    Current score: 0
  14. Jatz says:

    It is quite funny… The more time goes on and the Bakkies ban becomes less of an issue, the more you realise how gay that was of the Boks.

    Maybe all the other teams in the world should wear arm bands saying “de Villiers is queer”.

    Current score: 2
  15. Ed says:

    Good stuff gagger, you got a mention on Ruggamatrix!

    Current score: 0
  16. naza says:

    I spotted Lote wearing one yesterday. Deadset !

    Current score: 2

Improve the web with Nofollow Reciprocity.