Super XV: Roundup Week 7.

First topic message reminder :

At the end of week 7 the Stormers remain the only unbeaten team after they were once again very solid in defence. Travelling teams who got solid away wins were: Stormers and Chiefs.
Here is a list of the travelling results so far.

Home team first.

Stormers 39 - Hurricanes 26
Lions 28 - Hurricanes 30
Western Force 19 - Hurricanes 46
Brumbies 24 - Cheetahs 23
Highlanders 18 - Waratahs 17
Bulls 23 - Blues 29
Chiefs 29 - Brumbies 22
Stormers 27 - Blues 17
Sharks 27 - Reds 22
Rebels 26 - Cheetahs 33
Waratahs 34 - Sharks 30
Crusaders 28 - Cheetahs 21
Brumbies 33 - Highlanders 26
Bulls 61 - Reds 8
Highlanders 43 - Rebels 12
Hurricanes 38 - Cheetahs 47
Chiefs 30 - Waratahs 13
Brumbies 26 - Sharks 29
Lions 13 - Crusaders 23
Highlanders 6 - Stormers 21
Western Force 12 - Chiefs 20
Hurricanes 42 - Sharks 18
Rebels 34 - Blues 23
Bulls 32 - Crusaders 30

Summary.
Australian teams at home: 4 wins - 4 losses
Australian teams away: 0 wins – 6 losses

South African teams at home: 5 wins – 3 losses
South African teams away: 4 wins – 4 losses

New Zealand teams at home: 6 wins – 2 losses
New Zealand teams away: 5 wins – 5 losses


Log ignoring bye log points and based on team's log points earned per match played.

Doc the whole thing stinks. I didn't hear what chiliboy or v d Merwe said to the referee. From the match recording itself all I saw was chiliboy indicating to his eye. From V d Merwe I saw nothing. So I am not sure what was said for the referee to produce the white cards.


To me the question is, did they say I had a finger in my eye, or did they say, Someone gouged me. As the Committee said, it is interesting that the Bulls didn't follow through with a complaint within the required 4 hour window.

So the best thing here would be for a full declaration by the players and referee as to exactly what was said or alleged. If there was a direct allegation pertaining to gouging (and not just saying I felt something in my eye) then the players must be requested to state why they said that, and if the judiciary committee is not satisfied with their explanation, then a fine to each player should be effected. The Bulls themselves should not only provide a public apology but should be forced to address the issue with their players as to the ethics of the game an given community service whereby they must go to a number of schools to educate them on the ethics of rugby and foul play.

That should prevent players from accusing other players without cause.

Punishment, mmmm, it'd be easy to scream blue murder but the reality was that no one was hurt except for the crusaders' image (albeit temporarily) and the bulls' image (in NZ). Biltong mentioned a suite of things that should happen. Think all the crusaders want is a humble apology. I'd be happy with that. No need for fines or public statements etc.

I still reckon the on field allegations were related to the new white card, and the 'small' advantage you can leverage out of it (eg, refs perception of the crusaders being serial gougers, team talks, crowd etc). If sanzar make a definitive call about how/when they're to be issued, to ensure this doesn't happen again after just an allegation (with no evidence of physical damage), then that's a good outcome.

I don't want to see the bulls persicuted, they tried it on, it back fired, but it mustn't happen again. I mean the bulls couldn't be accused of being subtle could they, not one false eye gouge, but two! Ham fisted or what. Maybe the first gouge allegation didnt produce the card so they upped the stakes to two. What ref wouldn't react. As there were two allegations, indicates it wasn't a one man decision, but perhaps a 'team' decision, which is a worry. Was the coach involved? Im sure all would be forgiven if they simply apologised to the crusaders and got wrap over the knuckles from sanzar.

EBOP wrote:I don't want to see the bulls persicuted, they tried it on, it back fired, but it mustn't happen again. I mean the bulls couldn't be accused of being subtle could they, not one false eye gouge, but two! Ham fisted or what. Maybe the first gouge allegation didnt produce the card so they upped the stakes to two. What ref wouldn't react. As there were two allegations, indicates it wasn't a one man decision, but perhaps a 'team' decision, which is a worry. Was the coach involved? Im sure all would be forgiven if they simply apologised to the crusaders and got wrap over the knuckles from sanzar.

