Wallabies vs Springboks 2
-
@SidBarret said in Wallabies vs Springboks 2:
@KiwiMurph 35 min to fix?
As Schmidt said - by the time Slipper went off Bell had cooled down and given it was Bell's first game in 4 months and has a history of foot issues he didn't want to put him back out there.
That's not cheating that needs a 6 month ban.
It's within the rules.
-
@KiwiMurph A - if he thought his scrum had a prayer, Bell would have been out there.
B - in what world does his previous injury make any fucken difference? He was picked in a team representing Australia, either he is up for the job or they play with 14. Lying to the refs gets you a long fucken ban.
-
Don't try to be rational about this with a Bok fan.
If victim complex was an Olympic Sport they'd win all three medals every fucking time.
They're the Trump of rugby: either they win or the other side cheated.
And in this case, Sid gets to screech about both. Fucking perfect!
-
@SidBarret said in Wallabies vs Springboks 2:
@KiwiMurph A - if he thought his scrum had a prayer, Bell would have been out there.
B - in what world does his previous injury make any fucken difference? He was picked in a team representing Australia, either he is up for the job or they play with 14. Lying to the refs gets you a long fucken ban.
I completely disagree with A.
For B. How did they lie to the refs? Bell had a cut? Because Bell is deemed injured he doesn't have to come back on.
-
-
@SidBarret said in Wallabies vs Springboks 2:
B - in what world does his previous injury make any fucken difference?
It makes a difference because he only had 50 minutes in him. Putting him back out there after he had cooled down is a huge injury risk if he doesn't have to. Because of the cut he didn't have to.
-
@SidBarret TBH it's 3:32AM here, and I haven't seen the game yet, because I've been post-season drinking, so I'll accept I'm not completely at my analytical best.
However I'd also point out that Mbonambi went off "injured" at 28 minutes last week but miraculously came back on when a yellow card happened.
Therefore, my view is:
- careful throwing stones from glass houses
- you're being a bit of a doos
- you should maybe learn how to win with a bit of grace
-
@SidBarret said in Wallabies vs Springboks 2:
@NTA what's your view? Is Bell injured in a way that allows the game to uncontested? Which rule?
Do you honestly believe cheating fluffybunny would have made that call if the scrum was going to be even close to balanced for the last 35 min?
This rule
-
-
@NTA no problem with winning. We won, by some points, we left some points on the pitch, we didn't even play very well and any sanction on Shmidt will in no way benefit us. Honestly I dont think the cheating a jot of difference to the score.
In 2019 WC final Jones had the opportunity to pull the same BS, he didn't cause he is only a piece of shit. Shmidt should get all the flame for this.
-
@KiwiMurph https://passport.world.rugby/player-welfare-medical/medical-protocols-for-match-day-medical-staff/blood-injury/
The site is not clear on what happens after 15 min, but I'd argue that after 15 min it stops being a blood injury.
If the 15 min does not apply, then surely it becomes an impact injury.
-
@SidBarret said in Wallabies vs Springboks 2:
@NTA Hmm, Mbonambi went off on a tactical change (though injured, but SA wanted to keep their options open).
Source? Looked like an injury replacement to me.
-
@KiwiMurph you have now twice used the argument "he didn't have to". I think you are wrong in law (argued elsewhere), but on "spirit of game"-grounds you have absolutely no basis.
Either Bell could play (which is the version I believe) and Shmidt decided it to more beneficial to have him not play. Even if you (wrongly imo) believe Shmidt could make that decision, I am more than justified in calling him a gutless pos.
Or he couldn't play (which seems to be your position, please correct me), then they should definitely go down to 14 for for not actually picking 23 players.
-
@OomPB i agree, we were very poor in this game. Half the newbies had failing grades on this performance. We left three very obvious tries out there.
I strongly believe Shmidt cheated and that will get all the responses, but the most disrespectful view I hold of the Wallabies is that they were irrelevant to this game. The top half of the currie cup would have won this game, that is how poor the boks were today.
Sacha, Morne and Elrigh will be better for this game though. Players make mistakes when they go up the ranks and getting those mistakes out of the way benefits the boks in the long run.
-
@SidBarret said in Wallabies vs Springboks 2:
@KiwiMurph you have now twice used the argument "he didn't have to". I think you are wrong in law (argued elsewhere), but on "spirit of game"-grounds you have absolutely no basis.
Either Bell could play (which is the version I believe) and Shmidt decided it to more beneficial to have him not play. Even if you (wrongly imo) believe Shmidt could make that decision, I am more than justified in calling him a gutless pos.
Or he couldn't play (which seems to be your position, please correct me), then they should definitely go down to 14 for for not actually picking 23 players.
Fucking brilliant. We have a springbok supporter arguing others are going against the spirit of the game while defending Mbonambi being kept fresh. What a wonderful world, you go Rassie.
