Super XV: Roundup Week 7.

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.

Most startling aspect is to see the top oz sides at 6 and 9 due to their inability to win against the other two conferences.
They face having one team in the qualifying 6 for sure. Deans must be concerned at progress of his top feeders and any welsh watching might be holdong back a grin or two also.
Early days but not a good sign.

Crusaders are starting to show some form and will be difficult when back at home with their skip back. Hopefully we can get three through as its difficult to separate our top 4.

Biltong
Didnt the blues beat the Bulls at Loftus? Perhaps I was dreaming it,or am I misunderstanding your away/win/loss stat.

Also you cant be too tough on the Blues its the only win they've had.

Yeah its there laurie. One of the five wins in bold down the right hand side. 5 Wins 5 losses not 5 matches 5 losses which i think you ar e confusing with.

I see it now,plain as day, must be going mad.

Deans?
Think hes concerned or is he just used to getting his best 22 and going from there?
Does he have input into the teams or is it just that theres still no depth and hes resigned to that being acceptable?

Dont worry about Deans the coach that going to get all the attention next week is Pat Lam.

I have'nt seen anything from our Northern hemisphere mates,but rumour suggest that if he were to walk,possible destinations could be Bath (He's old buddies with McGeechan when at Northampton) the other one is Munster, but I dont know what connection there.

From the three nations participating you would expect them to have a positive ledger balance at the end of the super XV.

So with 16 away matches and 16 home matches they would want to end up with an absolute minimum of 17 wins and 15 losses. But that would only mean they are slightly above par compared to the other nations.

Considering that you might have 1 or 2 team struggling it is probably unlikely to expect much more than that as some teams will travel poorly and be easy targets and if you lack depth of players this is likely to happen.

From individual team perspectvies to qualify you must earn a minimum of 3 points per match otherwise you are in real danger of not qualifying for the knock out matches. This means you are aiming for 24 points from your 8 home and tour matches outside your conference.

So which teams are on par and which are not:

Hurricanes 16 points from 5 matches - 3 left require another 8 points
Stormers 12 points from 3 matches - 5 left require another 12 points
Chiefs 12 points from 3 matches - 5 left require another 12 points
Bulls 10 points from 3 matches - 5 left require another 14 points
Crusaders 9 points from 3 matches - 5 left require another 15 points
Cheetahs 11 points from 4 matches - 4 left require another 13 points
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharks 10 points from 4 matches - 4 left require another 14 points
Brumbies 10 points from 4 matches - 4 left require another 14 points
Highlanders 10 points from 4 matches - 4 left require another 14 points
Waratahs 6 points from 3 games - 5 left require another 18 points
Rebels 5 points from 3 matches - 5 left require another 19 points
Blues 4 points from 3 matches - 5 left require another 20 points
Lions 1 point from 2 matches - 6 left require another 23 points
Reds 1 point from 2 matches - 6 left require another 23 points
Western Force 0 points from 2 matches - 6 left require another 24 points

Realistically speaking Rebels, Blues, Lions, Reds, and the Western Force is out of it, they effectively have to win just about every match outside the local derbies. Western Force still has to tour, Lions still has to tour, Reds still have to tour NZ, Blues have one tour match left in Australia, Rebels still has to tour.

The Waratahs still has to tour South Africa and has an outside chance, but has to gain 4 out of 5 wins plus 2 bonus points.

Cheetahs only have home matches left, Brumbies still has three away matches, Sharks has one left, Strormers still has three away matches, Crusaders still has to tour Australia, Hurricanes has one away match left, Chiefs has three away matches left, Bulls have not yet toured, Chiefs still has to tour South Africa.

Well its all about winning the home conference first. The placings only decide 3 spots.
Even if you come 7th overall which is where it falls down. With a second round of home matches an oz team must finish top 6 but the second team could be outside the next 3 and miss out.

Looks like we have an eyegouging complaint against the saders. From the replays franks looks like one of the likeliest if its true. Very unlike this team to be involved in this sort of thuggery so we'll see how it pans out.

Apparantly there are two complaints one from chiliboy and one from Spies.