EBOP, I do think an example must be made out of this though.

The judiciary committee must make a "show" of how false accusations will also be investigated, otherwise it leaves the door open for this to happen again. Shut the door now and make an example out of this incident.

Agree. and as I said earlier, the prosecution and punishment for false accusations must be careful in order to ensure anyone who feels justifiably fouled is comfortable coming forward.

Clearly false claims are bad.
The actual gouge is bad.
But if someone doesn't come forwards due to concerns about the ramafications of making a claim which might not hold up for any reason, that is bad too.

I think we are all on the same page here.

Here's a link to Blackadder's response to the citing commissioner deciing not to proceed http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/6712921/Crusaders-cleared-over-eye-gouging-claims

On a more positive note, I read that when Jimmy Cowan came off the bench for his 100th Highlanders game several Stormers players shook his hand, and after the game JDV gave Cowan a Stormers 9 jersey as a memento. Nice touch. Especially as the Stormers were facing a 4 hour coach trip to their hotel post-match (whoever booked their tour arrangements didn't realise how far it is from Dunedin to Queenstown).

There's an announcement on Cowan's future due in a few days, but he's hopingf to get 6 INL cup games for Southland to bring up his ton for them. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/6711046/Jimmy-Cowan-wants-Super-Stags-double-ton

Yeah it was a nice, they obviously knew about it when he came on, even Tiaan Liebenberg unbound from his props as Jimmy came the feed the scrum when he came on to congratulate him.

Courtesy of supersport.

The Vodacom Bulls will not agree to a demand from Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder that they need to apologise after no evidence of eye-gouging was found by Sanzar’s judiciary system, High Performance and Media Manager Ian Schwartz said on Monday.

Blackadder told a post-match media briefing in Pretoria on Saturday that he expected an apology from the Bulls – a statement he repeated to the New Zealand media – should the allegations be found to be false.

According to Sanzar, no evidence on the matter could be sourced via video material available.

Sanzar CEO Greg Peters said there was no evidence to substantiate the claims after it was fully reviewed by the citing commissioner (Freek Burger) and the video evidence did not support any further action being taken.

“The Bulls are not interested in getting into a public spat with the Crusaders, as we always had the greatest respect for them and a very cordial relationship,” Schwartz said.

The Bulls are standing their ground on claims made by their players, Chiliboy Ralepelle and Flip van der Merwe.

The two Bulls forwards complained to referee Jaco Peyper that they had been eye-gouged during Saturday's match, won 32-30 by the Bulls. Peyper used a white card to refer the incidents to the citing commissioner.

"The rules are clear and we applied them 100 percent correctly. We had the right to raise the matter with the referee and we accept the fact that there was no video evidence," said Schwartz

He stressed that the Bulls' players' integrity is above reproach.

"I just want to say that our players' integrity is just as important to us, as the Crusaders' players integrity is to them. I feel the players will not make unfounded accusations unless something has happened.”

No apology will be extended.

"For them to suggest we must now apologise, just because there is no video evidence available, would mean we have lied. It is ridiculous to suggest that every time there is a citing and there is not enough evidence, the other team should apologise.

"It is a pity they have raised the matter through the media, as our doors of communication with them has always been open for a direct approach. We would have followed the official and appropriate channels.”

It seems they see the issue completely different to how we see it.

I think it does have an impact on the game. If a ref feels he is continually 'missing' such foul acts of play against the one team by another he may feel he needs to make up for it in other areas such as 50-50 calls or perhaps when having to punish the already seemingly punished team.

That also explains why it suddenly all disappeared after the match. It was on field advantage they were after.

Perhaps it even mirrors your post sharks match posting about handling the rucks. I.e. Yours being perhaps a more understandable response. Theirs was a way of addressing what they thought was an injustice to the sharks- by a nz ref.

Sounds perfectly logical to me im afraid.

Perhaps, but it still doesn't make any sense to me.

I have to agree with BB on this one.... I can't see the benefits of making a baseless eye gouging allegation either in the ST or the LT.

In the ST, the ref may be more cautious around the breakdown and ask his assistants to be more wary but otherwise I doubt he would try and give them benefits on 50:50 calls.

In the LT you don't want your integrity to be questioned... either by later fines or by future refs not believing your story when it does actually happen.

