FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Innocent Etzebeth- Pommie Conspiracy

Innocent Etzebeth- Pommie Conspiracy

Started by sharkbok12 REPLIES506 VIEWS· 21 Nov 2012, 02:24
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,300 posts
21 Nov 2012, 02:24
#1
21 Nov 2012, 02:24#1

Etzebeth not guilty, ready for England by Gavin Rich 20 November 2012, 22:39

 

The Springboks received the news they wanted to on Tuesday night as Eben Etzebeth was found not guilty of any wrong-doing in last weekend’s test against Scotland in Edinburgh.

After a marathon disciplinary hearing, the Etzebeth defence of alleged eye-gouging at Murrayfield was successful, and he will be part of the Bok pack that tackles England at Twickenham on Saturday.

Etzebeth was cited by English independent citing officer Alan Mansel for an incident in the Murrayfield test which he interpreted as an attempt to attack Scotland flyhalf Greig Laidlaw’s eyes but which the Scotland player himself, and the Scotland management, did not believe was driven by any malicious intent.

The not guilty verdict delivered late on Tuesday night surely calls into question the wisdom of having officials who hail from countries that a team is going to play next on tour acting as citing commissioners.

Few who saw the incident replayed on video or on the field ever doubted that Etzebeth would be cleared, and it would be understandable if the Boks went onto the field at Twickenham on Saturday motivated by their anger at the perceived intent behind the citing.

Etzebeth did not train on Tuesday so the citing did succeed in disrupting the Boks' build-up.

There were further disruptions on Tuesday, and even with Etzebeth being cleared it still looks like the Boks might be facing an uphill struggle in the final test match of 2012, a game which coach Heyneke Meyer has admitted could be the defining one of the first year of his tenure.

Only Andries Strauss and Juandre Kruger of the anticipated starting tight five for Twickenham sat out the training session at the Latymer School in the White City suburb of London, with Jannie du Plessis being managed after a long year and the Bok management waiting on loosehead Gurthro Steenkamp.

The former Bulls prop pulled up in training on Monday and his condition has posed enough concern to coach Meyer for him to call for JC van Rensburg to fly from South Africa to provide cover.

Beast Mtawarira, the first-choice loosehead, had already flown home, and on Tuesday night CJ van der Linde followed him after being ruled out with the hamstring injury he picked up at training on Monday.

Should Steenkamp not be cleared to play, Heinke van der Merwe, who played well when he came on as a replacement in the first tour match against Ireland in Dublin, will be wearing the No 1.

But in reality it may not be a good idea to read too much into who trained and who didn’t on Tuesday. The Boks are battered and bruised after a long year and Meyer has already said he intends managing the players through the week.

Jean de Villiers for instance hardly trained last week because of flu and yet still played against Scotland, and it was a similar story with Du Plessis.

The bad news is that JP Pietersen still took no part in training on Tuesday and is starting to look an unlikely starter for Twickenham.

Lwazi Mvovo, who did run on Tuesday, is the likely replacement on the right wing. The Bok team is to be announced at noon SA time on Wednesday.

sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,300 posts
21 Nov 2012, 02:26
#2
21 Nov 2012, 02:26#2

 Surely their should be a review of such an incompetent or corrupt official- he is the only onw who thought it was an eye gouge.  

This type of stuff brings the game into disrepute, and makes it look like FIFA

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
21 Nov 2012, 03:55
#3
21 Nov 2012, 03:55#3

It is an obvious plot by the POMS to try and ensure that Eyzebeth does not play on Saturday - but it misfired badly.    There should be independent citing commissioners - not POMS who can be trusted to be using outight cheating.

It reminded me of the false allegation made by a POM abou the so-called Pietersen SMS Messages and that the SA Cricketers instigated the messages.   The POM concerned had to aplogize publicly - so it would be interesting to see whether the latest chancer apologizes as well.

MO
moolaaPro2,380 posts
21 Nov 2012, 06:52
#4
21 Nov 2012, 06:52#4

The article says he was "not guilty", it didn't say he was innocent!

What price the boofhead thinks he's bullet proof now and picks up a "yellow" or worse come Saturday?

BB
Bok -Bef$KClub Pro216 posts
21 Nov 2012, 08:27
#5
21 Nov 2012, 08:27#5

Nou gaan die pommies skyt!!!

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
21 Nov 2012, 10:28
#6
21 Nov 2012, 10:28#6

Lots off eggg landing on the poms and some kiwi bird brains like moolaa who has certainly  come  acropper on this one much like loose nut ou jallopy.

To be fair - was the review panel not headed up by an Englishman. I trust the Englsih are not going the nz Bryce Lawrence  route. Nz set such a bad example dont they!! Hahahahahahaha what says my good friend ha ha hakwa?

Yes lets hope the team gets fired up by this event

HA
hakwaPro4,146 posts
21 Nov 2012, 11:05
#7
21 Nov 2012, 11:05#7

are we sure he is not guilty? :-)) did they consider ALL the different camera angles?

CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
21 Nov 2012, 11:23
#8
21 Nov 2012, 11:23#8

moodaa and Hakwa

The problem here was basically that nobody bar the POM apparently complained about the issue.   If the player concerned was involved - there could have been serious question marks in the event of that player having facial injuries aroud his eyes - then chances of a conviction would have been possible.  

The All Blacks eye-gouging charge earlier this year was more convincing than this one.    At last the player concerned had injuries around his one eye and it was clear that something ontoward happened.   However, it could not be clearly identified on the vidro what happened.   In this case it was different - the video recording was clear and showed nothing ontoward. 

If there was to be a guilty charge - the All Black one was much more convicning than this one.   It apparently is clear that you want to establish an image of Etzebeth as being a dirty player.   If there is real reason to be worried about dirty play - the All Blacks should worry about Retallick.   He really is a bad case of off-the-ball play and spear tackles.   He is young as well and has already have a poor image - so get him under control  

HA
hakwaPro4,146 posts
21 Nov 2012, 11:41
#9
21 Nov 2012, 11:41#9

 here is proof Mike of what Eben did!

BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
21 Nov 2012, 11:43
#10
21 Nov 2012, 11:43#10

Hakwa and Moolaa could you please have a word with young Retardllick and put him right as Mike suggests :-)

CA
carpetmuncherPro1,667 posts
22 Nov 2012, 14:01
#11
22 Nov 2012, 14:01#11

hahaha hakwa seems your guy in the pic has given the wrong directions there mate

MO
moolaaPro2,380 posts
22 Nov 2012, 22:34
#12
22 Nov 2012, 22:34#12

 Mike, we don't have to establish Itsabet as a dirty player; he's already done that by calling the thug Botha his hero and by picking up a ban for headbutting Nathan Sharpe.

He's doing fine on his own thanks!

Can't recall Retallick being banned yet?

CA
canrugbyClub Pro640 posts
23 Nov 2012, 04:20
#13
23 Nov 2012, 04:20#13

"The article says he was "not guilty", it didn't say he was innocent!"

 

LOL - This isn't criminal court, Moolaa. Relax...

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news