So who should not go to world cup

Look it's very simple, just answer the question with a straight yes or no. 

TOKKIE MATHS 101

Elton had 39 possessions. Andre had 4 possessions

39 - 4 = 13

I'm glad you admit it Lügnerin, that means only Lood could be guilty of those metres Kerevi made in the tackle - I didn't comment on tackle volume, only tackle success. Be a good boy and salute as your ship is swallowed up by the sea of truth. 

Herr Dingo, you've clearly gone barking mad, so let me put this as simply as possible one more time: 

My initial comment on this in my Auge Ratings was: "The following tackle was initially on the shoulder, but the follow through looked bad"

At what point do you want to continue niggling in vain over this incident? My description of the tackle is perfect. Aus un vorbei. 

Any excise is good enough for Andre - even outright BS would do.  No BSter De Jager had to make tackles on Kerevi because Esterhuizen chickened out of making even attempted tackles on him. .

Chickened out? Even more desperate. Just stick with the actual game that happened, it is already far more than you can handle. 

As for the tackle, you are now disputing what happened? Then tell me what really happened? 

No, your description is far from perfect....simple is either a yes or no as to the official description of the tackle. I ask, you duck, bob and weave.......for the umpteenth time, an honest response is a simple yes or no. 

An oh BTW, the official sanction is "Head High Tackle."

Você não é nada, mas besteira

What really happened is that Esterhuizen made an illegal tackle and after review as yellow carded - end of story.   His being off the field caused a try being scored by the Aussies.  Happy idiot day to you - Idiot Speaker. 

Yes, the official sanction is "head high tackle". You yourself have been ducking and diving. You repeatedly critiqued my description of the tackle, like Lügnerin, therefore you dispute the following: 

1. Initial contact was not above the shoulder
2. The arm slipped up after contact around the neck
3. The Wallaby in question fell in the tackle
4. Andre followed through with his momentum
5. Andre dragged the said Wallaby into touch

Nice delu sion - the position was that Andre used an illegal tackle and was yellow-carded  end of story.  

Not so fast. My description was called "BS idiot speak" and "less than perfect". Which part of this is less than perfect/wrong? If both of you simply left it at what I said, which was correct, we'd have all agreed that he deserved a yellow card. That wasn't enough though, you had to go the extra mile to attack Andre, making every effort to avoid the details of the tackle . Now there are two large homing eggs headed for the pair of you. 

It still is Idiot Speak,   Jusitification of a player deserving a yellow card is idiot Speak/  

Justification? Where did I ever dispute that he deserved a yellow card? You are in turbo reverse... into a tree. Ouch! 

No - you ignore the yellow card and gave the guy a 7,5 out of 10 rating amd in what your write under your rating you turned it into a non-factor. .   

"A head high tackle? Tisk, you've been spending too much time with the ghastly trio."

Sounds like a denial to me.

7.5 is Augi's definition of Esterhuizen having had a good game Bwhahahahahahaha

That is a dropped ball followed by a deer in the headlights kick out on the full followed by a head high tackle costing the team a try in his absence.

Augi, ou boet, you are a laugh.

If only I did rate André a 7.5! I only rated 4 Boks 7 or more. Andrè wasn't one of them. You've let yourself down Dingo. I had you pegged as better than Lügnerin. This is an embarrassing and unnecessarily self-inflicted gaff to yourself. 

Good try, I don't give a flying fart how you rate me, starting by calling me a dog is pretty much as low as one can get. You started this, all you had to do was answer the simple question I put to you but no, you denied, ducked, dived, bobbed and weaved without once trying to put the matter to rest.

Now rack off, your answer one way or the other doesn't change the world but what it has done is expose you as a little turd full of his own self importance and BS. You've lost me, Sucker.

Perhaps Rump was right all along. No sense of humor (Dingo in reference to the Australian connection, nothing more) and dishonest. What a pair of traits.

Your gaff occurred because you got hot under the collar at any disagreement about Andre. You disagreed with my description of events and shy away from disproving anything I wrote yet call it BS? Self-importance. Yes a perfect term indeed! 

"Yes, the official sanction is "head high tackle"

Sweet Jesus,  I finally get the answer I asked for 20 posts ago........funny how it's finally changed from your original denial....

"A head high tackle? Tisk, you've been spending too much time with the ghastly trio."

You initially rated Esterhuizen as 7.5  and Du Toit at 6.5.   Don't know why you changed you obvious pip dream/

Here Denny, perhaps this help you...

Lügnerin, how about you check your "facts" in future. You lie so liberally that you run yourself off a cliff! 

Trouble with these high tackles is that sometimes the guy ducks or bends down a bit and suddenly it's a high tackle. These things happen quickly with very little time to adjust. 

Yes, the tackle around the neck was very unfortunate. Particularly when momentum is involved. Look at the pic I posted above. Look at the Aussie's feet. He was going down. In the video, Andre's arm quickly pops over the top of his shoulder and latches around his neck like a hook. Yellow card, but not quite as advertised by his overzealous detractors. All exactly as described. 

lets get back to the original story,  Which 7 of the 36 will not go to Japan bearing in mind that it would be seven since Kolisi. Dyantyi and Willemse is more likely candidates once they are over theior injuries,   My forecast is that it will be the following:-

*   Gelant

*   Esterhuizen

*   Steyn

*   Mapimpi

*   Coetzee/Louw one of both

*   Mostert

*   Marvin Ori

*   Elstadt

I do think Willemse may be the back up flyhalf./full back.   

I still do not think Mostert is physically strong enough to compete with Etzebeth, De Jager and Snyman for the three available lock positions.   Du Toit will be picked as a loosie - but he can also cover the lock position. so there may be an extra back row player selected.        

Listen up Augi, get it into your head that you've made a right royal fool of yourself on this one and no amount of shifting the blame onto me is helping you dig yourself out of a bottomless pit. You really don't get the point, here let me help you. 

It's not the fact that Esterhuizen dropped the ball or that he then kicked it out on the full or that he spent 10 minutes in the sin bin and in that period cost his side 7 points. 

No Sir, it's none of that, the fact that after all of that you are on record for saying "Andre had a good game." 

That's the point. See what I mean when I say you've made a right royal Dik of yourself ?

Now do us all a favour and save yourself any further embarrassment by staying down...tx.

No D-Mann, you let yourself down. I have no blame to shift. You had to over-extend yourself in your negative stance against Andre. Even worse, you had to get personal when you didn't hear what you wanted to hear. 

"No, your description is far from perfect"

1. Initial contact was not above the shoulder
2. The arm slipped up after contact around the neck
3. The Wallaby in question fell in the tackle
4. Andre followed through with his momentum
5. Andre dragged the said Wallaby into touch

Clappers bound and real truths ignored - how funny can the idiot Speakers on site get? LMAO 

Clabers bound? So now I am off to a business-to-business marketplace? 

"how funny can the idiot Speakers on site get? LMAO"

I'd say pretty funny. Furthermore, you didn't drop your arsch, you dropped the ball o n that one! 

Watch the heading and comment on that AO as I did above.  Give ius as much BS as per normal - I really need a god joke in this gloomy times.