Very bizarre how 2 players complained. What goes on isn't necessarily always caught on camera.

I would generally say that rugby does tend to have a comradre about it... players are hard but honourable and tend to respect their opposition and get along with many of them.

Who do I believe... for me I reckon contact was made with the face on flip at some point... enough that a number of players complained.... but was it an actual gouge, probably not. I haven't seen any video evidence for this but I just doesn't understand why the bulls would say so otherwise.

Whats ST and LT?
In any case its too unlikely to be bizarre. When ever have there been 2 separate allegations of eye gouging in the same match, no fuss at the time no proof, nor raised after the match.

Most likeliest scenario is at least 2 players have talked and created this situation.

I suppose one has to remember that since the white card is on trial throughout this competition,then the Bulls have probably done everyone a big favour by bringing this flaw to everyones attention.

I bet none of the proponents of the "on report" system ever envisaged anyone trying this tactic,especially at professional level.

biltongbek wrote:Courtesy of supersport.

The Vodacom Bulls will not agree to a demand from Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder that they need to apologise after no evidence of eye-gouging was found by Sanzar’s judiciary system, High Performance and Media Manager Ian Schwartz said on Monday.

Blackadder told a post-match media briefing in Pretoria on Saturday that he expected an apology from the Bulls – a statement he repeated to the New Zealand media – should the allegations be found to be false.

According to Sanzar, no evidence on the matter could be sourced via video material available.

Sanzar CEO Greg Peters said there was no evidence to substantiate the claims after it was fully reviewed by the citing commissioner (Freek Burger) and the video evidence did not support any further action being taken.

“The Bulls are not interested in getting into a public spat with the Crusaders, as we always had the greatest respect for them and a very cordial relationship,” Schwartz said.

The Bulls are standing their ground on claims made by their players, Chiliboy Ralepelle and Flip van der Merwe.

The two Bulls forwards complained to referee Jaco Peyper that they had been eye-gouged during Saturday's match, won 32-30 by the Bulls. Peyper used a white card to refer the incidents to the citing commissioner.

"The rules are clear and we applied them 100 percent correctly. We had the right to raise the matter with the referee and we accept the fact that there was no video evidence," said Schwartz

He stressed that the Bulls' players' integrity is above reproach.

"I just want to say that our players' integrity is just as important to us, as the Crusaders' players integrity is to them. I feel the players will not make unfounded accusations unless something has happened.”

No apology will be extended.

"For them to suggest we must now apologise, just because there is no video evidence available, would mean we have lied. It is ridiculous to suggest that every time there is a citing and there is not enough evidence, the other team should apologise.

"It is a pity they have raised the matter through the media, as our doors of communication with them has always been open for a direct approach. We would have followed the official and appropriate channels.”

It seems they see the issue completely different to how we see it.

Well, the crusaders must be eye gougers based on this response, unbelievable! Can't believe they got away with it, a disgrace really. I've just heard on NZ radio sport that sanzar will now require that on field allegations be backed up by a formal complaint (perhaps check this). The loop hole appears to have been closed to stop this tomfoolery happening again. The whole affair makes the bulls look like cowards. I have no problem with this perception, given the crusaders are now perceived as serial eye gougers.

fa0019, I agree with your sentiments about rugby honour and comradarie, especially between the SH teams. You can always see the respect the SA and NZ teams have for each other (stormers and cowan a recent example). But this whole eye gouging thing makes you wonder what damage it does to these relations. I bet the bulls' statement has inflamed the situation for the crusaders and I'll be interested to see how they react next time they meet. Also, if like you say, Flip felt something across his face but not necessarily a gouge, then why escalate it into an eye gouge allegation requiring a white card. Lastly, when did SA players turn into tittle tattlers. Why not smack the offender in the chops? An eye gouger would deserve that. And the official complaint made after the game about the eye gouge allegation (with actual evidence), exonerating the retaliation. None of this happened because the bulls told porkies and didn't have the guts to admit it.

fa0019, I agree with your sentiments about rugby honour and comradarie, especially between the SH teams. You can always see the respect the SA and NZ teams have for each other (stormers and cowan a recent example). But this whole eye gouging thing makes you wonder what damage it does to these relations. I bet the bulls' statement has inflamed the situation for the crusaders and I'll be interested to see how they react next time they meet. Also, if like you say, Flip felt something across his face but not necessarily a gouge, then why escalate it into an eye gouge allegation requiring a white card. Lastly, when did SA players turn into tittle tattlers. Why not smack the offender in the chops? An eye gouger would deserve that. And the official complaint made after the game about the eye gouge allegation (with actual evidence), exonerating the retaliation. None of this happened because the bulls told porkies and didn't have the guts to admit it

It will be sad if relations are harmed by this incident indeed. I would love to know exactly what was said by Chiliboy and Flip as the key to this whole incident lies in that.

