Springboks v Wales - Matchup ( Brussow : Warbuton )

First topic message reminder :

Wonder what everyone thinks of this very interesting battle .On the Welsh side the young leader Warbuton only 22 years of age but already captaining his country to the World Cup. Anyone who captains their country at such a young age has surely got to have some special x factor around him and that seem to be the cas. He's on a meteoric rise and according to some pundits he's the most important player (bar Adam jones) in the Welsh side.He;s a fetcher and a fine one at that plus he's a ballcarrier with pace for a backrower.One of the Guys to watch this World Cup and indeed years to come .

On the Bok side of things is the pint sized freestate warrior Heinrich Brussow.The slightly injury prone south african answer to Richie Mccaw and Bam Bam Pocock. The only player in World rugby who can confidently say they've faced the All blacks four times and never lost .Three of those games were against the Great Mccaw before you ask. Brussow proved he's worth his weight in gold last week with 5 turnovers vs the AB in PE.Simply put he's a turnover machine and he does it without getting penalised much like mccaw except no one questions Brussow's tactics.


your views who will take center stage come september 11?

Burger didn't blind anyone and as I recall he was found guilty of reckless play

i'm not defending gouging , i find it distateful but much like PDV i'm defending Schalk burger ! it wasnt an intentional gouge but it was a gouge nonetheless and he got punished for it now will people please get over it

Gatts wrote:

Bullsbok wrote:it was a mistake get over yourselves . typical NH behaviour goin on and on about it . i now know how Nzers felt when they had to listen to the BoD tackle stories for years. i suppose you dont hold the same view about BoD gouing and pulling Hensons hair?? Let me guess you probably forgot bout that

I am completely over it, the issue is not Burger but gouging and i totally hold the same view, as stated, about players who gouge. If caught, ban.

The extent of the ban should be commensurate with the extent of the injury. A UK amateur player was recently blinded so I think that would justifiably warrant a life ban.

Sorry to disagree,Gatts.The sentence should not depend on the outcome but on the intent.Anyone who deliberately gouges has no place in world Rugby.Is SA think it is fair dos perhaps another spell in isolation is due.

taffin no point arguing with you , you seem to be missing braincells with idiotic comments like that

Gatts; if you're referring to Quinell in the Crosskeys Vs Llanelli game when you say "A Uk amateur player was recently blinded.." then that was not caused by any form of gouging.

Fellas

is this really necessary

1. Schalk Burger is not a notoriously dirty player, made a bad mistake and took the ban.

2. We all agree - who have played this great game - that gouging is despicable and should be dealt with as harshly as possible, I object to this being polarised as NH/SH which is a crock

Can we agree on that and move on?

nottins_jones wrote:Gatts; if you're referring to Quinell in the Crosskeys Vs Llanelli game when you say "A Uk amateur player was recently blinded.." then that was not caused by any form of gouging.

No I was referring to the gravesend player gouged and blinded in one eye during a game v maidstone in 2010.

Bullsbok wrote:taffin no point arguing with you , you seem to be missing braincells with idiotic comments like that

Which comments were idiotic?

"Is SA think it is fair dos perhaps another spell in isolation is due.

Taffineastbourne

Posts: 144
Join date: 2011-05-18
Location: Somewhere in Eastbourne

Bullsbok wrote:"Is SA think it is fair dos perhaps another spell in isolation is due.

Taffineastbourne

Posts: 144
Join date: 2011-05-18
Location: Somewhere in Eastbourne

And do you think gouging is acceptable as your previous posts suggest?

Bullsbok wrote:i'm not defending gouging , i find it distateful but much like PDV i'm defending Schalk burger ! it wasnt an intentional gouge but it was a gouge nonetheless and he got punished for it now will people please get over it

which part of this is defending gouging itself ??? i'm defending the player for wat i think was an unintentional act . im not defending the act of gouging learn to read

Taffin can you tell me what convinces you that Schalk Burger who has never before been guilty of a dirty or foul act did this intentionally, or are you just peeved off that the Lions lost?

biltongbek wrote:Burger didn't blind anyone and as I recall he was found guilty of reckless play

This would seem to say that if the victim wasnt blinded that it is ok.I wont dish a snide comment as I will not lower myself to your level.
If that player comes on against us I promise you that I will stop watching as he crossed the line and I will be no part in his making a living from the game whos ethos he has trodden in the dirt.

biltongbek wrote:Taffin can you tell me what convinces you that Schalk Burger who has never before been guilty of a dirty or foul act did this intentionally, or are you just peeved off that the Lions lost?

