Paxton Dazo
Up The Spurs.
- Mar 11, 2007
- 9,719
f*** me - Shouldn't we f*** off the Welsh? Surely we'd do better without them?
South Africa v Lions
- Thread starter Trigger
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
f*** me - Shouldn't we f*** off the Welsh? Surely we'd do better without them?
No we wouldn't
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
Ok, this isn't the greatest picture as its clearly after the grounding (hence having hit the flag), but its also only a fraction afterwards and gives a decent view of the circumstances. I know its not out and out evidence, which was the problem - but if his legs/lower torso aren't in touch, then, quite frankly, where the f*** are they??
Any contortionists out there think they can explain it?
Paxton Dazo
Up The Spurs.
- Mar 11, 2007
- 9,719
Ok, this isn't the greatest picture as its clearly after the grounding (hence having hit the flag), but its also only a fraction afterwards and gives a decent view of the circumstances. I know its not out and out evidence, which was the problem - but if his legs/lower torso aren't in touch, then, quite frankly, where the f*** are they??
Any contortionists out there think they can explain it?
If that's a try, then England are World Champions.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,482
I honestly feel that the lions have been on the wrong end of lots of decisions in the first and second tests. It always seems like they have to play the Boks and the referee each game.The gouging incident was incredulous, he should have walked plus there were the late tackles by the Boks too. I feel thoroughly let down by the officials.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Ok, this isn't the greatest picture as its clearly after the grounding (hence having hit the flag), but its also only a fraction afterwards and gives a decent view of the circumstances. I know its not out and out evidence, which was the problem - but if his legs/lower torso aren't in touch, then, quite frankly, where the f*** are they??
Any contortionists out there think they can explain it?
It was impossible to see but as you say the evidence of his body angle would suggest he was in touch. I thought that if there was any doubt at all a try should not be given anyway? Taking into account the try not given in the World Cup, the fact that this try was given makes it even more irritating to effectively have lost the game and series on this moment.
Was the touch judge arguing that the SA player was in touch even after the dodgy video ref decision? If not why was there that protracted conversation AFTER the video ref had told the ref to give the try? The line judge had to be able to see better than anyone imo.
nwgull
Well-known member
I actually think that it was a try, his body appeared to be in the air before the ball was grounded. Without any evidence showing it the I don't think the video ref can say he was in touch.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
He can't say he wasn't either, so an element of doubt has to be there?
Not saying he did as I have no idea what he actually said, but should a touch judge's decision be taken over the video refs should he be certain that a part of the leg/foot/body was grounded over the touchline before the ball was touched down? Or does all power go to the video ref even though there is no way he could have been 100% certain either way assuming he only had the camera shots we saw, which were very inconclusive imo.
nwgull
Well-known member
I think it depends on the actual wording of the referee's question to the video ref, and this is very important. If he says 'does the video show any reason why I can't award a try?', then the replay HAS to show evidence of a foot in touch. If he simply asks 'Try or not?' then the video ref can use his best judgement if the replay is inconclusive. There was a lot of confusion on this yesterday, not helped by the fact that the ref was French, in that the video ref wasn't sure what the ref was asking. His response was just that the video didn't show a foot in touch, but he didn't go all the way to say it was a definite try, that decision was made by the ref and touch judge.
Having said that, we shouldn't let it detract from what was an outstanding game of rugby, the only thing I'm annoyed about is the Burger incident and the fact that the SA coach said in the press conference that it is just sport that he was hard done by
A referee will ask, ''Is there any reason that I cannot award a try?''
Unless there is positive video proof that the ball was not grounded or any part of the the try scorers body was in touch then a try may be awarded.
By all means argue about the ref`s failure to send Turd Burger off but the try was good.
South Africans are without doubt the nastiest bunch around in the rugby world. I`m not talking about fistycuffs, that happens with all sides I`m talking about out and out foul play, premeditated if you like.
The last Lions tour saw Doddy Weirs knee ligaments ripped to pieces after a horrible assault following a ruck and O`Gara was pinned to the floor before being punched in the face at least ten times.
Burgers assault yesterday was just another example of their thuggery.
Its a shame IMO because they really are a superb team other than that.
The last Lions tour saw Doddy Weirs knee ligaments ripped to pieces after a horrible assault following a ruck and O`Gara was pinned to the floor before being punched in the face at least ten times.
Burgers assault yesterday was just another example of their thuggery.
Its a shame IMO because they really are a superb team other than that.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,482
Agreed, they are notorious for their "competetiveness".... I'm sure the South African Police Forces loss is the Sprinbok's gain.
I still don't get how Burger was not given a straight red ? the ref was told clearly that he had his hands in someones head.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,482
I think that was to do with the rise of McDonalds.. Burger To Go ?
ATFC Seagull
Aberystwyth Town FC
That doesn't mean the try was good.
As I mentioned earlier on this thread, the referee doesn't HAVE to ask "is there any reason that I cannot award a try?". He COULD ask, "That looked in touch, can you confirm this or should I award the try?". The decision from the TMO was correct as there was no evidence, but as Icy Gull also mentioned, the ref and touch judge both seemed to think it was out - so why did he phrase the question to the TMO in that way?
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
I'd rather argue about a bad decision that has made the 3rd Test totally meaningless if that's OK
as Burger will get his come uppance with a lengthy ban if there is any justice in International rugby. I cannot agree that the try was good, although we have no choice but to accept the decision, but as I said in my original post, if there is ANY doubt when a try is scored, it should not be given imo.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Burger gets an 8 week ban, and the SA coach thinks he's been hard done by 
BBC SPORT | Rugby Union | SA's Burger handed eight-week ban
BBC SPORT | Rugby Union | SA's Burger handed eight-week ban
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Burger gets an 8 week ban, and the SA coach thinks he's been hard done by
BBC SPORT | Rugby Union | SA's Burger handed eight-week ban
I get lots of stick from locals for living in SA and yet I refuse to support their Rugby team. This is the reason.
SA Rugby mantra:
- If the going gets tough, cheat.
- If we lose, the ref must be bent.
I have just read two match reports in SA papers, and both barely mention the gouging. The only mention of dirty play is a quote from the Lions scrumhalf. Will wait with baited breath for the papers reaction to Burgers 8 week ban.
The saddest part of all, though, is that the win at all costs mentality is also found on the touchlines at School Rugby matches. So much so, that schools have had to write to parents and put down guidelines as to what parents can and cannot shout at matches. It's pathetic.
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 10,213
Brilliant game, marred by the fact we should have played against 14 men for 79 minutes. I don't think the video judge did anything wrong, the ref seemed to think it wasn't a try and phrased his question wrong. The Lions really have been unlucky to not get anything from the two games, bar various injuries