It could just be accidental

Yes i saw chilliboys during the match- get on white card i mean.
Overall spme very good rugby played by the SA and NZ sides.Havnt seen the oz 5 in suxh a poor state ad this before.

Well I don't think this will be indictave of their Test quality and perfromances though.

But their Franchises are struggling. It just shows what happens when you get injuries and you have no depth.

Can you remember whether the Reds had a lot of injuries last year?

From Supersport website

The Crusaders wasted the early advantage and were then accused of two counts of eye-gouging by the Vodacom Bulls as the New Zealanders were beaten 32-30 by the South African team in their Super Rugby match at Loftus Versfeld on Saturday.

Referee Jaco Peyper issued white cards for further consideration of television evidence by the citing commissioner after Bulls hooker Chiliboy Ralepelle and captain Pierre Spies accused the Crusaders of eye-gouging them in the ruck

Apparently both Chiliboy Ralepelle and Flip Van der Merwe are making allegations of eye gouging,as in two separate incidents,if it is true and its an All Black they will never play for the ABs again.

If however they are poven to be false allegations then two very,very big apologies must be forthcoming.

I can't believe it is true, if anything it will be an accidental thing, the rucks were rather ferocious yesterday.

I didnt see the game,it was on at 3 in the morning,and havent seen a replay.

I cant believe a proffessional rugby player would make a false allegation of eye gouging surely,

I don't think the allegations are false per se, but I think there is another explanation as to how it happened.The Crusaders are a very professional outfit and it is highly unlikely that it there was any intent, it could possibly just be a hand that struck an eye in the passing.

Two separate complaints by two separate players???

No players in their right minds would make these allegations unless they are very confident that the complaints will be proven,it is the most serious allegation that any player can allege against another player.

Yes it is a serious allegation and one that you must be very certain of otherwise you will lose a lot of credibility and respect as a player.

So obviously they felt there was a ligitimate claim, but a "gouge" can be interpreted in many ways.

It could be intentional
It could be reckless
Or it could simply be in the act of tackling or rucking or grabbing the ball, and your hand grazes the face totally unintentional as it passes your eyes.

The question is how bad is it as I didn't see anyone grabbing their eyes in discomfort, so it couldn't have been a lingering finger.

From that I can only deduce that it was accidental. I wouldn't make too much out of this until there is actual proof of deliberate or reckless gouging.

At this stage the Crusaders are denying it.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/6709771/Crusaders-deny-Bulls-eye-gouging-allegations

I really hope there's an accidental contact, because if there was gouging I'm disgusted, and if there was a false allegation I'm almost as disgusted.

I will be equally disgusted, it is as bad to discredit a player or team to allege eye gouging as it is to recklessly or deliberately commiting it.

biltongbek wrote:So obviously they felt there was a ligitimate claim, but a "gouge" can be interpreted in many ways.

It could be intentional
It could be reckless
Or it could simply be in the act of tackling or rucking or grabbing the ball, and your hand grazes the face totally unintentional as it passes your eyes.

Sounds like some of the explanations for Rougerie incident (if there really was one) in the RWC. Not bringing that back up for any reason except to say we should let justice take its course and see if there is any evidence. Personally, I thought there was nothing more than hands passing over of the face, like a graze. Others thought quite differently. The citing window had passed, so it was never investigated.

Absolutely no doubts the eye-gouge is one of the lowest forms of human behaviour on the pitch.

• If accusations are true, then the offender must be gone for a long, long time (certainly not less time the person gouged)

• If the accusations are false, then there must very close scrutiny to see if anything in the eye area might have occurred to make a player believe a gouge was attempted. We don't want to make the risk of reporting a potential gouge too high and thereby discourage reporting.

• And if the accusations are a complete fabrication, with no possible alternative explanation, then the accuser must also go, for a long time.

When were the incidents supposed to have happened? I recorded the match but have not watched yet.

[quote="doctor_grey]
When were the incidents supposed to have happened? I recorded the match but have not watched yet. [/quote]

About midway through the 2nd half IIRC. I was getting a lot of <cough> transmission interference so it was hard to tell what was going on. I'm guessing Rugby Dumpwill have a clip in a day or two.

