So Berry agreed with 17 of Rassie’s points

Nic Berry does not pass the exam of international refs as clearly seen by the amount of errors...it's just plain common sense. He was a competent rugby player before his injury but has a teachers qualification but his oversights are just too much...who knows who is telling the whole truth...I cannot fathom that Peyper would be untruthful but be that as it may there have been been too many indescrepancies in his short lived carreer to throw huge question marks to his ability to read errors in game play.

Even if world rugby is so short of competent referees then it's up to them to set better conditions to attract them. Rugby can ill afford adjudicators that are not accurate.

Mozart,

           The number 23 I read on one of the blogs on this forum.

           Never mind if it was 1, 2 or 23 the point is Berry conceded to 17 .

            In plain English he `SCREWED UP`17 calls in a rugby test match.

            What do you call than.

           In good old rugby terms it is called `FUCKED UP` on 17 calls. 

           End of story.

We actually haven’t looked at other refs with the same scrutiny. I’m betting if we took any of the recent tests, especially the Welsh/Fiji tests we would see a similar picture. 

The IRB can’t say this, but it’s highly likely.

We are not discussing other refs in this case.

Rassie made a claim that disputed 26 or 36 calls made by Berry.

The IRB mentioned that he was correct on 23 of his disputes.

Berry the ref conceded that he made incorrect calls on 17 of the disputes.

Now how much more do you require to get of Rassie`s case!

Go through each point, and show us where the Boks were reffed out of the game. Simples. The Kak Pack are now desperate to spin a narrative based on the number 23. "Look how big arez da thwee". Always dancing around the issue, never having a point to nail on the mast. 

23 to my knowledge has never seen the light of day except in the South African press.

I have not seen the video or seen the IRB report.

The numbers quoted  are from blogs on this site relating to the `Video Issue` which  have been reported.

If you have the facts that reflect differently go ahead and state them.

If not keep quiet.

Well are you disputing the 17 Berry conceded.

Desperate times for the Kak Pack. At least they have an excuse to fall back on if the Boks were to lose to England. A tenure bolster by excuses. 

Mozart are you disputing the 17 calls that Berry conceded  and the number (what ever the number is) that the IRB agree with Erasmus on?

Also please don't change the subject such as "other refs " and the "IRB numbers" plus  "Berry's disappointing calls"  you  are entitled to your version of what transpired and so am I.

If the report stating that Erasmus has been sanctioned is correct and under appeal so be it.

Cheers for now.

Exactly what points do you d isagree with? 

Yes I don’t believe the IRB have said they agree with any of the calls …although they say Berry appears very credible. All that IRB stuff started with a Raaport article quoting sources never identified. The IRB has said nothing about which calls were incorrect, to my belief.

"Rapport is an Afrikaans-language weekly newspaper (released on Sundays) in South Africa and published by Media24. Its head office is in Johannesburg.[1] It is the second largest Sunday newspaper in South Africa after the Sunday Times.[2] Waldimar Pelser has been the editor since 2013."

Not exactly a fake news rag, but I know that even good news papers get things wrong at times....and 23 is only 6 off the 17 Berry conceded to, so it's quite possible that the 23 might actually be correct...

Accurate and mature journalism in South Africa?

It's better than you think...and of a higher standard than many 1st world countries...there's still a few things that work properly over here...media is one of them.