Eben explains

Lol

Those are a lotta words you're putting my mouth, Draadtjie.

Is there any conclusive evidence that Dutchmen are dumb….just asking?

All people are dumb at times...

It's not about what he said now, it's about the example he set over a whole career spanning 141 tests...questioning his intent against that exemplary backdrop is insulting.

I have never had the impression that Eben has ever set out to deliberately hurt any opponent. The intimidation act can be a bit silly at times… but to me he has always played within the rules. As to his form, I think the concussions may have made him a bit more cautious and seems to have lost a bit of bulk, but he remains the surest lineout 4 in the game and a terrific athlete.

Fantastic player...living legend...what a time to be a Bok supporter.

Draad, you need to calm down on the Afrikaans insecurity front bud.

It's not insecurity, I was just deliberately full of shit...

"It's not about what he said now, it's about the example he set over a whole career spanning 141 tests...questioning his intent against that exemplary backdrop is insulting."

That's obviously faulty logic.

Eben isn't a thug. I've never thought he was, niether have most here.

But to say that he would need to have a thug's reputation in order to deliver a bit of revenge is totally broken thinking. Obviously somebody could be guilty of something they haven't done before.

For me, he was happy to let Mann's attempted eye gouging go and wasn't looking for revenge. But when Mann came in for a second bite at the apple by tugging on his jersey, I think Eben snapped, grabbed for Mann and didn't eye gouge him but was showing him that he could if he wanted to. I think he realised his thumb was over his eye and he intentionally didn't remove it...instead he applied a bit of pressure for a brief moment.

Had he wanted to push his thumb into the eye, he could have, quite easily.

So, I think it was a bit of seven saying "You don't wanna play that game with me because I'll win"

"Shame on you plum, to come up with such nonsense, is below your standards…Ai jaai jaai."

Please M. The only nonsense here is what you imagined I was saying.

Keep your "shame" to yourself.

Aight?

Plum, I didn’t mean any personal disrespect with the “shame on you” comment. Sorry.

It was meant more sarcastically than anything else.

If you take it personally, that’s your call. If the shoe fits, wear it.

My issue isn’t that you disagree, it’s the logic you’re using.

You say you’re not attacking Eben, but then you say it was intentional and done in retaliation.

That does come across as an accusation, whether you mean it that way or not.

You’re basically building a story around what Eben might have been thinking in that moment.

None of us actually know that, so at the end of the day we’re speculating.

Saying he would never admit it anyway doesn’t prove intent, it just rules out any explanation that doesn’t fit your view.

You’re entitled to your opinion, that’s fine. I just don’t think imagined motives should be treated as facts.

That’s where, for me, it drops below your usual standard:)

"You’re entitled to your opinion, that’s fine. I just don’t think imagined motives should be treated as facts."

At what point did I treat what "I think" as fact?

If you feel like I was stating that my idea of what occurred is a fact, then simply show me what you're basing that on.

"That’s where, for me, it drops below your usual standard:)"

Actually, it's perfectly in line with my usual standard. I say what I think, even if it may be unpopular.

And none of this changes my opinion on Eben at all. If I had my way, the lights would have gone off during that scuffle and Eben would be allowed to kick the shit out of Mann for a good 20 seconds.

Nobody can know what his intent was...only himself...I believe him because I want to...but it was stupid AF and he is very lucky not to be banned for at least a year...only his good record prevented that...but you are right Plum, he would never admit publicly if he had done it deliberately....like I said, I was deliberately full of sh!t...my reaction to your post was uncalled for. Sorry.

Haha no worries, Draad

"I think it was both intentional and it was in retaliation for what Mann did”

This is a statement, assigning motive.

Adding “I think” doesn’t stop it being speculation treated as fact.

MPower, sounds like you’re treating speculation as fact to me as you have been gullible enough to accept Itsabutt’s fantastic story!!

As Draad has admitted, you believe Itsabutt because he’s a Bok and you’re a Bok supporter when in fact ALL the evidence points to him lying through his teeth!

You only have to read rugby sites the world over to see almost everyone outside SA thinks he’s guilty as sin.

Moolaa, you’re doing exactly what you’re accusing me of.

You’re assigning motive to me by saying I believe Eben because I’m a Bok supporter.

That’s your assumption, not a fact.

Let’s be clear here: Assumption is the Mother of all Fuck Up’s .

My position has been consistent. I’m giving an opinion based on his career record and conduct over 140+ Tests, which is fact.

As i have said before, that matters when assessing intent.

A player with one red card over an entire career is not a serial offender with a long history of foul play!

That doesn’t make Eben automatically right. It makes his version more plausible and gives his statement more credibility.

You also say “ALL the evidence points to him lying”

Honestly??… Get real, where is your evidence…

Puff pieces on overseas rugby sites is not evidence. Public sentiment is not proof of intent.

This discussion isn’t SA vs NZ. It’s about whether intent can be stated as fact without proof.

"Adding “I think” doesn’t stop it being speculation treated as fact."

Sure. Just show me where I treated my opinion as fact.

Plum, you assigned intent by saying:

"I think it was intentional and retaliation,” which also states motive.

You never clearly framed it as an opinion.

That line comes across as a statement of fact, even though motive is unknowable without evidence.

Adding "I think” doesn’t change that.

The evidence MPower is so obvious I’m not going to go over it again! You are just blinded by your Bok bias so I can’t help you any more….