Therein lies the problem and if this is to be debated why not debate the issue and not Burger?

in the case of a sport where there is implied consent to commit physical assault the proving of intent, a state of mind not just the act, is almost impossible to prove, as was demonstrated by the criminal investigation into maidstone.
Intent is not best illustrated by the extent of injury - look at how many players have been seriously injured being tackled....did they intend to commit those injuries?

Gouging might be exceptional as the eyes simply have no part to play in terms of it being a contact sport so it might be possible to demonstrate intent merely by the act itself but it's a moot point. If that is the case you can have a panacea approach to 'gouging' which is in my opinion wrong.

You have to look at it as what was the effect on the player....gouging is exceptional, emotive and in my opinion as an ex player pretty indefensible and punishment must be treated on a scalar dependant on the extent of injury.

i'm sure you not watching the game will devastate Schalk burger so much that he'll stop representing his country at the World Cup and take the first flight back to the republik

Taffineastbourne wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Burger didn't blind anyone and as I recall he was found guilty of reckless play

This would seem to say that if the victim wasnt blinded that it is ok.I wont dish a snide comment as I will not lower myself to your level.
If that player comes on against us I promise you that I will stop watching as he crossed the line and I will be no part in his making a living from the game whos ethos he has trodden in the dirt.

Taff you can't be serious!!

Taffin, so based on what you are saying there it is impossible to prove intent? If that is the case one would take previous transgression of a similar or foul nature to see a natural tendency of such a players behaviour.

There for based on his record the logical conclusion is that though rugby is a contct sport and Schalk Burger has never previously harmed another player that he should get the benefit of the doubt.

But you choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

Can you tell me why you simply refuse to believe that it wasn't intentional?

Gatts wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

biltongbek wrote:Burger didn't blind anyone and as I recall he was found guilty of reckless play

This would seem to say that if the victim wasnt blinded that it is ok.I wont dish a snide comment as I will not lower myself to your level.
If that player comes on against us I promise you that I will stop watching as he crossed the line and I will be no part in his making a living from the game whos ethos he has trodden in the dirt.

Taff you can't be serious!!

Seriously,I am.The fella is a disgrace and he casts a shadow whenever he plays.Rugby is a hard physical contest in which players MUST respect both the laws and the spirit of the game.This individual is an abomination and I detest him.If he pulled the same stunt again I would probably end up having a stroke.I was so riled last time when he did Fitzgerald.Could not believe that he got away with it and got selected again.I darent watch him play on health grounds.

Taffin to what level is it that I went?

biltongbek wrote:Taffin, so based on what you are saying there it is impossible to prove intent? If that is the case one would take previous transgression of a similar or foul nature to see a natural tendency of such a players behaviour.

There for based on his record the logical conclusion is that though rugby is a contct sport and Schalk Burger has never previously harmed another player that he should get the benefit of the doubt.

But you choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

Can you tell me why you simply refuse to believe that it wasn't intentional?

Mainly because I saw it.
That chap in Norway had never killed anyone before.Will his lawyers use that as his defence?I would advise them against that ,to be honest.

Well to put this argument to bed ,Fitzgerald thankfully wasnt hurt ,Schalk got the punishement he deserved and his reputation damaged. IT was a disgraceful act end of story

Schalk burger will play world cup rugby God willing whether or not Taffin watches or not . Goodnight

Biltong

It was me writing about intent and i agree that a player's rep determines intent up to a point...i.e. if he has been cited for an offence and suspected of committing it again then it is reasonable to suggest he is guilty but obviously that has it's major flaws.

Like i said at the start i think burger was banned but should have been sent off and i think that is one reason people still bang on about this incident. The series was lost that day hence why people seem to remember it so clearly

I do not accept that it was unintentional....watch the tape...but i also do not believe that proving intent is possible if it might result in a life ban. If however a player gouged and blinded another, irrespective of intent, i belive a life ban is appropriate.

I don't think burger should be villified for one moment of insanity and i am not doing that. Had he or any player caused serious injury, nh, sh or from the flaming moon, i would advocate a ban dependant on the injury caused

TAFF AM GOING TO CALL YOU OUT ON COMPARING THIS INCIDENT WITH ANYTHING TO DO WITH NORWAY

YOU ARE BANG OUT OF ORDER!!!!!

and anyone care to bring this thread back to the original point?

Brussow is class, so is Warbs. Brussow is more experienced and has the better platform and is expert at turning over the ball. But Warbs is a huge presence at the breakdown and is also a fine carrier of the ball with real pace. He reminds me of parisse and is on the verge of world class performances and I put him in the same league as Nugget, Hill, Brussow and McCaw (almost)

In the context of the rest of the pack however i think Brussow has the advantage.

on fetching ability alone Warbuton is not in the same class.

