ou maaaikie Naas says Frans is afantastic player

 Beeno
There are two players in the Sharks team that is going to do well in one or two instances in matches 0 but got every one thing they do well - they bugger up 3.
The two players involved are Francois Steyn and Jannie du Plessis.   Lets look at the following in respect of the last two matches only:-
Francois Steyn 
Ball possession handovers to opposition  =   7Penalties conceded                             =   2Yelllow Cards                                     =   1
Jannie du Plessis
Penalties conceded                             =   7Yelllow Cards                                     =   2

Every time the two gets near to the ball I freeze to think what they would do next to help along opposing teams.  That is my problem with them = they do a very feew things well and bugger up many more things.  You cannot have that in the Springbok team - if they do the above on Super 15 level - how much worse will it be on test level?    

 ...not so clevermike, maybe you can me tell the difference between a professional foul and cheating...our friend Bean brain seems to have no answer and has done a runner...

Brycy
Basically cheating will always be a professional foul - but professional fouls are not always cheating.   Some professional fouls are just rank stupidity on the part of players.
Take for instance the case of Nonu  in the earlier Blues match against the Sharks.   He committed a dangerous  foul by shoulder charging Jordaan after he has passed the ball. That represents a professional foul  as well - since it represents taking a player out from further participation in the resulting play.  However, I do not think he was trying to cheat - it was simply rank stupidity.   He was lucky though - the ref pretended not to see what happened - neither did the assistants or TV monitor called his attention to it - and he refused to review the play after Bismarck asked him to do so.   
That was negligence on the part of the referee and the Blues were lucky to get away with it.         

 ....notso clevermike , seems the Sharkies two yellow cards came from professional fouls ie cheating by your definition...maybe something that Jake the Snake coaches the players to do especially when a try being scored is imminent...i.e coached cheating.... very cunning...Kiwis would never think of doing something that devious...

 Beeno
Those two cards in each of the Crusaders and Blues games were worth for the opposing teams at least 14 points per game.   That is a fact of life.  
That is why the NZ and Assie refs love to use it against SA players - but give endless warnings in the case of the local teams.  
Mozart won't accept it - but the stats above indicated that the Sharks had 19 possession losses in 2 games.   That represents nearly a loss of ball possession every 8 minutes in the two games.  Every team will have an up-hill battle top overcome those deficiencies in players.

 Brycy
I am not arguing about the to yellow cards given against Steyn and Du Plessis today. Both were for professional fouls - but in their case it was rank stupidity that cvcaused the cards.   There is no proof that it is coached by Jake White. 
In the case of the Crusaders it is normal practice and part of their coaching.
Incdentally much was in the media about professional fould this week and the refs was expected to act.   In any event - the Blues might have scored tries in both cases without the fould - I say might because there backline and players buggered up a number of cases and it might have happened again if the fouls committed by Steyn and Du Plessis did not happen.  In the case of Jannie du Plessis - th Blues buggered up in the subsequent play as well - so there would not have been a try scored.
Incidentally Jordaan "owned"  Nonu today - he brought him down extremely well - and that is what happened after the Du Plessis incident as well.   It was a ball loss after a Jordaan tackle and a consequential ball loss that actually stopped a try being scored.- so your assumption that the Blues would have scored tries is not really calid. However, the cards added to tries actually being scored later in the game.               

 According to "Beeno logic" the Blues won that game. They won all the stats except the scoreboard so that's a win, right?

Brycy
Nonsence - I said that both were guilty of professional fouls - but both are not the cleverest rugby players around.  I doubt very much whether Jake White would be too impressed with either.  

 Mike those stats are not good. Dont argue with ou brycy he seems to have bee in his wee bonnet about something.Seems the ref was cheating re nonus tackle on Jordaan. When you see such obvious bias you know how the 50/50 calls will go.
If a yellow is worth 10 points one realiseses how superior to the crusties and Blues the Sharks were.

 @Brycy and ou Maaikie.

There is no difference between professional foul and cheating. The law book makes no mention of professional foul anywhere.

nounnoun: foul; plural noun: fouls1. (in sport) an unfair or invalid stroke or piece of play, especially one involving interference with an opponent."the midfielder was booked for a foul on Ford"synonyms:unfair, against the rules, illegal, unsporting, unsportsmanlike, below the belt, dirty, dishonourable, dishonest, underhand, unscrupulous, unjust, unprincipled, immoral, crooked, fraudulent; More
Professional foul is, IMO, some bullshit term dreamt up by commentators. Probably to "soften" the infringement by "their" team. It is a foul and a foul is cheating. The only mitigating factor is intention. That is why refs decide whether a foul has been cynical or not. You will find that when he says to a player that his infringement was cynical, he will be doing it with his one hand reaching for or already in  his pocket.

 windpomp the term is used most often to prevent the opposition scoring a try. Its a trade off rather give away 3 than 7.  No big deal.