Yes it would be great to have Rosemarie here with us. She could be good company for Cloudy and of course she would have the novel experience of being amongst gentlemen - if ya get my eaning JW (At any cost)
(I exclude ou rooitwit and CC from amongst the gentlemen of course. No country is perfect!).
Yes I had a fantastic weekend in the country JW. Snow on the mountains, waterfalls and some excellent company and businesswise very promising.
Reds neck the only person I know that actually rooted a sheep was an Aussie from Kangaroo Island named Robin Smith , the woolclasser caught him rooting a sheep when he went to the shed after tea to retrieve the Tally Book and heard rustling in the pens . Whats worse the sheep in question wasnt even in Smiths own catching pen !!!! bwahahhahahahaha!!!! Maybe it was you under a pseudonym ?? !!!!!!!
Naru that animation is a crack-up bro !
Hey Cloudy ! Beaner still didnt gain any Rugby insights whilst annoying all the farm critters !
And if blokes want to have a go at each other thats fine but families and parental heritage should be left out of it ,having said that redsnecks still a bastard tho !
saSUE you would need assitance stirring your porridge. However, so divided were the clans on abs.com the poor administrator had no choice to close the board. Most kiwis are of course trolls (Even the wahines!) so one can only imagine the chaos!
We are hoping Rosemarie is a more proficient stirrer, in a nice way of course, and look forward to her appearance.
I don't blame the ref Sasuke I blame the cheating Kiwi's but nowhere have I said they won because of the referee. If I did show me but I never blame the ref for a loss. I blame him for shit decision yes but have not stated he influenced the outcome. So watch out perception is a funny thing mate
Who said if the IRB don't change the rules to how the Kiwi's play they are going to withdraw from 2015 World Cup?
And I said referees are afrqaid to dish out yellows in BC games cause they get firedSpooney the kiwis put themselves under immense pressure to keep winning and it seems they do it at all costs... Including manipulating refs and foul play. By the way who did say they'll withdraw from RWC ? Pretty funny whine that one....
I think your assessment of refs being afraid of the repercussions of calling the kiwis for foul play is 100% correct. Joubert has consistently been one of the best refs in world rugby BUT recently when reffing games involving kiwis he lets them get away with way too much and as a result the effect snowballs and it becomes entrenched as standard play for kiwis. It is the kiwi refining of the subtle cheating that is so clear to the objective viewer like yourself.... The blocking of support players, lying at the back of the ruck, hands on the ball all illegal and unsportsmanlike but the kiwis have developed this style of play that they are really becoming more professional at cheating.... I really hope the Saffas save themselves for a big showing v the abs cause I got a feeling that the bok will definitely bring in kiwi land.
Watchout you don't choke on some saffers dick Redsman - gotta watch these queensland dick chewers
aah the ignorant Kiwi's. CLoudy I take it your knowledge of history and rugby are mainly from proganda driven newspapers and some All Black matches you saw from the 90's onwards?
You saying if the shoe was on the other foot shows it as the shoe were on the other foot and NZ called the Springboks cheats and employed up and unders a kick and chase game as well as employing a enforcer to run around beating people up without worry of any actions against him. Sounds familiar except for the part where in modern times the enforcer was singled out and banned then laws were changed to make his actions illegal
Em Cloudy you just prove my point how ignorant you are to everyone elses view yet accusing us for the same thing.
In 1956 SA never lost any test series. NZ media accused SA of cheating the scrum which was one of NZ reason for dominating other sides. They used Skinner as the enforcer and used a kicking game feeding of a running freely more opened style South African team and won the test series.
Today its the otherway around so the shoe was on the other foot and you did the same thing back then. So you want to ignore history yet you want to claim if the shoe was on the other foot NZ would not do the same thing yet they did it first.
So suck ma balls
Cloudy it takes nothing to read peoples accounts who witnessed it instead of just reading papers who is basically mostly propoganda machines for somes causes.
Honestly what are the Kiw's perception of the average South African or the view of the Boertjie aka Afrikaner?
