SuperRugby: Bulls v Crusaders

[Sam Owen]

And by making these claims to a referee during the game, they are attempting to curry favour with the referee by claiming they are the victims of foul play, in the hope of getting the ref to scrutinse the Crusaders players more heavily.

Good point.

Not only this, but there were no less than 10 camera angles available to the Citing Officer. The cameramen, TV producer and VTO, who are responsible for providing the footage to the CO, were all South Africans and therefore well motivated to find something if it was there to be found.

For these two allegations to be true when none of the camera angles caught anything under the circumstances described above, and for this to happen twice in one game, stretches my suspension of disbelief beyond breaking point.

Good point

On the eye-gouging incidents... the way I see it and the reason there was no formal complaint lodged by the Bulls, was as I see it, because they were unsure of what happened. Both Chilliboy and Flip Mentioned something happend to their eyes at the rucks, Flip even went off at one stage to get stitches. They said something happened to their eyes at ruck, and it was the referee's choice to pursue the matter and JACO PEYPER issued the White Card as he felt there were merit in the accusation. Neither Chilliboy nor Flip had the authority to do that, and Jaco Peyper did. If he thought that it was just bully tactics or distasteful, then it was JACO PEYPER'S choice to leave it be...

Good point.

If a tree falls in the woods and there isn't a camera angle that shows it did it really fall? Bulls fans will say yes and Crusaders fans will say no. While a lack of evidence does not disprove anything one will have to accept it at that and say that it didn't happen on the basis of one having to give the benefit of the doubt to the Crusaders players because of the concept of a person being innocent until proven PROVEN guilty. At the same time I can't agree with people saying here that the bulls are this and that because they too should be given the same reasonable doubt; a stray finger/elbow whatever in a breakdown could easily have found its way to the eye areas of these players even by accident and they could believe it whether it happened or not. Just my 2 cents worth

Good point. Like I said before, it is a tough one because no-one knows for sure. Theres no proof of any eye gouging and no proof that there wasnt any eye gouging. All Im saying is eye gouging is a serious matter.

 

[Shosoloza]

Never mind that, why did you rape my dog?! Why did you come onto my property, grab my dog and rape it?

EDIT: Just checked the many cameras I surround my dog with, turns out there is no evidence that implicates you in raping my dog, or my dog being rape'd full stop. I guess you could ask for an apology, seeing as I accused you of something in which there was no basis, however is potentially damaging to your image.

Sorry, back to the topic.

My guess is that your dog lied to you. He probably watch a porn movie with you, went to his kennel and wanked himself out of this world.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Fact of the matter is, they may have been lying, but we'll never know. Just because no evidence was found, it does not mean the Bulls players did not think they were eye gouged, nor does it mean they did not get eye gouged. Ultimately though, to say they should apologise is a bit ridiculous. If they were lying, well then so be it, they're not going to have enough character to apologise, and if they did feel they had been gouged, then they'll have no reason to apologise.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I have got to say, I think it is shameful tactics by the Bulls to claim eye-gouging.
the worst kind of "gamesmanship" you will see or hear of.

At no point during the game does either Flip or Chiliboy look like they have been gouged.
Every other case of gouging I have heard or seen, the player that is gouged will at least get up holding their eyes (if they even get up immediately)
There is not a single piece of evidence that shows either of these players affected at all.

As I say; the worst kind of "gamesmanship", and affront to fair play.

Disgusting tactics by the Bulls.

I hear this morning they are refusing to apologise. I guess because that would mean admitting to participating to these cowardly tactics.

Disgusting and shameful behaviour. These players and their management need to take a long hard look at themselves.

This and...

Absolutely agree. Of course they are not going to make a complaint now, because that would mean an investigation and some very close scrutiny, which these lies will not stand up to.

The concept of the White Card is a very good one, because it allows a channel for the captain (and I believe only the Captain should be allowed to approach the referee, not every man and his dog as happened on Sunday morning) to let the referee know about gross acts of foul play.

However, they are not going to continue with it if this kind of lying goes on, making a false complaint to get a white card.

There will become an element of "the boy who cried wolf" if this is allowed to continue.




IMO SANZAR need to rigorously investigate this.

This

is why some people will always remain biased/hateful/aggrieved/angered/vengeful or whatever to certain nations/teams.

Would this reaction have been the same if the shoe was on the other foot? (If a Bulls player allegedly gouged a Crusader)... No! The reaction by some like Flukeartist would've been something like, Typical South African dirty tactics, or Bakkies Botha's protege is living up to his standards or other Bullshit like that...

As for Smartcooky, well, all i can say is that your post has shown that you can't be always right about something and i think you handled this one wrong. I wish there were more open-minded people in NZ like Invictus.

 

[Shosoloza]

Except for Invictus and Sam Owen, you NZ are a bunch of cry babies. I understand that it is not nice to loose, especially against the bulls but **** happens.

I agree that a player is allowed to keep his running line, after all he doesn't has eyes at the back of his head. However Carter clearly used his shoulder and arm to prevent Basson from getting to the player.