I recorded the game to see if I could see anything, on 39 minutes 07 seconds, Ralapelle joins a ruck to and gets his hands on the ball, Wyat Crockett and Franks joins the ruck from behind and envelops Ralapelle, Crockett is on the left hand side and Franks on the right hand side, you can see the tape around Ralapelle's head and a hand that is lingering there for a while, but you cannot see anything else. It could be that they were just trying to get the ball.

It is definitely Crockett's hand.

Do any of you know when the other incident supposedly occured?

You sure that's the incident?
Ralapelle's head disappears and I can't see anything besides Crockett's hand going towards there as well. But Ralapelle comes out of there and is not rubbing his eyes.

That is definitely the Ralapelee incident, and as I said earlier, it had to have been accidental as I didn't see him rubbing his eyes either.

With Mccaw it was a little more obvious particularly when read was screaming away at the time and mccaw came up bloodshot and had the marks around his eyes at the awards etc the next day.

In yesterdays game ref talked to chilli then i think it was spies that said to the ref after he talked to the ref and asked 'whats happening'. Ref told spies theres been an allegation of eye gouging and its on report.

I cant believe the attitude of some of you guys, surely common sense tells you that two incidents of eye gouging in agame (one in each half) is very suspicous,especially from ateam that has no track record for it in the past,well apart from Ron Cribb and that was over a decade ago.

Any person that lays one let alone two false complaints of eye gouging s gutless,its a cheap shot,and it brings the game into disrepute,and that persons should be banned from the game for a period no shorter than the 12 week window for the offence of eye gouging itself.

We all,when playing rugby have been accidently poked in the eye,half the time by one of our own team mates.

Laurie, not sure what you mean. We are all waiting to see what this is all about, the one incident we do know of shows no proof.

And as we said it is as disgusting to accuse someone of it as it it to commit the actual gouge.

We are all waiting to see what this is all about.

Biltong
The more you think about it surely you realise that its all a load of BS,in other words false allegation,sorry got that wrong allegations.

Like I said earlier, it could have been accidental. Much like a rake across the face as the hand passes by. As much as I can't beleive the Crusaders would do something like this deliverately, Chiliboy has never made a ruckus or false allegations before.

Perhaps it was a mere poke in the eye and he mentioned it the the referee. I can also not beleive he will do it purposely, that is why it is better not to make too many assumptions until we know what is going on.

I think we're going to be waiting a long time.

Isn't there a window for these allegations?

I've got Biltong's back on this Laurie. Neither one of us is claiming there was a gouge, only that there were reports of two. And we can really only find one incident on our replays. And that incident has no visible evedence from the angles we have seen. Wondering where the other incident was.

I don't think either of us were making any declarative statements about the specific alleged gouges. Only that gouging itself deserves concrete and mostly very high levels of punishment. And false accusers also deserve severe punishment. Only grey area is when a person feels they were gouged and there are mitigating circumstances/

"Sanzar chief executive Greg Peters said last night the citing commissioner viewed the incidents from several camera angles not seen by television viewers and had decided there was no case to answer".

Sounds like there was no gouging. Looking back on it, the ref, linesman, tv cameras didn't see it, no marks or bloodshot eyes, and there was no punch up or angry remonstrations at the time of each alleged incident, only what appeared to be a mild mannered discussion with the ref. Smelled like a rat at the time.

Hopefully refs will be instructed not to issue white cards after 'allegations' of foul play made by players with something to gain. The refs should only issue a white card based on what they've 'actually' seen or 'thought' they've seen.

The mild mannered side of me thinks perhaps there was a misunderstanding and the bulls players felt something touch their eye. The realist in me suspects this was a low down dirty case of trying to gain an advantage by any means. I won't call it cheating but it's borderline.

Doc
The reason why there is no evidence of either incident, is because there was no eye gouging,Not only should both Chiliboy and VanderMerve apologise to the Crusaders but they want to consider what happens in the future when someone has a genuine complaint of eye gouging and they are not taken seriously.

The offence of eye gouging is one of the worst in the game,for players to start make malicious,frivoluous allegations against innocent players then they undermine the seriousness of the substantive charge.

On a side note if the Bulls players were genuine then they could of at least out of respect to the citing commissioner and the process assisted the commissioner to identify the incidents.but they didnt.

