Yes but even as an anti England rugby team person I think a game would have been more than enough. 2 is just excessive
Printable View
Yes but even as an anti England rugby team person I think a game would have been more than enough. 2 is just excessive
He shouldn't be there in the first place anyway. He's got some cooking to do. ;) http://www.vickery.tv/
2 Games is harsh but fair I think. I don't know how much of the trip was instinctive and how much was deliberate to stop a man that could have gone on to score a possible try.
If it had been seen by the ref it would have been a yellow but that doesn't excuse it. I just hope that the decisions of the IRB are consistant.
What worries me more is the fragility we seem to have at Fly.
5 weeks for Burger. This is ridiculous............... The Samoans were much more physical and Lima went out of his way to hurt one of the South Africans and gets away with it :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Emerick out for 5 weeks as well. I think that's a bit more fair but still a little harsh. To an American that could be his whole world cup career :mark:
The IRB needs to be more sensible in regards to what they cite and in regards to what the penalty is........ if they keep on like this for the rest of the world cup we're going to see squads with extremely reduced strength just for incidents that should normally go unpunished or get lesser punishments.
In my humble opinion.
Burger shouldn't have been banned.
Vickery should have got a warning or 1 match at the most.
Emerick should have had 2 or 3 matches.
I agree :up: What happened to the days when rugby was played by real men and officiated by "manne" as we say over here :( I'm not condoning foul play but if people are worried about getting hurt, play a safe game like chess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Sometimes there is no mud ;) :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
To quote MJ, " you are not alone, I...." :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Bokke vs All Blacks Final. Go Bokke!!!!!!!
Yup. All of the players supposedly got let of "lightly" because of previous good conduct :mark: I came out and said strong words about Vickery when I saw what he did but for gods sake it could very well have just been a reflex reaction. Surely if he's been good in the past then a warning that the next infringement will incur a more significant punishment would suffice. I think every person in this thread dislikes foul play as much as the next person and would hate to see anyone injured through illegal play, but there has to be a distinction between a one off incident which could just be an oversight and a situation where a player is constantly playing like this with complete disregard for the rules and safety of other.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
How about Habana though! :D Like my sig? ;)
The game has changed from the lumbering grind it used to be into what could be the most brutal professional team contact sport out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Players are stronger, faster and impacting like never before. Things like that spear tackle have no place in the professional game and at the time, it was sickening if you watched how the player landed. I agree with the IRB over this.
The trip was cynical and he deserved the ban. I have no problem with cutting that rubbish out of the sport as I support the hard line the IRB will take with players who back chat the ref. This is Rugby, not Football.
Yes, it's a hard game but lets keep it to rugby and get the cynical tackles and professional fouls out of it so we can see Rugby.
I'm quite happy to see the levels of punishment handed out by the IRB, so long as they stay consistent, something which has been a problem for them in recent years.
I haven't seen the Burger incident but I believe it was for a high tackle? Both that and the spear performed by Emmerick have potential life threatening consequences so the punishment should always be severe.
What I am disappointed with is that the referees deemed them only to be bad enough to issue yellow cards when straight reds should have been issued in both cases.