Moolaa, if the evidence is so obvious, it should be very easy for you to put that evidence here and disprove my so-called bias.

I’ve already shown in my prior post that I’m basing my view on Eben’s career record, which is factual and not speculative.

Something I will add: The fact that no serious injury occurred also indicates that intent might not have been significant.

Video interpretation alone cannot prove intent or motive, especially in slow motion…because everything looks ten times worse.

That’s why assigning intent crosses from opinion into assumption.

And our Dear Kiwi bloke, Moolaa, you know exactly about assumption:)

You can disagree with my viewpoint, but simply saying I’m “blinded by bias” instead of addressing the reasoning isn’t an argument.

Opinion = I think the following happened.

Fact = The following happened.

The difference between something stated as fact and something stated as opinion is very clear.

When someone says "I think" or "For me"...then they are obviously providing an opinion.

When something is a fact then "thinking" or "feeling" are not required since facts are objectively true, regardless of how you think or feel.

The evidence is in the video MPower. If you can’t see that then there’s no hope for you. Naive to the max…..

Using “I think” does not stop a sentence from functioning as a factual claim when it assigns intent and motive without evidence.

The structure of the sentence presents a conclusion, not open speculation, as opposed to clearly framing it as an opinion.

A conclusion in a sentence, is reached by assigning intent and motive, which requires evidence.

Without that, wording alone doesn’t prevent it from functioning as a factual claim.

Moolaa, saying the evidence is in the video doesn’t prove anything.

A video can be interpreted in many ways to suit different agendas/ narratives.

Eben’s career record is factual: over 140 + Tests, years of club rugby, and only one red card. That shows credibility.

Using a single video as proof of intent, is actually the naïve move.

Stop banging on about his record! That’s got nothing to do with what he did with his thumb for fucks sake!

It couldn’t be clearer in the video but I’m now sick of your obstinacy on this and shan’t comment to you any further.

“Using ‘I think’ does not stop a sentence from functioning as a factual claim when it assigns intent and motive without evidence.”

That makes absolutely no sense.

“Without evidence” is completely irrelevant to what the sentence is. Evidence matters for whether the belief is justified or convincing, not for whether it’s a claim of fact.

“Assigns intent and motive” is also irrelevant for the same reason. You can be right or wrong about someone’s intent, but that doesn’t change the grammar of what you’re saying.

I think X;

What I am stating as fact there is simply this: that I think X. That’s a claim about my own belief... in other words, it's a fact that I think something.

Whether what I think is actually true is a separate issue. My conclusion might be accurate, or it might be completely wrong but, either way, I have not stated X as an objective fact. I have stated it as what I think.

"It couldn’t be clearer in the video but I’m now sick of your obstinacy on this and shan’t comment to you any further."

giMp's engaging nature, his positive attitude and his sparkling personality are just not appreciated on this board.

"Stop banging on about his record! That’s got nothing to do with what he did with his thumb for fucks sake!

It couldn’t be clearer in the video but I’m now sick of your obstinacy on this and shan’t comment to you any further."

Are you saying that it's absolutely impossible that the thumb making contact with the eye area was accidental and that it was his intention from the get go to press his finger into the guys eye?...life doesn't happen in slomo,especially not fights.

I thought the reasonable posters agreed after the incident that anyone who still thinks Eben's eye-gouge wasn't intentional is either blind, stupid or biased.

Why is this still an issue? What's changed since then?

You apologists sound like the guy explaining to his wife that he didn't actually sleep with a hooker, they kind of both sort of tripped at the same time and ended up on the bed together, then their clothes somehow fell off and then his cock accidentally slipped into her pussy . . . but it was all an accident, it wasn't intentional.

That is exactly what you guys still making excuses for Eben sound like.

LMAO!

"You apologists sound like the guy explaining to his wife that he didn't actually sleep with a hooker, they kind of both sort of tripped at the same time and ended up on the bed together, then their clothes somehow fell off and then his cock accidentally slipped into her pussy . . . but it was all an accident, it wasn't intentional."

She didn't buy your explanation, did she?

Well, I'm not buying yours.

It looked different from EE's vantage point, especially without the super slomo...there can be no empirical evidence for intent in such cases...until mind reading devices are invented, it remains circumstantial...believe what you want, it will remain opinion and not fact, no matter how much you wish it not to be.

Preacher RooiTit’s confrontational nature, his negative attitude and his horribly fake personality is just not appreciated on this board.

Seriously, who would believe a man that confused herd immunity with vaccination. Woosh is a fool who hates Eben, always has…witness his very similar reaction to the bar incident in 2019.

We don’t know for sure whether Eben intended to make contact with the eye. We do know for sure he didn’t intend to gouge the eye, because he was perfectly positioned to do that and literally no injury resulted.

Simples…case closed.

Agreed.

The element of hiding behind the ref annoys me. Mann wouldn't dare doing that anywhere else besides somewhere where a ref's whistle could save his pasty butt.

Saying that, no 9s would be alive today were it not for the refs haha. Faf wouldn't have made it past his 18th birthday

I miss Faf!

Injured again!... :-(

As good as Reinach is, Faf is still my guy. He's such a little beast. Unfortunately, he lost so much pace over the years.

A real talisman.

If a Jack Russell could be a man...

Yes good analogy.