Who said anything about McCaw?
Are you saying all like me meaning if they were colored not much because of the color of my skin?
See what I did there?
Oh and what Kiwi are you that you don't know the significance of 56?
http://springbokrugby.webs.com/introduction56.htm
There you go read and learn
First let me tell you that xxxxx is an excellent and intelligent footballer. He can run, he handles like a back, he kicks with either foot, and above all, he knows what he is doing on the field. Make no mistake, xxxx is a footballer.
And furthermore, what he does and where he stands when a line-out is in progress is strictly legal. Of course, there are times when he beats the gun and gets off-side, sometimes without being detected, but there are few of us who haven’t done that.
Nevertheless, he was a thorn in the side of the xxxxx, particularly during line-out. Invariably he took position right out in the field near enough to opposite the xxxxx second five-eight. If xxxxx got the ball he immediately moved on to either xxxx or xxxxx, getting there at the same time as the ball.
If the ball was put to the ground in the line-out, xxxxx was too wise to linger off-side. He turned and moved back on-side, not hurrying of course. But the Law doesn’t say you have to hurry; all you have to do when in an off-side position in these circumstances is to make a genuine effort to get behind the ball. He did that. He was quite legal in all he did.
I have been asked what Mxxxx did when his own side got possession. Did he stand and obstruct the xxxxxx going in to tackle the xxxxx with the ball? Well, maybe he did, but it was never apparent. He would turn to trot back on-side, or just turn ready to be on deck if h were needed; and it would take a very good a to say that Mxxxx was obstructing under the circumstances. No, I must reiterate that xxxxx was strictly legal in everything he did.
But for all that he was a menace, and there can be no doubt that the style of play he adopted in the line-outs is one of the biggest killers of rugby as it should be played. For the sake of the game something will have to be devised to stop that type of play . . . .
Clousy fill in the xxxx for me. Who are they talking about there?
And I never said its a myht of the MOaris not going I said its a myth that SA said they could not go on tour or that the SA were ever asked in fact
You have touched on an interesting issue there, Spooony. The myth that SA would not allow NZ to include Maori players. I found a few interesting pieces on the internet.
The first one is one that supports the myth in a way:
www.teara.govt.nz/en/nga-ropu-tautohetohe-maori-protest-movements/page-4
M?ori had long held concerns over sporting contacts with apartheid-era South Africa, but protests began in 1960. Prior to this New Zealand M?ori teams played against South Africa in 1921 and 1956. The problem to come was foreshadowed in the 1921 match played in Napier, when a South African journalist sent a telegram home regarding the match.
Bad enough having play team officially designated New Zealand Natives. Spectacle thousands Europeans frantically cheering on band of colored men to defeat members of own race was too much for Springboks, who frankly disgusted.1
In 1960 it was made clear that South Africa would not tolerate the selection of M?ori players for the All Blacks team to tour its country. The New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) decided to send racially selected teams to South Africa. This was not the first time that M?ori players had been excluded, but it was the first time that a significant protest campaign was organised. A campaign emerged with the slogan ‘No Maoris, No Tour’. Anglican bishop Wiremu Panapa led a petition for equality between M?ori and P?keh? over not just the tour but wider instances of racism and inequality in New Zealand. The tour went ahead anyway.
In 1967 a tour of South Africa was cancelled because M?ori were still excluded.
Also from that piece:
In 1973 the government under Prime Minister Norman Kirk effectively forestalled planned protest actions when it intervened to cancel a planned Springbok tour of New Zealand, as the team was to be selected on grounds of race rather than merit. (Interesting to note that they were up in arms about players being selected/omitted based on race, yet today they do not have any issues with it at all)
The next pieces, however, refute the fact that SA did not allow Maoris but rather support the idea that NZ decided not to select Maoris in their squads:
www.teara.govt.nz/en/maori-rugby-whutupaoro/page-2
In the 1920s the clash of race and rugby continued. In 1921 the South Africans toured New Zealand for the first time. Parekura Tureia got his chance to play the South Africans as he captained the M?ori All Blacks in Napier, a prospect that didn’t please some of the visiting Springboks. Following the game a cable was dispatched by South African journalist Charles Blackett that sparked an outrage. In it, Blackett commented that having to watch ‘thousands [of] Europeans frantically cheering on band of colored men to defeat members of own race was too much for Springboks, who frankly disgusted’.1 The Springboks won 9–8, although there was controversy over the refereeing.
