Etzebeth found not guilty. Justice is served.

First topic message reminder :

Here is a link to the alleged eye gouge by Etzebeth, you can clearly see the scottish player being tackled by numerous Boks, Etzebeth has his hand on his mouth and nose, and then after a few second removes he hand. At worst his thumb is over the Scottish player's bridge of his nose.

http://prem0.hiboox.com/images/4712/diapo38402bac6b331dd0754b0868b2389b89.gif

apaarantly it is an English match official that cited Etzebeth. A bit coincidental?

Kingshu wrote:Better to cite someone, and find they not guilty, than let any possible gouging escape.

Like I said earlier, its not the severity of punishment that deters, but the certainity of it.

If players think they can gouge, and get away with it, some will try, if they believe they won't get away with it, then they won't.

Only way IRB can stamp it out, is by citing all potentional cases.

Kingshu, I'll accept that, then please explain to me why there are so many inconsistencies.

World cup final, nothing said.
I heard someone talk about an Irish player that were not cited either - from an Irish supporter.

So all and well intheory we do this, but let's then have consistency. The IRB, the judiciary system has no set consistenciy and not one case is dealt with in the same manner.

That in my view is pathetic, thence my anger at this situation. Does the IRB not realise they have zero credibility?

AlastairW wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Pay out of what? The UK budget?

They could pay for it out of the jersey account, it doesnt look like theyve spent much money in that direction lately.

Oh now you're an expert on UK budgetry matters?

Save us Obi Wan AucklandLaurie, you're our only hope.

I'm guessing he was referring to the hideous jerseys they wore on Saturday, which is quite funny.

ebop wrote:Why do they bother with such marginal incidents? It's just stuffed everyone around, it's gotta be a clear cut incident and not some 'is it or isn't it' carry on. Bet Meyer and co are filthy for the disruption.

Well I hope this is the incident that fires the Boks, please let me have one good performance this year, just one, all I am asking.

Does this mean you'll be sticking around Bil but more importantly does this mean that I'll have to wait a little longer before I earn my MOD badge?

HERSH wrote:Does this mean you'll be sticking around Bil but more importantly does this mean that I'll have to wait a little longer before I earn my MOD badge?

Let's start up a group of vigilante mods.

I am not saying south Africa is the only country suffering from this, but there have been some citings and bans that have been very, very questionable.

For me the fact tat only the retaliating player (in a tete a tete) is cited and banned or penalised or carded is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

If one player is taunting, enticing, drawing an opposition player to react, then both must be carded, or punished. the example of Sharpe on Etzebeth, that is unsportsmanlike and not the ethos of rugby Union.

If you are going to ban Etzebeth for a mock headbutt, then ban Sharpe as well for initiating it and taunting the youngster.

If you are going to ban a player for retaliating to a punch, pinch, nudge, fist etc. Ban both.

That sort of talk will earn you some time in the cooler Galted

ye be warned

HERSH wrote:Does this mean you'll be sticking around Bil but more importantly does this mean that I'll have to wait a little longer before I earn my MOD badge?

Sadly for you, I will be around for yet another while. Besides you will miss me, who is going to keep you inline?

You need that someone looking over your shoulder, it makes you feel safe and cared for.

You love me really

Biltong wrote:I am not saying south Africa is the only country suffering from this, but there have been some citings and bans that have been very, very questionable.

For me the fact tat only the retaliating player (in a tete a tete) is cited and banned or penalised or carded is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

If one player is taunting, enticing, drawing an opposition player to react, then both must be carded, or punished. the example of Sharpe on Etzebeth, that is unsportsmanlike and not the ethos of rugby Union.

If you are going to ban Etzebeth for a mock headbutt, then ban Sharpe as well for initiating it and taunting the youngster.

If you are going to ban a player for retaliating to a punch, pinch, nudge, fist etc. Ban both.

But only cited by match officials from nations that don't have up and coming matches with either side eh? Because accusations like that could lead anywhere ...

AlastairW wrote:

Biltong wrote:I am not saying south Africa is the only country suffering from this, but there have been some citings and bans that have been very, very questionable.

For me the fact tat only the retaliating player (in a tete a tete) is cited and banned or penalised or carded is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

If one player is taunting, enticing, drawing an opposition player to react, then both must be carded, or punished. the example of Sharpe on Etzebeth, that is unsportsmanlike and not the ethos of rugby Union.

If you are going to ban Etzebeth for a mock headbutt, then ban Sharpe as well for initiating it and taunting the youngster.

If you are going to ban a player for retaliating to a punch, pinch, nudge, fist etc. Ban both.

But only cited by match officials from nations that don't have up and coming matches with either side eh? Because accusations like that could lead anywhere ...

I don't care who does the citing, in this case I quoted the article, for me it is neither here nor there, it is consistency I want.