As for retaliation, well that is a no no, South african rugby players have enough of a reputation for dirty play, we do not need more of that.

As for the porkies, well the same as I have given the benefit of the doubt to the Crusaders in believing they aren't dirty players, the same benefit of the doubt must be extended to the Bulls.

It is an unsavoury incident best forgotten. As Laurie said, at least now the flaw in the system has been shown up.

Well said Biltong.

On a lighter note, here are the tries of the round
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDN4DEw83zk&feature=share

biltongbek wrote:

fa0019, I agree with your sentiments about rugby honour and comradarie, especially between the SH teams. You can always see the respect the SA and NZ teams have for each other (stormers and cowan a recent example). But this whole eye gouging thing makes you wonder what damage it does to these relations. I bet the bulls' statement has inflamed the situation for the crusaders and I'll be interested to see how they react next time they meet. Also, if like you say, Flip felt something across his face but not necessarily a gouge, then why escalate it into an eye gouge allegation requiring a white card. Lastly, when did SA players turn into tittle tattlers. Why not smack the offender in the chops? An eye gouger would deserve that. And the official complaint made after the game about the eye gouge allegation (with actual evidence), exonerating the retaliation. None of this happened because the bulls told porkies and didn't have the guts to admit it

It will be sad if relations are harmed by this incident indeed. I would love to know exactly what was said by Chiliboy and Flip as the key to this whole incident lies in that.

As for retaliation, well that is a no no, South african rugby players have enough of a reputation for dirty play, we do not need more of that.

As for the porkies, well the same as I have given the benefit of the doubt to the Crusaders in believing they aren't dirty players, the same benefit of the doubt must be extended to the Bulls.

It is an unsavoury incident best forgotten. As Laurie said, at least now the flaw in the system has been shown up.

Biltong I agree with the flaw comment. Can't agree with tbe same benefit of the doubt.

If you think two completely unsubstantiated isolated eye gouging incidents in the very same match can occur when they probably occur at this level perhaps once every 2 or 3 years at best- and even then there are more to them than no evidence whatsoever, then you can apply thay benefit of doubt.

I dont expect many will and one of the upshots is it will make a very intetesting match for a very angry crusaders team against the stormers this weekend.

So I suppose perhaps its a good thing it has happened for that reason as well.

Its obvious this is rubbish and Im sorry but it once again reflects the darker side of SA rugby that seems to rear its ugly head now and again.

Just my opinion...

Sorry kiwi. Was tapping away during your lighter note post.

Finished my say on this now as it just aired on our news here.

As Ive said it will help the saders cause this weekend against the stormers so the bulls may have done them a favour...the stormers possibly not as happy as they could be now perhaps.

Taylorman, without knowing what was said by chiliboy and Flip I reserve judgement.

The fact is if the Bulls wanted to make this serious they would have followed it up with an official complaint which they didn't do. that tells me that the comments was in the heat of the moment, and because we don't know what was said, I have no opinion on that.

You are obviously entitled to add to your perception of the "darker side" of SA rugby, it is something we have been tarred with for a long time now.

Best tries for me was the Chiefs one with Williams (great hands), Pietersen of the Stormers, great individual skill and support, Andre Taylor's try breaking inside and scoring, of course the dummy and run by Dean Greyling and Zack Guildford great team try.

