"Nahh plum you and your mate can believe all the horse sh!t you can eat ,makes no difference to the outcome does it ? Now tell all about how NASA supposedly faked the moon landings.
As for refs I really dont give a sh!t"
Totally uncalled for insults and trying to make me out to be nutter, for my belief that the RC 2011 was not refereed correctly. Ergo, i am insane because i don't agree with you. I last encountered this kind of intelligence/maturity on a school playground.
And here's another...
"No one here has ever stated we are innocent or endowed with super human morality, all we are doing is pointing out that you are not the sweat innocent victim of a big cruel conspiracy that you lot make you out to be.Geez take a look sometime, not every call against a SA side is wrong and every other team gets away with murder.
Reading the threads here some of you lot must watch with both eye patchs on as you have no idea whats happening or even the basic rules of rugby. Unless there is a version in SA that the rules only apply to teams playing against SA and you lot have never infringed.
Bunch of hypocritical armchair warriors"
A) When were you accused of
SAYING that you had superhuman morality. What i did say was that you omission point me to believe something about you. I'll await your rebuttal in terms of examples where you have in fact pointed towards Kiwis not being endowed with said superhuman morality. More simply, give me an example on this board where you have ever admitted to any kiwi player being bent/poor/unsporting etc...the way we Saffas have admitted. the most recent case on our side being that of John Smit. another example being our discussion of Schalk Burger, which is still on this page and able to be viewed. You won't admit it, but when we discuss your players to the same standard that we discuss our players then we have to be insulted? I'll refer you to "
Allow him to point out all your flaws and treat him with respect, but remember that he is younger than you and you cannot do the same to him because he does not have enough life experience to deal with criticism and his feelings will be hurt." And i ask you, am i wrong? To further my point, notice when kiwi fans do discuss our players how we don't all jump on the bandwagon and throw insults across the fence. Wthe vast majority of us takes your pints and discuss them with you on our personal preference and ideas of players and the game...NOT FROM AN IGNORANT PATRIOTIC STANCE. And again, i'll refer you to
My question. Why are you guys like this? It's bloody odd. Care to answer?
B)
big cruel conspiracy that you lot make you out to be. Please point out where this was said? In fact my post clearly states that SA had things go our way when they shouldn't have in the past, for whatever reason. Irrelevant much?
C)
not every call against a SA side is wrong and every other team gets away with murder. Again, please show where this was said. Refer to point B above. Disproportionate straw man nonsense?
D) ...
eye patchs on as you have no idea whats happening or even the basic rules of rugby. When a view differs from yours then it is clearly wrong by default the opposition need to be a) told they are idiots and b) insulted.
E)
Unless there is a version in SA that the rules only apply to teams playing against SA and you lot have never infringed. Now claiming that SA want different rules to apply to us, because we point out general errors that go against the spirit of the game, and because some of those situations involve Kiwi teams. Again, refer to point B above. Suddenly we want different rules to apply to us. Yet more straw man nonsense. Keep going, you're 2 for 2.
F)
Bunch of hypocritical armchair warriors. A final insult in an attempt to undermine, even though not a single valid argument was made in his post. Now i refer you to what i said above, and to what
CrusadersFan was responding.
"It's also funny that as soon as we point out isolated incidents of what we perceive as misconduct in the game, then a) our argument is blown totally out of proportion as though we are insulting the entire nation and calling them s[removed]bags and b) the Kiwi retaliation is proportional to the perceived insult on themselves and they label every SA player and ref a cheat."
Now is it me, or did this guy just prove exactly what i was saying? Blows an argument totally out of proportion, reacts according to this disproportional perceived insult, makes points which are not valid nor relevant and then blah blahs on while holding his straw man aloft.
And then onward. What's the title of this thread?
Dirty Jarpies? In response to Joubert reffing an SA QF. Though when video evidence is pointed out where the same ref has screwed up a big game, then it is met with cries of tin hat wearing babies who are just jealous.
Now i ask you, am i wrong in being totally confused by all of this? Is Joubert a ref totally capable of screwing up a match or isn't he? Or is he just a ref totally capable of screwing up matches against New Zealand's teams but never the other way around. Or are we simply insinuating that because he is a SA ref he will favour the SA side on the day? So are we then buying into the "
how NASA supposedly faked the moon landings" idea of biased decisions and conspiracies affecting the outcomes of games?
This all confuses me so much. It is really difficult trying to understand when referees are and are not able to fcuk games up once one adds New Zealand into the mix. It's a variable totally beyond my ability to understand. Maybe i should just exclude games involving New Zealand in future, since it seems that, "
the rules only apply to teams playing against SA(Replace with NZ)..." as regards refereeing reviews, and as such it creates a variable which is too large to round off correctly when attempting to remain objective.
Maybe one of our kiwi members care to shed some light on this. It follows logically that "..
eye patchs on as you have no idea whats happening" the people who recognise that we are so ignorantly blind clearly are not so themselves, could easily point us in the right direction.
I eagerly await clarification.