It is odd that the only 'evidence' is the allegations themselves. No reactions. No video.

Agree with the white card comment. A player can basically tell a ref to white card the other side?

Really? Is that within its scope. I men they cant yellow card the other side can they.
That definitely needs looking at.

It doesnt sound like either player to raise it but now that the citing commissioner has found nothing- two separate incidents same match against Im assuming two different players with no evidence for either?

Sheez...

Your right Taylormen,this was not the intention of the white card at all,In fairness to the referee he didnt have a lot of options,and the white card was probably the only one.

What really gets me on this one is ,hey I dont mind a bit of gamesmanship every now and then,and it adds to the contest,but to falsely accuse opposition players of what is possibly the worst offence in the game to get an advantage with the referee shows they dont have anything possitive to offer the game in any shape or form.I fear chilliboy and Van der merve dont have the gumption or guts to admit that they were wrong and apologise,they probably dont even see the consequences of their actions.

Just really odd. If it was unintentional or own player, you would usually know it as theres a difference between a wayward finger and one deliberately searching and applying pressure at the right time. And then the player has to make a choice. Was I eye gouged? And then another...Was it intentional? And then another...Is it serious enough to make a complaint to the ref?

In the two incidents both decided yes to all 3 questions and sought the ref out.

Dunno...I give up...

I guess the other question when looking at the footage, was there evidence that its not possible an eye gouge too place?

Well I think there are three important issues here. Two has been positive.

The Bulls didn't mention any specific player so no individual's character was under question.

The Crusaders are totally in the clear, so they can move forward.

I would expect SANZAR's judiciary committee to visit the Bulls and investigate this allegation as to why it happenend in the first place. They need to provide a statement as to why and how, if necessary the Bulls should recieve a fine for these false allegations and there should be a public apology or at least explanation as to why and how.

The other issue is addressing the fact that a player only has to say that they were gouged for the ref to white card it. The white card should only be used for things the officials see and/ or are not sure about.

The team may raise it after the match if they wish i thought.

But what is the difference?

The white card has no impact on the game itself.

biltong
Just a couple of things youve got wrong.
1.Because the Bulls didnt name any specific player makes it even worse,it casts suspicion on all Crusaders players who came in contact with Chilliboy and Van derMerve in the preceeding rucks/breakdowns.

2. You say that no individuals character was placed under question.However Todd Blackadder said this morning 'it besmirched the Crusaders players reputations...." Surely Blackadder is more likely to know if his players character was placed under question than you.

That is the beauty of the white card it dosent have any effect on the game ,like a red or yellow do.
I doubt very much that when the brought in the "On report" system that they envisaged professional players at this level would go making multiple false accusations of eye gouging.

aucklandlaurie wrote: biltong
Just a couple of things youve got wrong.
1.Because the Bulls didnt name any specific player makes it even worse,it casts suspicion on all Crusaders players who came in contact with Chilliboy and Van derMerve in the preceeding rucks/breakdowns.

2. You say that no individuals character was placed under question.However Todd Blackadder said this morning 'it besmirched the Crusaders players reputations...." Surely Blackadder is more likely to know if his players character was placed under question than you.

Laurie am sorry but I disagree with you.

I am an outsider to both teams, and even when the allegations were made it had no influence of how I viewed the Crusaders. The only ones coming out of this looking like plonkers are the two Bulls players.

"The citing commissioner has reviewed it and after that review there was nothing in the video footage that would point to the allegation being substantiated, and the citing commissioner also found it interesting that the Bulls did not follow through with a complaint within the four-hour window after the game,"

Well there is half the answer already, the only reason they didn't follow through must have been that the players in question must have been grilled by the coach and asked whether they can substantiate these allegations.

And the reason they knew that the charges couldnt be substantiated was because they were false all along,If Chiliboy and Van der Merve had of had any gumption they would have coughed up there and then, apologised to both the Crusaders and the citing commissioner and withdrawn the charges.

Which will most likely be forthcoming.

Morning/evening boys.
Now that we know there was no gouge, should there be punishment for the false accusation?
We all clearly agree about the severity of gouging, but what about allegations whixh are hollow?