I just hope this doesnt in any way draw any negative publicity for the white card which has been working brilliantly so far reducing the number of wrongly awarded yellow or red cards when foul play is only suspected.
by the match officials,and games have run for 80 minutes seeing 15 men playing against 15.
Biltong

Another consequence of these types of allegations is the hopeless situation the accused team is placed in trying to prove their innocence.You may not be aware of a New Zealand cricketer by the name of Chris Cairns ,his father was also well known and most respected black cap.Anyway Chris Cairns was accused of match fixing in by some Indian,an allegation that Cairns vehemently denied,. to clear his name he had to head off to the Old Bailey and sue for libel to prove he was not a match fixer.

Laurie, I understand exactly how you feel about this. But in this case apart from publicaly denying it, they never had a case to answer as it was reported by Freek Burger the Judiciary officer.

So up to that point it was a nothing, and their reputation by virtue of that judgment has been restored.

The point that seems to be forgotten here is that the Bulls had the option open to them to lodge an offical complaint within 4 hours of the completion of the match. Had they done that, I would have said OK, now their is a case for them to apologise (which I think personally they might as well do just to clear the air).

The Bulls say if they apologise it indicates they were lying. Thus they won't apologise.

These are the facts.

We don't know hat Chiliboy and Flip van der Merwe said to the referee. It could have been as simple as, I had something in my eye, or someone stuck a finger in my eye, or someone gouged me, whatever it was we don't know.

The referee Jaco Peyper has a white card system at his disposal, so it takes nothing away from the game to say OK, I'll put it in as something that needs to be reviewed.

The Bulls
CoULD, but DIDN'T put an official compaint in as was their right.

Freek Burger came back and said there is no case to answer as there is no video evidence.

From this we can summise, SOMETHING happened, but there is no evidence, it could have been a heat of the moment thing, or it could have been deliberate, or accidental.

The point is there are no facts and no official complaint.

You can feel about the accusation as you want and stand by the character of your countrymen, I on the other hand, have never seen or heard either of those two players do anything that would suggest to me that they are the kind that would purposely accuse anyone of anything untoward. Hence I have to beleive they wouldn't do it this time.

I stand by my ground that something must have happened, most likely accidental, but the Bulls weren't convinced it was deliberate, hence they didn't take it further.

I understand why they say they don't want to apologise because it means they lied. I would however have liked them to publically say why chiliboy and Flip felt they were deliberately or accidentally gouged and justify their on field complaint, even if they then didn't apologise, the incident would have more clarity.

For me this incident is done and dusted.

Here is a picture of Flip van der Merwe's face during the game on the weekend, can't say what happened or how it happened, could have been anything.

Spoiler:

Ouch. In that case, I can see why he complained.

With the pictures of Flip in the papers this morning it will be interesting to hear what the Crusaders now say.

You don't get an injury like that without a hand or perhaps a boot. You don't get that from being struck in the face with a ball.

Intentional... without video evidence or like the Ferris Hartely saga; player testimony it will be impossible to prove.

Giving benefit of doubt to the Crusader players, sometimes these things happen...especially with the way the rucks are now policed. But the player who did commit this (either intentionally or by accident) will know he made contact with Flips eye. Someone is keeping quiet.

Biltong
Nice try,but the wound to van der Merve's face between minutes 23 and 25 (had it, didnt have it) it looks like it occured in a ruck when,when he copped kieren Reid's boot.
Nearly half an hour before he complained of being eye gouged.

If anyone in south Africa is trying to say that this wound happened as a result of the gouge in the beginning of the second half then why did it take him half an hour to think to report it?

If you get the New Zealand programme reunion,then have a look at it as they have identified all these sorts of things.Frozen and magnified the shots and the clock is quite clear.

Laurie, nice try what?

I got the picture from an article that discussed the whole situation, I said I don't know how it happened or what happened.

You are ntitled to your view on this, I am not justifying it in any way. The article discussed it, I showed the picture.

The Crusaders have been exonerated. The Bulls are cheats. Sorted.

Biltong
I feel you were being mischievious,posting the picture, and just leaving it hanging "out there" and not making it clear that the wound under his right eye had absolutely nothing with the eye gouging allegation.
Yes,I like you am entitled to my point of view and I prefer to make my conclusions by studying all the available facts.

I put the facts up as I find them, there was no caption on the pitcure giving a time, so I don't know when it happened.

But before we allow this situation to get between the mutual respect we have for each other I am going to refrain from any further comment regarding the issue.

I think what this incident has shown up in the white card rules is that incidents of this nature have to be discussed so the types of reactions we have got (not unreasonably I might add) on this thread don´t occur.

