Rugby bias

Haha WD 

Nope, i don't expect you to agree. 

Is raising isolated incidents really the best you can do against the the veritable plethora of international opinion that suggests you guys coach teams to cheat? 

It would be nice if you could make some valid counter arguments.

By your logic, most successful mafia syndicates would use the excuse that everybody is just picking on them because they're loaded. And that nobody should fling mud because everybody has skipped a stop street at some point.

You do realise that those are not adequate defences right?

Cumon, you can do better, i know you can.

I posted actual instances which are well known and viewable on tape. Everyone seems to have ignored that. 

Cloudy, as I have already mentioned, I don't like to blame referees for losses. But, there is proof, watch the 2011 World Cup match between Auz and SA. And yes, that whole match is proof. That for me was the one exception where I do blame the ref. Outside that, I think it is just hearsay. 

The France and New Zealand final was even more of a farce. However, that Aussie test was a mess. So much for backing the attacking team at rucks. Their excuse was, "The Boks should have scored tries". Its hard to do when that killer possession was ended by a penalty against you. Pocock should have been carded for taking Brussow out off the ball right in front of the try line. There was a break out wide for a clean run to the line called back for nothing. So many rucks were called incorrectly. You can live with a loss, you'd be hard pressed to find a South African make excuses for the 1999 defeat to Australia or the 2003 loss to New Zealand, or even the 2015 loss to the New Zealand. In fact, in all instances the general consensus was we deserved to lose and the better team won. So, this isn't a case of being bitter about a loss. It's the manner in which a game was called which ruined a contest and directly affects results. 

Why would I want to be a whiny little shit like some of you squeazers ? What sort of sad aresehole trawls the internet to cherry pick garbage to use in their sad little posts ?I cant be arsed and just use whats already in my head .

Fucking sooks.

Easy Ward, you'll give yourself a stroke mate. 

I didn't scower the net. I have a good memory .

And it isn't cherry picking either. It's a general trend. Your just angry because you can't refute it. 

Lol Lurker the that's WD's go to move...

"What sad little man trawls the internet blah blah blah."

The next one is to get into a conversation with Cloudy about how sad a person you are.

Yaaaaaaaaawn!

Next will be monologue from Cloudy about defending her own.

And expect some boots from the side coming in from KakMaat and co.

What you won't find is anyone actually challenging your argument.

Oh history, you must be stuck because you keep repeating yourself 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=So5uL5tr20o

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wVuomr8zebg

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pdr-W775hk4

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YsP3Y1dDcb0

Oh God

Are we in the woman thing again?

Actually you're right. It's why I always argue with WD hahaha

Cloudy, I have these games still. The punch on Van Niekerk is on YouTube. Many videos dissecting All Black scams are on YouTube as well. It's been discussed by coaches at various levels of the game. There is plenty of information out there. At one point New Zealand needed something like 50 penalties before they received a yellow card. South Africa around 5, and Australia just a little higher. I posted some videos above that shows many of these things. As for an eye gouge on McCaw, that's purely speculative. I do recall an All Black stamping on a player in a ruck and actually attacked his own player! 

Incorrect. 

Lurker you seem to have forgotten BDPs arsehole brothers raking of Moores eyes ,caught on camera and nothing said or done about it.Just one of the vast number of things thats eluded you and that plum critter.

FFS Moore was just standing there when the "eye doctor" came from behind reached around and gouged his eyes.Like that french arsehole did to Macccaw in the 2011 final ,theres a red card any day.

This biased towards Kiwi teams thing doesn't make sense to me. Why would refs want to be biased, what's the motivation? If there is motivation, e.g. bribes, where is the proof?

Yes Cloudy I hate the poor wee luvvy.

True JW these conspiracy eejits cant come up with a logical reason why refs or the WRU  would feel the need to help out the ABs.

Like I guess the ref helped the ABs to a 57-zip flogging of the Boks.

I am sure they did Wardad, it probably would have been only a 56 point flogging if we had an unbiased ref. 

N,B, full stop was added to appease Mozart

Ps and left out of this last sentence to irritate him

Lurker, if you can come up with an equally lone list from memory of examples where kiwis have been screwed by the ref. I will be impressed

Dearest WD

You're so sweet. Really, I could just hug you and squeeze you until your eyeballs pop out. 

Just remember, with great love comes great disappointment and I fear yours might be the greatest of all. 

For you see, while thoughts of me encompass you, it's not my intention to make you dream beyond your ability. 

As much as this might sting to hear, your deep feelings for me are but a byproduct of my sparkling personality and if I were to give all those similarly affected my attention then I fear there shall be nothing left for those that truly matter.

You've mentioned that you fish on the regular and as such it'll serve you well to remember just how many fish lay in the blue. 

Have a green one, or a red one, or even two, but unfortunately this perfect dolphin just ain't for you.

Now calm down. I'm just lending a hand in hyping Saturday's game. The Saders are obviously the better side and won't need the ref 's help to win.

Xoxoxoxo

JW

I don't think there is any intentional biased from refs.

What has been happening is that kiwi teams, more than most, have been taking advantage of the fact that there are only so many incidents at any given moment which can be spotted. 

Slight of hand would be the most apt description I can think of. 

The real issue for me is what will happen to the game if this approach is adopted by other teams. 

Do just this one experiment on Saturday. Have a look at both team's back lines and if they move across the offside line when the ref is facing the ruck. 

Let's talk after the game and compare notes.

A sly personality where I come from means someone who is an untrustworthy liar and usually a thief of some sort .Isnt that  the personality you aspired to  ?Or thought was a good thing to be ?

Your more cubit zirconia than sparkly diamond  dearie.

Rejection. 

Truly the sharpest of blades huh WD?

Rejection. 

Truly the sharpest of blades huh WD?

Actually made me laugh out loud. 

JW, you will not find examples of trends where refs benefit New Zealand's opponents. These aren't one off instances. Let's look at the World Cup final where Joubert was reluctant to look at the All Blacks. Literally turning his head. Why? Is there a match fixing ring threatening refs? Something is very wrong here. Bryce supposedly nearly had a breakdown and retired. Was he pressured into it? Again, something does not look right at all. There was the Ireland vs Aussie game which was also directly affected by reffing. Why? We see these things time and again. The touch judges don't see one player holding two defenders? Why? They don't see it all game. Why? All Blacks Can contest the high ball with knees up and into the opponent. Why? New Zealand repeatedly get away with spear tackles, even to the point of severely injuring team captains. Why? Something is very wrong here. Were these things penalised, New Zealand would still be the best team in the world, but many tests would not have gone their way. They'd be down a World Cup and France would have been World Champions. Rugby history has been altered. This is not good for the game. To deny these facts is a gross demonstration of the purest manifestation of dishonesty. 

And then... On that fateful day, 16 September 2017, they appointed the neutral unbiased Nigel Owens....

57 - 0

Without causing a war..sadly I realise how bloody empty  some are here...cannot tell the chaff from the wheat...the rooineks from the coarse liberals...I'm disappointed by the level of basic intelligence...especially those who boast of accolades, etc...who want to fluff their feathers from non-achievers and Walter Mitty's...a blog of pathetic failures who think they very successful because they don't have to work. Mozart does/nt because he was clever enough than the rest of Saffa mutt s like Rooinek who tends to kiss revolutionary black arse till the end of days...sorry from kind Substantiabull

So plum in your case  not only women bleed eh ?

WD

Must you persist with these love games?