sharkbok
Captain23,251 posts
Captain23,251 posts
31 Mar 2019, 15:56
#1
31 Mar 2019, 15:56#1
The Warthog Vents Frustration at being ignored for a pensioner
Started by sharkbok22 REPLIES993 VIEWS· 31 Mar 2019, 15:56
Captain49,914 posts
31 Mar 2019, 21:48
#2
31 Mar 2019, 21:48#2
Agree with much of this article:
1 Akker was the agressor in the incident and head butted Britz on the way down,
2 Agree Vermeulen turnovers changed the direction of the match.
3 Agree Bongi had a good game....hence in my TOW.
4 Agree the Bloos fullback should have been red carded.....the vaunted video ref either missed the incident or chose to ignore it.
Pro9,905 posts
01 Apr 2019, 07:03
#3
01 Apr 2019, 07:03#3
Things haven't changed much since Meyer.
There are still a lot of positions available for friends ... and by what we've seen, Rassie wants his good mate Brits in the mix.
I can understand Akker's frustration. He should have been, at the very least, on the bench for the Boks by now ... but instead he's pushed aside for the midget Bongi and the elderly neverbeen Brits.
The sooner he leaves these shores the better for him.
Captain17,321 posts
01 Apr 2019, 07:34
#4
01 Apr 2019, 07:34#4
Also agree about Robert du Preez. Sharks need better at flyhalf if they want to be competitive. Not sure who though. Curwin will be a highway for the opposition.
Captain18,117 posts
01 Apr 2019, 12:09
#5
01 Apr 2019, 12:09#5
Akker banned for 3 matches.
Sharks are down to one rookie hooker, Kerron van Vuuren.
Chilliboy is still suspended pending his latest doping tests and Craig Burden has a bicep injury.
Sharks are down to one rookie hooker, Kerron van Vuuren.
Chilliboy is still suspended pending his latest doping tests and Craig Burden has a bicep injury.
sharkbok
Captain23,251 posts
Captain23,251 posts
01 Apr 2019, 13:21
#6
01 Apr 2019, 13:21#6
Craig Burden is a blast from the past. If I recall he was a poor scrummager and even worse lineout thrower. He is a burden on the team as he now appears totally injury prone, taking up space in the squad. I think he was a backline player that reformed into a forward.
Captain18,117 posts
01 Apr 2019, 16:02
#7
01 Apr 2019, 16:02#7
. . . and Schalk Brits gets a 4 week ban.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd think the respective bans would be the other way around.
This doesn't make a lot of sense. You'd think the respective bans would be the other way around.
sharkbok
Captain23,251 posts
Captain23,251 posts
01 Apr 2019, 16:06
#8
01 Apr 2019, 16:06#8
Whoever designs the bans in Super Rugby is either incompetent or corrupt. Those are the only possible explanations of such inconsistency.
Pro9,374 posts
01 Apr 2019, 19:17
#9
01 Apr 2019, 19:17#9
What happens on the field stays on the field..
Captain49,914 posts
01 Apr 2019, 19:22
#10
01 Apr 2019, 19:22#10
Cute!
Pro2,680 posts
01 Apr 2019, 19:59
#11
01 Apr 2019, 19:59#11
I agree, its laughable and totally uncalled for...a bit of frustrated handbag stuff beween 2 young tough men..quite normal.
The "cute" picture says it all. In the "old rugby days" such things would have been ignored. We probably all had this happen if we played rugby...it just shows you how soft we are becoming in the world...small things becoming issues while ironically major things are being bi-passed. We strain at gnats but swallow camels.
Captain49,914 posts
01 Apr 2019, 20:15
#12
01 Apr 2019, 20:15#12
Chabal, I have just finished reading the Red Wheel.....Solzhenitsyn's 2700 page record of WW1 and the fall of the Tsar. I always had the impression that the revolution was fairly organized....but if you believe the book, it could all have been stopped by 5000 determined men.
And incredible story of neglect and incompetence.
Coach57,555 posts
02 Apr 2019, 04:43
#13
02 Apr 2019, 04:43#13
Mozart
The issue raised by you should perhaps have been raised under the Beeno Trumpet category
The Tsar was weak and would not react to anything amounting to determined men. For the rest the aristocracy was weak and divided as well. That means that there was a total breakdown in the leadership situation. Nothing new - but who funded the revolution anyway?
Fact is that WWI caused serious problems insofar as service rendering in a country where governance was not up to standard and really based on poor control anyway.
What I recently read is that at least 20% of the Russian population favours a return to a democratic monarchal system and the highest percentage of support comes from the 18 to 25 year old group in the population. The support is increasing and was initially favoured by Yeltsin and has strong support in the Russian Orthodox Church.