To me, if you make such allegations - let´s face it the worst type of offence in rugby - then you have to clarify why you made those allegations after the match. Otherwise people have to make up their own minds about it and draw their own conclusions. It looks as though this loophole has been cleared now and the white card system is the better for it.

Glad my Crusaders didn't do anything stupid but don't necessarily blame the Bulls players for airing their grievances. But I do think that those kinds of allegations need to be discussed openly as mud can stick whether they´re reviewed or not.

the problem is that there are no evidence to either prove or disprove the allegations made-from what i have found on the incident.
i admittedly did not watch the whole game as i was visiting family and did not even know about the allegations until after the game.there is a video clip of the chilli boy incident on the superxv website but nothing on flip.when did spies make the allegation and what was said to the ref.the rucks are anything but organised and structured with hands and bodies flying in all the time and a lot still happens in the rucks which we won't see.
but the case has been looked at and the crusaders are cleared and the bulls come away from it without repercussions as to the allegations due to lack of evidence and that is unfortunately that.the bulls are refusing to apologise as it would seem that they are then guilty of false allegations.
because of that all we have are assumptions, the mother of all f ups, and with the assumptions to back our statements we are trying to prove our point,as with the statement made on said clip.i can see where todd blackadder is coming from but then to counter that statement did he have to roll on the ground holding his eye (as you find in football) to prove his point.
all i am trying to say is that what happened the weekend happens in ALL sport from time to time and will continue to do so and nothing you do will stop it no matter how many cameras or preventative measures are put in place.i never have or will condone foul play (which is a sentiment everyone in their right mind should share) and there is no place for it on the sport field but with the pressures that are put on professional athletes these days you will find certain individuals who will do what ever it takes............

Hi stormers, good to see you starting to post.

From what I understand it wasn't Spies that made the allegations, The referee told him what happened.

my mistake then but i am sure i read it was spies who brought the allegations to the refs attention.

following these gouging allegations:
SANZAR boss Greg Peters says ,"We'll be telling the teams today that there'll be an expectation from SANZAR that if they make a referral on field that they follow it up with a report after the match," Peters says.

Peters warns false claims will be dealt with.

"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."

Peters warns false claims will be dealt with.

"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."

I think that is a good thing, should have been discussed before it was instituted though.

In fairness to the Bulls the AB's accused Rougerie of gouging McCaw in the RWC final, then didn't follow up with a report until it was too late (though there was some supporting video evidence in that case)

Ag kiwi, there are always two sides to an incident like this and the truth somewhere in the middle. It is understandable that the Crusaders' supporters are up in arms, but their team has been exonerated.

There isn't much else to say, the Bulls believe if they apologise then they are admitting they lied, and believes the fact of no evidence doesn't mitigate their belief that something has happened.

The Stormers were given the ultimate compliment (I think) last night on RE-UNION.

They were accused of cheating at the breakdown, and doing it very, very well indeed.

I don't know what the guys name is, perhaps one of the NZ boys can tell me, it wasn't TJ or Liam, it was the other guy, sitting on the left as you look at the TV screen.

I never thought I would get to hear those words spoken about an SA team.

Biltong
By thursday night Ive seen so many rugby programmes,my memory is a bit hazy,but if I remember correctly at that time Tony Johnson (Sky commentator) was talking to a panel of John Preston (ex AB,Hurricane and Bath 5/8th) and Leon Mcdonald (ex AB,Crusader)

Preston is quite an interesting guy to listen ,really informative on inside backs, I cant remember anyone having any gripes with how the Stormers played,in fact everyone I think was in awe of their performance last weekend.So take it as a compliment,theres nothing wrong with cheating so long as its done well.

Preston, that's the guy. He wasn't being negative Laurie, he was complimenting them, that's why I am impressed that someone in NZ found a South African team"getting away with things", it has never happened before.

Biltong
Although New Zealanders never have and never would cheat,When we see quality cheating we do have the utmost respect and admiration for it.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Biltong
Although New Zealanders never have and never would cheat,When we see quality cheating we do have the utmost respect and admiration for it.

I gotcha mate.

The Aussie commenators' Plays of the Week are out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxW4rMsatWI&feature=player_embedded