I also believe that the refs were crap. There were 2 tip tackles by the crusaders that were totally missed by all three of them including the citing officer. Of all the tip/ spear tackles that were made thus far in the competition only one was redcarded and that was Hougaard's tackle on Ebherson. All the ohter's were only yellow card's or penalty's only. Where is the consistancy?

 

[Gena_ZA]

This can and will be argued and your views are based on who you support.
This is going nowhere - Bulls complained to the ref that two of them felt attacks on their eyes, white card issued, no evidence found, case closed
Crusaders want apology as it will put a plus to their case of not being thugs
Bulls refuse as that will see them as self confessed lies been made up.

Rinse and repeat...

 

[smartcooky]

As for Smartcooky, well, all i can say is that your post has shown that you can't be always right about something and i think you handled this one wrong. I wish there were more open-minded people in NZ like Invictus.

Heineken, keep in mind that video evidence is not necessary to reach a finding of guilty for eye gouging.

The Perpignan/Romania prop Marius Tincu was cited and charged with gouging the eyes of Ospreys prop Paul James in a Heineken Cup game in 2008. All of this happened with no video evidence, the citing, charging and verdit were reached purely on the say-so of the victim and one other Wales player, as well as that of a the doctor who treated Paul James.

All I am saying is that there is NO evidence, despite the fact that there were 10 camera angles to choose from, and an all South African technical crew who would have been well motivated to find anything if it was there. There also does not appear to be any physical or medical evidence that an eye-gouge took place, otherwise the Bull coaching staff would be all over it like a rash, showing photos of injuries and making formal complaints.

This then leads me to believe that no eye-gouging took place and that someone is telling porkies, and it ain't the Crusaders.

I agree that a player is allowed to keep his running line, after all he doesn't has eyes at the back of his head. However Carter clearly used his shoulder and arm to prevent Basson from getting to the player.

I see Carter holding his arms out as he runs, ready to receive a return pass if the ball carrier is tackled

I can make an equally valid case for penalising Basson for trying to take out a support player.

BTW, just to quote the CORRECT law that applies to this situation..

[TEXTAREA]10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/TEXTAREA]

Carter wasn't in front of the ball carrier, he was behind!!!

 

[smartcooky]

The plot thickens. It seems that SANZAR have their suspicions about this so-called eye gouging incident.

Greg Peters (SANZAR CEO) has reported that they will be sending an official memo to ALL Super Rugby franchises that if they make an on-field allegation of foul play resulting in a White Card, they will be expected to follow it up with a formal complaint to the Citing Commissioner, and that failure to do so could bring sanctions against the team under SANZAR's code of conduct for making a false complaint.

http://www.3news.co.nz/SANZAR-to-Su...aints/tabid/415/articleID/249896/Default.aspx

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/SANZAR-Crusaders-werent-cleared-20120410

[TEXTAREA]“We’ll be telling the teams today that there will be an expectation from SANZAR that if they make a referral on field, they follow it up after the match,†Peters said.

The SANZAR ceo added that in future, any false claims would fall under bringing the game into disrepute, and punished accordingly.

“We would look at teams who are making vexatious complaints, or if we found it to be the case. We may take action under our code of conduct for bringing the game into disrepute.†[/TEXTAREA]


This is a clear warning to the Bulls and all other franchises not to try this malarkey on again.

 

[FlukeArtist]

This and...



This

is why some people will always remain biased/hateful/aggrieved/angered/vengeful or whatever to certain nations/teams.

Would this reaction have been the same if the shoe was on the other foot? (If a Bulls player allegedly gouged a Crusader)... No! The reaction by some like Flukeartist would've been something like, Typical South African dirty tactics, or Bakkies Botha's protege is living up to his standards or other Bullshit like that...

As for Smartcooky, well, all i can say is that your post has shown that you can't be always right about something and i think you handled this one wrong. I wish there were more open-minded people in NZ like Invictus.

OK - so in other words, your definition of "open minded" means agreeing with you?

Firstly- I am NOT a Crusaders fan. So couldn't care less if they win or lose.
Secondly- If any team had done what the Bulls have done I would feel the same way.

What I really dislike is that its OK to cast aspersions on one team, and not back them up after the game. This whole thing smacks of a deliberate ploy to bias the referee. As I have stated before: Gamesmanship at its WORSE.
What is worse is that not at ANY stage during that game did either of those players look, or behave like they had been eye gouged as they claimed they had been.

Heineken - trying to claim people are bias against the Bulls because of bakkies Botha is a HUGE stretch.
My opinion is based solely on what I have seen and heard from the Bulls during, and since that game.

SmartCooky - You live up to your name son!

 

[TRF_heineken]

The plot thickens. It seems that SANZAR have their suspicions about this so-called eye gouging incident.

Greg Peters (SANZAR CEO) has reported that they will be sending an official memo to ALL Super Rugby franchises that if they make an on-field allegation of foul play resulting in a White Card, they will be expected to follow it up with a formal complaint to the Citing Commissioner, and that failure to do so could bring sanctions against the team under SANZAR's code of conduct for making a false complaint.

http://www.3news.co.nz/SANZAR-to-Su...aints/tabid/415/articleID/249896/Default.aspx

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Super15/SANZAR-Crusaders-werent-cleared-20120410

[TEXTAREA]"We'll be telling the teams today that there will be an expectation from SANZAR that if they make a referral on field, they follow it up after the match," Peters said.