And as a complete 7 and leader Brussow is left wanting

And both of them aren't quite ready as fetcher, carrier, leader to tie McCaws boots. And McCaw is barely qualified to carry water for Michael Jones.
Fact! End off

Gatts wrote:And as a complete 7 and leader Brussow is left wanting

Gatts, I am not sure what an allround seven is supposed to di, but in leadership qualities the man doesn't come short. When he came back from injury in the super15, he inspired his team to their best run in Super15 history, he is a talisman for the Cheetahs and provides huge inspiration for them.

Gatts wrote:TAFF AM GOING TO CALL YOU OUT ON COMPARING THIS INCIDENT WITH ANYTHING TO DO WITH NORWAY

YOU ARE BANG OUT OF ORDER!!!!!

I fail to agree.I was graphically demonstrating the ludicrousness of Rugby disciplinaries taking account of whether there has been any previous.When I was a juror in a very very nasty case we were not made aware of the accused's previous.The case was rightly judged in isolation.Justice was done.
Burger and Azam are two players that I will never watch.Are they bothered?I really couldnt care but I doubt that they would be having seen how little regard they have displayed to fellow players.

Taffin, seeing that you are back this morning for some more, could you care to answer my questions?

based on what you are saying there it is impossible to prove intent? If that is the case one would take previous transgression of a similar or foul nature to see a natural tendency of such a players behaviour.

There for based on his record the logical conclusion is that though rugby is a contct sport and Schalk Burger has never previously harmed another player that he should get the benefit of the doubt.

But you choose to not give him the benefit of the doubt.

Can you tell me why you simply refuse to believe that it wasn't intentional?

I saw it.

The judicial committee also saw it.

right on the gouging thing no matter if its unintentional the person needs to be punished its like when a player gets taken out in the air, no matter if unintentional that is an immediate yellow card because its dangerous.

I have no issue with Burger being banned or carded, I myself do not condone foul play.

Was it Brad Thron that uplifted Jonh Smit in front of the referee that resulted him having to have a neck operation and be out of the game for more than 6 months?

anyway my point is, in any walk of life people transgress the laws of society or in this case the laws of rugby. They are punished, serve their sentence and carry on with their lives.


I also agree that the severity of the injury does not impact the decision of the judicial comittees ban.

but to keep on villifying a player because in this case it seems Taffin just wants to is BS

I'm sure a lot of people here would be highly vocal in their lauding of one Sergio Parisse... yet he was guilty of a similar act only a few months before and was in fact given a longer ban than Schalk.

But because Schalks occurred in probably the biggest test of the year and it occurred to fans of a NH team (being discussed on what is a NH rugby forum) the incident still runs deep with many people both bok & lions fans.

Lets be honest though... if the Lions had gone on to win the match I think it would have been far less of an issue.
Half the reason lions fans are upset is because he only got a yellow card and his 10min sinbin wasn't enough to take the lions clear at the final whistle.

What Schalk did was wrong but given he has a history of being a hard but fair player with no other stains against his otherwise illustrious career it would be unfair to tarnish his career for one moment of madness where it was obvious that the occasion got to him (50th cap, once in a lifetime lions match, 1st minute).

Lets get back to the original debate of Wales vs. SA though. Think Mike Phillips will be very important. He is the one player who could really cause SA problems.... he showed this in the lions tour back in 09.

SA will target his temprament though... I'm sure Bakkies will be rubbing his face in mud within the first couple of rucks just to remind him he's there.

FA0019 - Mike Phillips is someone I expect to have a huge world cup.

He's been horribly off-form for a while, the second half of the season he didnt feature for the ospreys and was caught up in a lot of off-field controversy - Rumours/Chinese whispers say his break up with his girlfriend really affected him and he turned to drink during this time.

The Welsh teams trip to Poland has really rejuvented some players, and it was a dry camp (no alcohol), funnily enough, Mike Phillips comes back and has 2 of his best games in a long long time.

Im expecting Lions-tour-esque things from him. If he's on top form along with Bennett(sigh)/2nd rows/Warburton Im expecting a decent showing at the world cup from wales. They've always had the backs to score, but the forwards were traditionally the problem, they've come on leaps and bounds since Gatland took over. What better test than the masters of the forward/power & set-piece game in the world cup?

As for the Burger 'gouge', a stupid incident, he'll be ashamed of himself for that no doubt, but along with Bakkies, I think they tend to get an unfair wrap for being hard players, the type who'd probably smash you/wind you up/get you off your game on the field but be the first to buy you a pint afterwards.

Gouging could be debated for hours, I think everyone will agree it has no place anywhere, let alone a rugby field.