12 Sep 07
Originally posted by HumeAHarsh on the South Africans, but Burger has always been a liability, they will miss him, he was everywhere on Sunday, had a great game with exception to his misdemeanour! Just to add to that I thought the South Africans generally handled the Samoans well on Sunday. The springbok have a reputation and the Samoans were clearly trying to rattle the bok, but a whole game without sin bin despite the physicality of the game, well done the bok.
No it's not, I'm afraid. The Burger citing is because he swung his arm into the other guy's head when they were both in the air. The intent was pretty clear there. The difference between that and the Lima tackle, was that the Lima tackle was simply mistimed -- Burger was trying to injure the Samoan through foul play.
I can understand why you're upset though ...[text shortened]... rick has it worst. It was a very poor/stupid tackle -- but 5 weeks? I think that's harsh.
As for England’s captain, well doe's anyone but the English think it will make any difference at all? Ashtons only good move was to bring Corry back into the mix, but to leave Dallaglio off the bench also include Farrell, then to possibly have Cat at fly half with Farrell kicking, and I just read on the BBC they are thinking of having Farrell at fly half! What we will see is a another dogs breakfast of a performance from a poor England side that will be well beaten by the Springbok. I personally can't wait 😛😀🙂
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by 1WhiteKnightI read that game totally differently. The boks to me came across as vicious thugs.
Harsh on the South Africans, but Burger has always been a liability, they will miss him, he was everywhere on Sunday, had a great game with exception to his misdemeanour! Just to add to that I thought the South Africans generally handled the Samoans well on Sunday. The springbok have a reputation and the Samoans were clearly trying to rattle the bok, but a whole game without sin bin despite the physicality of the game, well done the bok.
D
12 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakAnd there is problem with a lot of northern hemisphere lads, cant take it when the game gets hard, its rugby lad, not football.
I read that game totally differently. The boks to me came across as vicious thugs.
D
ps - did they scare you?!! 😀
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94207
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by CrowleyDid you watch the game? Even see the incident you are talking about?
Please!
So Burger mistimes his attempt to get the ball in the air and gets suspended.
Lima mistimes a tackle which could've taken an opponents' head off, knocks himself out in the process, looks like an ass in the process, so he gets off?
Bullsh_t. Buy a vowel dude.
Where's the consistency?
The IRB is trying to make an example here, but they've ...[text shortened]... We have great depth in the likes of Wikus Van Heerden who can almost fill Schalk's boots.
Yes, Burger mistimed his jump for the ball -- that's not the problem. It was the cheap shot that he took while they were up there that has got him the ban. Perhaps 4 games seems like too much, but he had seriously injured the player, he would be getting more. He should count himself lucky that he didn't connect properly.
As for England's chances... yeah, they're not great. Catt is the obvious choice for 10 if Barkley isn't fit, but then again Farrell did look very good at 10 playing for a World XV a while back (clutching at straws, I know) -- he also spends a lot of time at first reciever anyway, so it may not be such a bad call... We'll have to wait and see what BA goes for, he has nothing to lose now.
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by HumeAI saw the incident and while his timing was out by milliseconds, I did not see maliciousness. Vickery gets 14 days for a trip and one other player has also been cited, I heard. If this goes on, there might well be teams who won't even finish the tournament with 15 players.
Did you watch the game? Even see the incident you are talking about?
Yes, Burger mistimed his jump for the ball -- that's not the problem. It was the cheap shot that he took while they were up there that has got him the ban. Perhaps 4 games seems like too much, but he had seriously injured the player, he would be getting more. He should count himself lucky ...[text shortened]... uch a bad call... We'll have to wait and see what BA goes for, he has nothing to lose now.
Now, here's a related issue. How are the referees supposed to feel and what do they think? Typically, a citing has only been used for incidents the referee missed. Now they're being used for incidents which the referee saw and penalised but not, in the eyes of the officials after the event, penalised correctly. Thus, I would guess they're saying that Burger should have been red-carded and Vickery sent off for ten minutes. And you, Mr Referee make sure you do a better job next time. Otherwise, why the suspensions?
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by RagnorakHuh? I thought the boks kept their tempers in check pretty well against an obviously inferior side, trying to get in their faces all the time.
I read that game totally differently. The boks to me came across as vicious thugs.