M?ori players would be excluded from the 1928, 1949 and 1960 tours of South Africa. One result of this exclusion was that the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) became more open to allowing M?ori to assert a level of autonomy.
The same goes for this one:
'No Maoris - No Tour' poster, 1959In May 1960 the All Blacks were due to leave for a tour of South Africa. They had finally won a series for the first time in 1956 and this was a much anticipated rematch between the two powerhouses of world rugby. However the 1960 tour is best remembered for the fact that no players of M?ori descent were selected. The decision to comply with South Africa’s strict segregationist apartheid policies by not selecting M?ori players caused outrage. Some of the biggest public protests in New Zealand’s history failed to convince the Labour government to intervene. Prime Minister Walter Nash supported the rugby union, arguing that to include M?ori ‘would be an act of the greatest folly and cruelty to the Maori race’.
The Citizens’ All Black Tour Association, of which Ng?i Tahu leader Frank Winter was a prominent member, campaigned to stop the tour, using the slogan ‘No Maoris – No Tour’. More than 150,000 New Zealanders signed a petition opposing the tour – this remains one of the largest petitions in our history. Others marched in the streets to voice their opposition. One unique form of protest came from the hugely popular Howard Morrison Quartet. Band member Gerry Merito transformed Lonnie Donegan’s ‘My old man's a dustman’ into ‘My old man’s an All Black’ to make a point about the decision to tour without M?ori.
Despite these protests the tour went ahead.
When the All Blacks toured South Africa in 1970, M?ori players were able to travel as ‘honorary whites’, a situation that appalled Winter and others in New Zealand’s growing anti-apartheid movement.
The Springboks played a New Zealand M?ori XV at Napier on the first tour in 1921, winning narrowly, 9–8. One South African journalist reported his shock at witnessing white supporters actively supporting the M?ori XV. The two teams next met in 1956, when New Zealand M?ori were defeated 37–0, and again in 1965 when they were defeated 9–3. Napier was the venue in 1981 for a hard-fought 12-all draw.
On the 1976 tour to South Africa the All Blacks played a South African Coloureds team in Cape Town, winning 25–3.
All-white All Blacks leave for South Africa
The slogan ‘No Maoris − No Tour’ fell on deaf ears as this controversial rugby tour went ahead. The issue of sporting ties with South Africa was eventually to split the country in devastating fashion in 1981.
Touring South Africa, with its entrenched racial segregation, had posed problems for New Zealand rugby since 1928, when the All Blacks first travelled there. Although M?ori players had always been eligible to represent New Zealand, the NZ Rugby Football Union chose not to select them for tours to South Africa. In 1928 this meant leaving players like the legendary George N?pia behind. No M?ori would be selected to tour South Africa until 1970, and even then they had to travel as ‘honorary whites’.
In 1960 nearly 160,000 people signed a petition − one of the largest in New Zealand history − opposing that year’s tour. They argued against the selection of what amounted to an ‘all white All Blacks’ team. Groups like the Citizens’ All Black Tour Association campaigned with the slogan, ‘No Maoris − No Tour’. Others argued that politics had no place in sport. In the end, the Wilson Whineray-led team left for South Africa as planned.
Meanwhile, the Howard Morrison Quartet had a big hit with the single, ‘My Old Man’s an All Black’, which took a dig at the decision to leave M?ori players out of the team:
Oh, my old man’s an All Black,
He wears the silver fern,
But his mates just couldn’t take him
So he’s out now for a turn.
(Fi Fi Fo Fum, there’s no Horis in this scrum.)
For the record, the All Blacks lost the controversial series 2–1, with one match drawn.
