Printable View
Here's a photo of the Burger tackle. I don't think it was that bad tbh. Hopefully I can find a video of it when I get home. The team said he was going for the ball and I do honestly think he was going for the ball :mark: It wasn't nice but I don't think it was in the same league as the spear tackle.
http://img.skysports.com/07/09/218x2...kle_568910.jpg
Have you ever actually played Rugby :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
I'd say there's a lot more underhand tactics going on rather than these isolated incidents which get singled out. I've been to a Samoa game and they're a bunch of dirty barstewards. Getting lots of punches and other assaults in during scrums and so on, which don't get noticed by the officials. :mark:
Yes but not as much as I'd like to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
I also feel that he was going for the ball. Rugby is a full contact sport. People will always get hurt. If it is thought that the contact was deliberate then of course a ban should be enforced. But the general consensus is that the contact was purely as a result of going for the ball and not malicious as Lima's (nicknamed the chiropractor) tackle on Pretorius.......
I understand now why you come up for so much scrutiny on this. Rather than arguing the point you merely try to make the person feel stupid..........
I merely posted the only picture I could find as Carl stated he'd not seen the tackle. It's common sense in this situation to find a bit of video so that Carl can make up his mind based upon something less prone to bias as one persons opinion is more prone to bias than a video clip......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
Daniel
If you can figure how to extract this then you may be able to post the video. http://www.superrugby.co.za/default....gby/springboks
Here is another clip.
http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/n...276763239.html
It was a very tough game. Burger himself took a late tackle but that doesn't excuse him trying to take his head off. It was airbourne and dangerous with no obvious intention to take the ball, unless he mistook his head for it.
The entry point for a mid serious tackle which this was classed as is 6 matches so he should be grateful with 4.
As for me making you look stupid, I do nothing of the such. If you look stupid it's nothing to do with me. ;) :D
Perhaps you linked to the wrong pages put neither of those pages seem to have videos on them..........Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres
Taking his head off is your opinion of it but the guy next to me at work who is a dyed in the wool England supporter feels that there was no case to answer at all and he plays Union semi-professionally so not everyone agrees with you even though you pass your opinion off as fact for some strange reason.
On the first one, the video is on the right of the page but will not allow me to view. Dont know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The second clip is not a clip but a picture. Slip of the pen you may say.
Taking his head off is a term and also my opinion. I never stated it as fact but the lovely people at the RWC decided that it was illegal and penalised him. That's a fact.
Yes but the lovely people at the IRB thought the quaintly named "Chiropractor"/Lima going out of his way to injure Pretorius was good stuff. Just because it's a "fact" doesn't make it right.
I'm not saying they are right or wrong in that case, we were discussing Burger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
It looked a bad tackle as he went in airbourne with a swinging arm, tackled the player with his forearm around the head and was nowhere near the ball. After examining all the relevant data, the IRB concluded that it was a mid seriousness tackle which normally would constitute a 6 match ban but let him off with 4. I understand SA are appealing, I wonder at the wisdom of that.
Your friend isn't a hooker or prop is he. They don't ever think anythings wrong ;)
The point is there should be consistency. As Iain pointed out there hasn't been any. South Africa is perfectly entitled to appeal on the basis that Lima got off with no punishment for what is almost universally agreed as a worse tackle. As Carl said as long as there is consistency then it's all good, but why should some people get away with it and not others? :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat.tyres