D
I was shouting at the TV a few times to get stuck in there and distribute some 'justice' to the overly aggressive Samoans. Why should any side allow the opposition to push them around because they may be disciplined afterwards for retaliation? Aaah, I miss the old days...
12 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by HumeAGo check the incident again - it's probably on YouTube somewhere.
Did you watch the game? Even see the incident you are talking about?
Yes, Burger mistimed his jump for the ball -- that's not the problem. It was the cheap shot that he took while they were up there that has got him the ban. Perhaps 4 games seems like too much, but he had seriously injured the player, he would be getting more. He should count himself lucky uch a bad call... We'll have to wait and see what BA goes for, he has nothing to lose now.
Burger had his eyes up all the time and his arms in front, trying to get to the ball.
As they collided his arms went around the Samoan's head, still in the process of going for the ball, because that's where the ball was a millisecond before. That's how you try to catch a rugby ball, you know - with your arms. This is where I think some people think Burger tried to punch the Samoan, but in actual fact he was pulling his arms in towards his body to try and secure the ball. There was no 'cheap shot' there. If Schalkie wanted to hit him, he would've hit him. Don't worry about not seeing that, it's easy to miss by the untrained eye and Australian officials.
The rest was only momentum and probably some instinct - trying to steady himself after the collision may have looked like he went for a tackle instead of going for the ball.
What we think is immaterial in any case - there was enough mitigating evidence there to let Burger off with a warning.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94207
12 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyCouldn't find the video anywhere, but I'd be interested in having another look... only found this picture: http://images.teamtalk.com/07/09/247/schalk_burger_high_tackle_569456.jpg
Go check the incident again - it's probably on YouTube somewhere.
Burger had his eyes up all the time and his arms in front, trying to get to the ball.
As they collided his arms went around the Samoan's head, still in the process of going for the ball, because that's where the ball was a millisecond before. That's how you try to catch a rugby ball, you any case - there was enough mitigating evidence there to let Burger off with a warning.
But you're right, what we think is immaterial.
Edit: Ha! Just noticed that 'cheap shot' of your own about the un-trained eye! Have another look at that picture... he's no where near the ball -- unless Schalk thought the Samoan's head was it!
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by HumeAOne link for them all:
Couldn't find the video anywhere, but I'd be interested in having another look... only found this picture: http://images.teamtalk.com/07/09/247/schalk_burger_high_tackle_569456.jpg
But you're right, what we think is immaterial.
Edit: Ha! Just noticed that 'cheap shot' of your own about the un-trained eye! Have another look at that picture... he's no where near the ball -- unless Schalk thought the Samoan's head was it!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Glorzifen
Vickery gets two weeks. Burger four. The US player five. Lima nothing unless the yellow card made the difference, in which case expect a lot more reds and yellows from today.
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94207
12 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by buffalobillHmm... couldn't see the Burger tackle from the link you gave me, but found it on rugbydump.com:
One link for them all:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Glorzifen
Vickery gets two weeks. Burger four. The US player five. Lima nothing unless the yellow card made the difference, in which case expect a lot more reds and yellows from today.
&eurl=
They keep showing it from the wrong angle in the slow-mow, but watch it in real time, the first time you see it... he's not going for the ball -- he disguises it well enough, however, that an untrained eye might not see the foul play. 😉
Edit: I must add that I still don't think a 4 match ban is warranted, and I suspect it may be shortened with an appeal -- possibly to two games.
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by CrowleyLOL! He bloody closelined the guy AFTER looking down at where he was. Way to be blinded by your patriotism.
Go check the incident again - it's probably on YouTube somewhere.
Burger had his eyes up all the time and his arms in front, trying to get to the ball.
As they collided his arms went around the Samoan's head, still in the process of going for the ball, because that's where the ball was a millisecond before. That's how you try to catch a rugby ball, you ...[text shortened]... any case - there was enough mitigating evidence there to let Burger off with a warning.
It's obvious from the youtube link posted.
D
12 Sep 07
Originally posted by 1WhiteKnight🙄
And there is problem with a lot of northern hemisphere lads, cant take it when the game gets hard, its rugby lad, not football.
ps - did they scare you?!! 😀
Try playing hurling! There's a difference to me between hard play, which is great to watch, and downright thuggery.
I suppose you think spear-tackles are a joy to watch (not in relation to SA)? If not, then you're a hypocrite? Don't like it when the game gets hard, eh? Typical northern hemisphere lad. 🙄
D