HERSH wrote:You love me really

Love is such a strong word.

Not as strong as some words my mate Doug knows.

Galted wrote:Not as strong as some words my mate Doug knows.

like hungry?

Biltong wrote:I am not saying south Africa is the only country suffering from this, but there have been some citings and bans that have been very, very questionable.

For me the fact tat only the retaliating player (in a tete a tete) is cited and banned or penalised or carded is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

If one player is taunting, enticing, drawing an opposition player to react, then both must be carded, or punished. the example of Sharpe on Etzebeth, that is unsportsmanlike and not the ethos of rugby Union.

If you are going to ban Etzebeth for a mock headbutt, then ban Sharpe as well for initiating it and taunting the youngster.

If you are going to ban a player for retaliating to a punch, pinch, nudge, fist etc. Ban both.

Biltong, although I agree in principle, that not only the retaliating player should be cited. In the sharpe case I disagree, winding players up is part and parcel of the game. Test match rugby is a test of your skills, body and mind and should always be. The mental side of players should be tested (much like in cricket) that's what sets some players apart, and long may it continue. The lad has now learnt his lesson and I'm sure will go on to use this experience against some up and coming in the years to come (hopefully not launchbury on Saturday).

All in all I agree with most posters in this topic, correctly cited, but also correctly cleared to play.

Looking forward to seeing this talent play on Saturday.

Omelette wrote:I'm sure will go on to use this experience against some up and coming in the years to come (hopefully not launchbury on Saturday).

I hope he does. We're never going to be able to rival any of the SH nations unless we have players like Etzebeth facing us, and he has been having a blinder this year.

AlastairW wrote:

Omelette wrote:I'm sure will go on to use this experience against some up and coming in the years to come (hopefully not launchbury on Saturday).

I hope he does. We're never going to be able to rival any of the SH nations unless we have players like Etzebeth facing us, and he has been having a blinder this year.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting I didn't want either launchbury or etzebeth to be playing on Saturday (I really hope both do). I was just saying I hope he doesn't use his experience to draw out a card or citing (or even a pen for that matter, could be very costly in what I think will be a tight affair) from one of our young players...

AlastairW wrote:

Omelette wrote:I'm sure will go on to use this experience against some up and coming in the years to come (hopefully not launchbury on Saturday).

I hope he does. We're never going to be able to rival any of the SH nations unless we have players like Etzebeth facing us, and he has been having a blinder this year.

Could you guys stop it with the puns????

So if a Welshman punches HERSH would you finaly ban him Biltong?

Eye eye, I'll try sir.

I've always been a keen pupil so will definitely take your comments on board. In fact they have already put things into focus and I'm seeing things in a different light. I do apologise and promise to try not to do it again. It's not my sty(le) anyway.

Sorry

MrsP wrote:

AlastairW wrote:

Omelette wrote:I'm sure will go on to use this experience against some up and coming in the years to come (hopefully not launchbury on Saturday).

I hope he does. We're never going to be able to rival any of the SH nations unless we have players like Etzebeth facing us, and he has been having a blinder this year.

Could you guys stop it with the puns????

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:So if a Welshman punches HERSH would you finaly ban him Biltong?

Anyone is a target Peter, I don't discriminate.

Biltong wrote:I am not saying south Africa is the only country suffering from this, but there have been some citings and bans that have been very, very questionable.

For me the fact tat only the retaliating player poster(in a tete a tete) is cited and banned or penalised or carded is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

If one player poster is taunting, enticing, drawing an opposition player to react, then both must be carded, or punished. the example of Sharpe on Etzebeth, that is unsportsmanlike and not the ethos of rugby Union.

If you are going to ban Etzebeth for a mock headbutt, then ban Sharpe as well for initiating it and taunting the youngster.

If you are going to ban a player for retaliating to a punch, pinch, nudge, fist etc. Ban both.

I look forward to seeing the new Moderation policy in action!

MrsP wrote:

Biltong wrote:I am not saying south Africa is the only country suffering from this, but there have been some citings and bans that have been very, very questionable.

For me the fact tat only the retaliating player poster(in a tete a tete) is cited and banned or penalised or carded is wholly unfair and inconsistent.

If one player poster is taunting, enticing, drawing an opposition player to react, then both must be carded, or punished. the example of Sharpe on Etzebeth, that is unsportsmanlike and not the ethos of rugby Union.

If you are going to ban Etzebeth for a mock headbutt, then ban Sharpe as well for initiating it and taunting the youngster.

If you are going to ban a player for retaliating to a punch, pinch, nudge, fist etc. Ban both.

I look forward to seeing the new Moderation policy in action!

It's not new MrsP, it has been in force for some time. At least since I have been a Moderator.

THe funny think that it was due to bout south African and New Zeland that independent citing officers were introduced