However, in an opinion poll a majority of Russians polled on leadership issues rated the 20th century Russian leaders as follows:=
* Tzar Nicholas II - Did more good things than bad things
* Kruschchev - 50% good - 50% bad
* All other leaders - Did more bad things than good things
Not that the support is for the return of the Romanovs - but rather for a new dynasty elected by the people - could that not become a new diversion by Putin to retain power in Russia?
Putin is regarded as a 21st century leader and fell outside of the 20th century category.
Captain49,914 posts
02 Apr 2019, 05:59
#14
02 Apr 2019, 05:59#14
Russia's big problem is their economy, with a GDP equal to 75% of Italy and with massive dependency on oil. But with global involvement and an expensive military.
I
Pro9,905 posts
02 Apr 2019, 07:41
#15
02 Apr 2019, 07:41#15
From Akker to a history lesson ...
Captain18,117 posts
02 Apr 2019, 08:32
#16
02 Apr 2019, 08:32#16
"From Akker to a history lesson ... "
Except when Moffie joins in it's not so much a lesson as it is a demonstration of how little the drunken old fool understands about the world.
Back to topic, the Bulls will be appealing the 4 week ban that Brits received. I'm guessing his will be reduced to at least the same 3 week ban that Akker received and he may get even less. We should know soon because I think the appeal is this morning.
Except when Moffie joins in it's not so much a lesson as it is a demonstration of how little the drunken old fool understands about the world.
Back to topic, the Bulls will be appealing the 4 week ban that Brits received. I'm guessing his will be reduced to at least the same 3 week ban that Akker received and he may get even less. We should know soon because I think the appeal is this morning.
Pro9,905 posts
02 Apr 2019, 08:46
#17
02 Apr 2019, 08:46#17
Apparently he (Brits) refused to acknowledge his guilt ... and instead claims that he should not have been banned at all ...
According to him the right cross that he threw at Akker was in retaliation and should not be penalized ...
Captain18,117 posts
02 Apr 2019, 08:55
#18
02 Apr 2019, 08:55#18
Yes, I just read that Brits was given a 4 week ban that would have been reduced to a 2 week ban if he pleaded guilty but he refused. Akker was given a 6 week ban that was reduced to 3 weeks after he pleaded guilty.
That all sounds fair enough.
That all sounds fair enough.
Captain18,117 posts
02 Apr 2019, 12:01
#19
02 Apr 2019, 12:01#19
And Brits' appeal fails. He will now serve the 4 match ban.
So Akker got a 6 match ban and Brits got a 4 match ban . . . fair enough considering the parts they played in the incident.
Akker then had his ban reduced to 3 weeks because he manned up, apologized and pleaded guilty.
Brits had the same opportunity to reduce his ban to just 2 weeks but he chose to plead not guilty and appealed instead. The appeal was overruled and he now serves the full 4 match ban that he was originally given.
Fair enough . . . which is why it's puzzling that the person who wrote the article I linked to is still squealing indignantly about Brits getting a longer ban than Akker. That's what I call fake news.
So Akker got a 6 match ban and Brits got a 4 match ban . . . fair enough considering the parts they played in the incident.
Akker then had his ban reduced to 3 weeks because he manned up, apologized and pleaded guilty.
Brits had the same opportunity to reduce his ban to just 2 weeks but he chose to plead not guilty and appealed instead. The appeal was overruled and he now serves the full 4 match ban that he was originally given.
Fair enough . . . which is why it's puzzling that the person who wrote the article I linked to is still squealing indignantly about Brits getting a longer ban than Akker. That's what I call fake news.
Captain40,032 posts
02 Apr 2019, 12:14
#20
02 Apr 2019, 12:14#20
Russia has a GDP the size of Texas the pea brained demorats say Russia is the threat and go very easy on China. A more anti American bunch would be hard to find and doubtless the biggest threat America faces.
Akkers is a world call hooker. He must be included.
Captain18,117 posts
02 Apr 2019, 12:19
#21
02 Apr 2019, 12:19#21
"Akkers is a world call hooker"
Que?
Que?
Captain49,914 posts
03 Apr 2019, 00:37
#22
03 Apr 2019, 00:37#22
Poor old Britz was doomed the moment the the nobbling Peeper produced this:
'Back to topic, the Bulls will be appealing the 4 week ban that Brits received. I'm guessing his will be reduced to at least the same 3 week ban that Akker received and he may get even less'.
When will this fool stop predicting things.
Captain26,388 posts
03 Apr 2019, 06:33
#23
03 Apr 2019, 06:33#23
What these legal experts seem not to understand is that there is a huge difference between retaliation and defending yourself. Brits would have been "not guilty " on assault charges in a court of law...Akker guilty as sin. Rugby tribunals are the biggest farce in professional sport. Brits didn't grovel and apologize for trying to defend himself. Bizarre.
Edit: PS, from the footage I saw.
— END OF THREAD —