And then there is this from the NZ Govt Archives:
Controversy regarding the 1960 All Black tourThe decision to proceed with the 1960 All Black rugby tour to South Africa, while excluding Maori players, was one of the more controversial issues during Walter Nash's Prime Ministership. It brought to the fore the issue of rugby and race in New Zealand.
Previously, in 1948 there had been some protests against sending a rugby team without Maoris to play in South Africa. However, in 1959, when the Rugby Football Union proposed to send another all-white All Black team to play the Springboks the protests were bigger. A huge petition containing 153,000 signatures called for the abandonment of the tour.
However, despite Nash's opposition to apartheid and despite a lifetime of denouncing racism, Nash (along with his cabinet and caucus) decided not to intervene in the decision of the Rugby Union and the tour went ahead.
In April 1960 Nash defended the decision of the Rugby Union, saying 'it would be an act of the act of the greatest folly and cruelty to the Maori race to allow their representatives to visit a country where colour is considered to be a mark of inferiority'.
Here is a document on the Rugby Tour Deputation which also explains the government non-intervention stance. Interestingly, the National government seemed to take a similar view on the issue.
Archival reference: R22851171, folio 23
Saffex is the main manne....he has opened his doors to every one to come and stay at his estate at the next rugby world cup. Rubbher nuts will be allocated to look after his porkers...otherwise he will get the Suffolk municipalirty to take him on a trip to the highest bridge in Ipswich. All the Kiwi's and Diggers will have to look after his vast flocks of sheep...the Saffers have to supply drinks...the NZ'ers can by lunch provided there is no Suzies there. LOL.
@spoony,
"I don't blame the ref Sasuke I blame the cheating Kiwi's but nowhere have I said they won because of the referee. If I did show me but I never blame the ref for a loss. I blame him for shit decision yes but have not stated he influenced the outcome. So watch out perception is a funny thing mate"
rubbish spoony, u have blamed the ref heaps of time, ur not the worst serial offender, but the saffa in u is strong with the referee blame game, the one thing in rugby SA does do better then NZ.
perception is a funny thing, especially how while u might mean one thing like ur explanation above suggests, but u word it in a manner to completely mislead. make no mistake, the implication of those posts which i will look for in the future was that u blamed the ref.
"Who said if the IRB don't change the rules to how the Kiwi's play they are going to withdraw from 2015 World Cup?
And I said referees are afrqaid to dish out yellows in BC games cause they get fired "
this is the exact type of bullshit im talking about, why the fuck are u blatantly lying??? cos the two things are completely unrelated
heres a fact for u, the All Blacks threatened to withdraw from the 2015 RWC was cos of the IRBs financial model, RWC commercial rules and RWC money flows.
the main points of their arguments was that unions are being unfairly handicapped by the statute which prohibits teams from having association with their respective sponsors during the RWC.
cos of this sponsors like addidas and AIG are not required to pay anything to the NZRU.
what u also didnt mention was that this is a view shared by all the top 10 rugby nations, including SARU.
so why exactly are the refs afraid to dish out yellows??? cos of a rule thats not even related to the game???? pfffft whatever.
like ur picture book theory i smashed out of the park, ur rugby credit rating has taken a serious dive, outside of the technical aspects of the game of rugby, u talk as much shit as beeno, the fact that redsneck loves all ur anti kiwi arguments should tell u exactly how far of u are.
"In 1956 SA never lost any test series. NZ media accused SA of cheating the scrum which was one of NZ reason for dominating other sides. They used Skinner as the enforcer and used a kicking game feeding of a running freely more opened style South African team and won the test series."
like u said it takes nothing to read other peoples accounts of issues at the time, so the saffa perspective u have will always differ from the kiwi perspective we had.
cos the accounts ive read on the situation was that there was a lot of dirty shit going on that the ref couldnt see, but the ol one two from skinner soon sorted that rubbish out.
more open style, pfffffft might want to check the facts, cos NZ scored more tries in the 56 series then the Boks did.
I take my hat off to you Cloudy! Thank you for that History lesson!