The SANZAR ceo added that in future, any false claims would fall under bringing the game into disrepute, and punished accordingly.

"We would look at teams who are making vexatious complaints, or if we found it to be the case. We may take action under our code of conduct for bringing the game into disrepute." [/TEXTAREA]


This is a clear warning to the Bulls and all other franchises not to try this malarkey on again.

The article also said that the Crusaders weren't cleared of any foul play, just that there weren't any evidence to take it further... In Law, they call that a cold case... Neither guilty nor innocent...

This is just once again showing that people only read what they want and make judgements without taking everything into account.

I do however agree with both articles in that there will be more bad blood between the 2 most successful teams in their respective conferences, which started all those years ago with Andrew Mehrtens flipping the crowd the bird...

 

[smartcooky]

The article also said that the Crusaders weren't cleared of any foul play, just that there weren't any evidence to take it further... In Law, they call that a cold case... Neither guilty nor innocent...

This is just once again showing that people only read what they want and make judgements without taking everything into account.

I do however agree with both articles in that there will be more bad blood between the 2 most successful teams in their respective conferences, which started all those years ago with Andrew Mehrtens flipping the crowd the bird...

"the Crusaders weren't cleared of any foul play"

To me, this looks more like a statement of concern than one of fact.

 

[TRF_heineken]

"the Crusaders weren't cleared of any foul play"

To me, this looks more like a statement of concern than one of fact.

Well that's where subjectivity comes into play I guess... You see it as a statement of concern. And I see it as SANZAR saying "well they could've gouged the eyes, but we can't see that they did, so the possibility is still there that they might have done it and got away with it due to the angles of the camera's, the speed of play, the focus of the lens on the finger/elbow/bootstud possibly attempting the gouge, the speed of the "weapon of choice" entering the cornea, blah blah blah..."

 

[nickdnz]

Let's stop kidding ourselves. There was blatently two eye gouges (and the two victims were lucky that they can still see). Just because a dozen cameras can't pick it up doesn't mean it didn't happen and Todd Blackadder knows it. He's just going on the offensive trying to mislead the public from knowing the truth. The Crusaders have ALWAYS used these kinds of tactics to win, just look at Richie McCaw. He knees french scrum halves in the back of the head during the final of the RWC. If the judiciary system wasn't so obviously being influenced by Paddy O'Brien, then half the Crusaders would have been given a ban the same length as David Attoub. It's always so funny when people accuse Bakkies Botha of being a thug, but ignore when Richie and co intentionally eye gouge. If the referees treated New Zealand teams like South Africans, it would be a very different game.

 

[austingtir]

^^^ Just WOW. Step away from the wacky weed mate.

 

[sonnench]

Let's stop kidding ourselves. There was blatently two eye gouges (and the two victims were lucky that they can still see). Just because a dozen cameras can't pick it up doesn't mean it didn't happen and Todd Blackadder knows it. He's just going on the offensive trying to mislead the public from knowing the truth. The Crusaders have ALWAYS used these kinds of tactics to win, just look at Richie McCaw. He knees french scrum halves in the back of the head during the final of the RWC. If the judiciary system wasn't so obviously being influenced by Paddy O'Brien, then half the Crusaders would have been given a ban the same length as David Attoub. It's always so funny when people accuse Bakkies Botha of being a thug, but ignore when Richie and co intentionally eye gouge. If the referees treated New Zealand teams like South Africans, it would be a very different game.

First post of yours I have seen that actually made any sense, well done.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Is it just me or has the smug know-it-all circle jerk attitude of some kiwi posters on this site increased triple-fold since the All-Blacks were handed the Web Ellis trophy last year?




Edit ^^ My apologies for the above post. Uncalled for, I just took exception to posts in this thread saying Chiliboy this and that and SA's this and that without allowing for the possibility that the players who made the accusations really did feel they were interfered with.

 

[Gena_ZA]

"^^^ Just WOW. Step away from the wacky weed mate."


nah, have some, it might open your eyes mate

 

[nickdnz]

Is it just me or has the smug know-it-all circle jerk attitude of some kiwi posters on this site increased triple-fold since the All-Blacks were handed the Web Ellis trophy last year?

No, I think it's just a result of the pathetic victim mentality a lot of Bok supporters have - Where every defeat is due to every other reason than their team played worse on the night.

First post of yours I have seen that actually made any sense, well done.

Thanks, it's a quote from my Psychology book "In the Mind of a Narcisist"

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

The Bulls won though. There are many arguments to be made for why they were very lucky to come away with a win.

 

[sonnench]

No, I think it's just a result of the pathetic victim mentality a lot of Bok supporters have - Where every defeat is due to every other reason than their team played worse on the night.

Hmm, and that does not seem hypocritical to you, at all?