• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Brussow and Ferreira Under Investigation for Foulplay

It appears the Western Force did not report the incident within the 4 hours concluding the game and therefore there hasnt been any interest from Sanzar to pursue the matter. My first post has a photo of said incident. Thoughts? Yay or nay? Incidental contact or deliberate?
Personally I was surprised to hear of the Brussow accusation as he is usually one of the cleanest players in SA rugby.
The other fella is still under investigation though.
 
Sorry mate, but it is impossible to have been eye-gouged and not show some kind of medical evidence. The eye is THE most sensitive part of the body. FFS, even a small grain of sand getting in an eye causes reddening and irritation; when a big old dirty finger gets poked in there it causes mayhem... every time.

RUeyegouge.jpg


If the Bulls management had medical evidence, they WOULD have proceded with it. They didn't, so they couldn't, ergo, it never happened.

I disagree that any contact with an eye or eye area causes harm or at least anything visible on your tv screen.

I am just saying you come across as a bit defensive and close-minded with unsubstantiated/extrapolated conclusions and finger pointing.

It appears the Western Force did not report the incident within the 4 hours concluding the game and therefore there hasnt been any interest from Sanzar to pursue the matter. My first post has a photo of said incident. Thoughts? Yay or nay? Incidental contact or deliberate?
Personally I was surprised to hear of the Brussow accusation as he is usually one of the cleanest players in SA rugby.
The other fella is still under investigation though.

I still havn't watched the game so can't comment on the Brussow gouge. It would be terribly disappointing if he did intentionally rake a player around the eye area. But if I were to follow Smartcooky's logic I needn't be worried as the claim wasn't followed up on ergo it didn't happen.
 
Last edited:
But if I were to follow Smartcooky's logic I needn't be worried as the claim wasn't followed up on ergo it didn't happen.

Was there a white card issued against Brussouw, and was it as a result of an on-field complaint by a Force player?

If so, then the Force ought to be in the gun for not following it up

If not (and I suspect this is the case) then the Force are under no compulsion to follow up.

Just as a reminder, this is what SANZAR CEO Greg Peters said


[TEXTAREA] To prevent similar scenarios occurring, Sanzar said it would amend its post-match requirements for teams.
“What we’re going to say to the teams is there is an expectation that if you make a referral to the referee regarding an incident on field, we will expect you to follow that up with some sort of report post-match,†said the Sanzar chief executive, Greg Peters.

“In the two white cards we had in the Bulls-Crusaders game when the Bulls were approached post-match by the citing commissioner personnel, there was no further information forthcoming from them.

“What we will be doing with that particular incident is asking the Bulls why there was no follow-through after the game, which we found surprising.â€
But Peters said he was confident teams would not abuse the white card system to gain an unfair advantage. But if they did, measures were in place to bring them to account.

“We do have a code of conduct, and if we thought that this was becoming a regular occurrence and teams were making vexatious claims, then they could be called into account for bringing the game into disrepute,†he said.

[/TEXTAREA]

Keep in mind that the refusal to follow up took place immediately after the game, and BEFORE the video had been examined. If something had really happened, they would have expected at least one of the several camera angles to show something. They refused to provide any further information, such as statements from the players concerned or the results of medical examinations, which they surely must have done given that the players compalined they had been eyegouged. This is very, very suspicious. IMO, it doesn't take Einstein to work out that it was in all liklihood, all a pack if lies.

Well, its a case of stable doors and bolting horses now, but at least they will not get away with this malarkey again.
 
well this will not be the same as the Bulls as SANZAR acted early enough to prevent the same mishap from happening again, so the Force won't be in the same position as the Bulls.

My question is, who made the alleged complaint, and why did it land in a newspaper?? surely a player did feel aggrieved and then voiced his opinion about the matter. so with that being said, I suspect SANZAR should handle it as well, you can't let players just go and tell something to a newspaper without any proof and then let it be published...
 
My question is, who made the alleged complaint, and why did it land in a newspaper?? surely a player did feel aggrieved and then voiced his opinion about the matter. so with that being said, I suspect SANZAR should handle it as well, you can't let players just go and tell something to a newspaper without any proof and then let it be published...

THIS!
41.gif
41.gif
41.gif
 

Hehe, thanks Cooky!

My stance is the same with the Bulls debacle, but there is a difference between the 2 matters, with the Bulls one it was shown on camera that guys complained about the alleged eye-gouge... With the Force one, it's just appearing in an Aussie Newspaper article...
 
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/byrnes-fined-7500-for-verbal-attack-on-carter-20120502-1xy1g.html

Byrnes made the comments in the wake of an eye gouging allegation made by Carter against him, which was subsequently thrown out by the SANZAR judiciary.Byrnes said in the newspaper article, which was published in March, that Carter's actions were a "disgrace" and said the centre displayed a "very poor quality as a human being".
[/URL]
 
Melbourne Rebels lock Adam Byrnes has been fined $7500 for making "an unwarranted and serious verbal attack" in a newspaper about Waratahs centre Tom Carter.
Byrnes made the comments in the wake of an eye gouging allegation made by Carter against him, which was subsequently thrown out by the SANZAR judiciary.Byrnes said in the newspaper article, which was published in March, that Carter's actions were a "disgrace" and said the centre displayed a "very poor quality as a human being".



Only in Australia can you make a "serious verbal attack" in print. Slander v Libel.


 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top