Let's say Rassie is right . . .

"I'm a very blunt and up-front poster". 

Indeed you are blunt (in the context of cutting edge) and up-front (yes unfortunately you are hovering around and as welcome like a blue-bottle fly on a hot day when one has a braaivleis).

Please answer simple questions, did you not emphatically say (So, yeah, I may not post again (you'll all be relieved to hear that haha). I don't really like to post just read, but I had to get that off my chest.) and why do you have some many names, namely

Lots of stuff gets missed in matches. It would be good for Gatland to do the same as Rassie- and then compare both videos. 

It was started by Gatland. 

1. Gatland complained about the South African TV referee. This did appear to influence one of the decisions in awarding a try by the TV ref. So Gatland did "appear" to gain an advantage from this.

2. Rassie went extreme, but it did appear to give the Boks an advantage on 50/50 calls in the 2nd test. 

Gatland actually complained to World Rugby about their failure to plan ahead in having only one neutral TMO selected. A very different situation to Erasmus. 

Agreed.

"Gatland actually complained to World Rugby about their failure to plan ahead in having only one neutral TMO selected. A very different situation to Erasmus"

I wonder then why world rugby have not taken Gatland or the Lion's management on about this particular statement from the Lions, because world rugby have repeatedly stated to the press that they have made it very clear to rugby playing nations regarding the use of local TMO's because of possible Covid restrictions in different countries...... which they said they implemented and started using in last year's rugby championship.

I ask again, since the Lions are now openly calling world rugby liars on this specific issue, why has nothing happened?

World rugby should either front up with some proof, or call the Lion's management to attend a misconduct hearing..... simple.

The Lion's keep banging on about this TMO rule that was "never" in place, with Gatland mentioning it again to the press yesterday.... yet world rugby are sticking to their guns about what they say they directly discussed with all the rugby playing nations, regarding this specific rule, last year already...….

Something does not add up, yet no action is being taken

The bleating about the TMO, then the Lions released a video of a Faf tackle after the A-team match...Jaco -Johan replied to that video with a video of his own...that's how it started...

Gatland is no saint...this is typical, he's just getting more back than he bargained for.

"he's just getting more back than he bargained for"

Like many people before him, he completely underestimated Rassie... to his own peril

Sweet justice...anti Rassie attackers bleating away before they know all the details...the chickens have come home to roost.

I love it...good on you Mr Erasmus...hahaha.

I think some of you chaps are a bit confused by the title of this thread.

As has been explained before, this thread assumes that Rassie is a courageous hero and all of you ref-bashing crybabies are right . . . World Rugby and all their refs and TMOs are a bunch of ignorant biased cheats.

No need to pat yourselves on the back or applaud Rassie on this thread, this thread acknowledges that Rassie is a courageous genius and you chaps who supported him are all very clever too.

What this thread does ask is that you provide some suggestions on what we can do to fix the mess and so far those constructive suggestions have been very few and far between . . . . the general consensus being that the worst of the refs and TMOs should be replaced . . . which is all well and good but no-one has offered a suggestion as to who should replace them.

I wish I could say that the demands of posters like Baboon-ou and others to replace the existing experienced and qualified refs (and TMOs) with less experienced refs and less qualified TMOs would work because that sounds like a wonderful solution that would fix the problem in a jiffy but we at WR don't see how that could possibly succeed.

So in the end, the lack of any alternatives tells me that the ref-bashers and whiners aren't actually too concerned about fixing rugby, they just want to bash the refs and whine endlessly . . . so I think we can close this thread now.

We're not asking for any refs to be fired...we want consiste nt transparent accountability. 

yap yap y ap...so you are saying everything is just fine as is? No room for improvement?  You know very well what I mean, you're just being argumentative as usual.

Try again Chabs

WTH?

I have never even seen or heard of most of those. What I said is the facts of the matter. Facts I openly stated from the beginning. Ende.

Well, if you're not Alucard, you are his clone...still, no sweat. Have it your way, no skin off my back. 

Because I felt like it. I don't need any other reason tha n that. 

What does changing a name have to do with being liked you ignorant toad stool? I see you are a very dull, unthinking, uncreative type. A plodder through life, a windgat. An expressionless similitude of the void. Ende.

There is a vast difference to ref bashing and just sheer adjudicating incompetence.

Watched the NZ Oz match and ref Paul Williams was just plainly out of depth.

Several calls were dubious, one of knock on by Tom Banks, Wallaby fullback which clearly bounced off his face due to swirling wind.

I remember Plumtree complaining about this same ref (surprising as he is a NZ'er), when in a previous encounter between these 2 sides, he supposedly gifted Oz with a win. This time it appeared the other way round. Plumtree was calling for neutral refs, however I don't think bias plays a big difference just incompetence.

Paul Williams also had a shocker in the Stormers/Saders game some time back.

There are some very good refs around and generally speaking I'm anti ref bashing because it's damn hard job but there definitely is a blaring gap between competence and getting away with just unexcusable bad calls.

Gonzo, whether you used 7 names or 17 is just a techicality but the purpose to deceive was there, just too many...have fun , no problem if you think that's you are but you change more than a chameleon...maybe you have a problem with identification, an Augenoffner (Eye opener/Revealer) you are certainly not. In fact an eye closer is more accurate...I'm sure some here start ZZZZing when you post. 

Lurker, seemed to be most apt, Desert Fox if you meant Rommel, certainly no, except you gave it away when you posted song, "This is what the fox says" with it's gibberish words and sounds.

Gonzo, you definitely were. The purpose, maybe shenanagins, in Irish gaelic, sionnachuighim or in your own language (German) schenigelei...this relates to trickery, slyness, cunning of a fox.

I think you are a bored housewife GeneralTit/Linda/Ndabagingi/Gonzo/Machiavelli/Trad/CleanCut etc. You need to fly right. Let's start with the rugby, where you've been knocked from pillar to post.