Thomas Du Toit - The New Matt Stevens?

Their are some serious question marks over his scrummaging ability. Like Matt Stevens, he can scrum equally well on neither side of the scrum.

YAWN you dumbfuck

What you meant to say Shark is that he can’t scrum on either side of the scrum. I warned Dave about this years ago.

Would that be the Thomas that dominated yesterday?

How fucking stupid are you?

17 Thomas du Toit (on for Venter, 44th min)

Struggled in the scrums and was penalised on occasion. Worked hard in the mauls and breakdown.

6/10

‘

Anyone that says that Thomas dominated in the scrums yesterday, seriously need to get there eyes checked.

His play in the loose was good as always, but his main duty is to scrum and if he can’t do that, he is useless!!

Rather get Carlu Sadie, now that is guy that can scrum!

Fatt Stevens was renowned for playing equally well on both sides of the scrum, but when tested, it was equally well on neither side of scrum (Or equally badly on both sides of the scrum).

If Thomas DuToit can't even scrum against second-choice props near the end of the game, he doesn't have what it takes at this test level.

If it is a Fat Dave favourite, a player can do no wrong, at least not until they get older. By then, some new upstart with similar credentials has usurped them.

Comparing club rugby to test rugby is not the same. Just because someone can have some decent games at lower levels of the game, this all gets exposed at test rugby, and some players are not test standard.

We give them chances, but sometimes that is just to prove they are or are not a test standard player.

Um that is utter rubbish he was not penalised once in a scrum and was credit with winning a scrum penalty

What fucking match were you and that moron so called rugby writer watching

But feel free to point out the scrum where Thomas was penalised you bunch of bafoons

The only time the Bok scrum got penalised when Thomas was on was when Koch went down on his knees

You lot are seriously fucking rugby clueless and I mean that sincerely

Here we go again Dave.

Your inability to discuss without insulting really does show how low your intelligence is.

Were you ever required to do an EQ examination for any of your prior jobs?

I assume not!

PS: Koch is an unbelieavable scrummager.

I like du Toit but I'd like him to up his work rate in the loose.

And to be really honest, i was quite happy with Fouche's debut.

The substitute Georgian TH number 18 scrummed The Tank in his chops:)

The scrum always folded on Du toit,s side with his crooked Back….

if Tank can’t get his act together, drop him because there is ten times better props available!

I’m drawn to insulting ignorant twats as I can’t believe how fucking rugby stupid they are

Fuck me here we have Mpuff effectively lying about the TH dominating Thomas in the scrums - what fucking game was this moron watching?

As for Shark it’s a toss up between him and Mpuff as to who is more fucking stupid

Moz knows fuck all about scrums - fuck me he did not even know the basics that one prop could engage before his other prop does

He is the same fool who keeps telling us Kitshoff, Malherbe, Wessels, Thomas etc can’t scrum

How the fuck did the first two play as many tests as they did if they can’t scrum or are just average scrummagers - how the fuck does Thomas make the Premiership side of the year at tighthead if he can’t scrum

I just get so fucking irritated with such utter rugby ignorance

As for you I don’t know why you bother as you fucking know less than Shark and Mpuff - you have about as much rugby credibility as my morning dump

Ok Dr Craven.

you retarded muff.

stop being nasty to everyone.

im trying to be as smart as you ok!

it isn’t easy.

Aren't front row concerns that I raised months ago starting to dawn on you guys now?

We have Ox, Marx and Wilco that are performing well.

Thanks heavens for Ntlabakanye finding form this season and being handy in general play.

...but we're now in a position where if any of Marx, Ox or Wilco cop an injury in deep kak.

What happens when the Boks can't rely on always having scrum dominance any more?

No, thanks, Dave...I don't want an incredibly long list of players.

Lol here's a list...

Chippo

M

Moz

Shark

Me

All apparently know nothing and have defective eyes that earn their living by lying to us.

Spot on plum. A person can only feel sorry for this self proclaimed Rugby fool…

That is the biggest coward on here….you can’t even admit that Thomas is a sub standard scrummager…

What game were you watching yesterday??!! Where it was clear to see as soon as Thomas + Koch came on how our scrum’s went down the drain!

Stop lying to yourself you Making a absolute tit of yourself…. The cheek calling other posters dumb and Rugby ignorant!!

Wake up and be honest for a change …..

Dave’s scrum vision is the tighthead engages the opposition and then his hooker and loosehead attach to him. It’s sounds a bit like sci-fi but Dave swears one player in the front row can engage his opposite sufficiently before the rest that the very act changes the scrumming odds.

Apparently though the Georgians never used that tactic.

And Thomas the Tank….last week was Thomas the yank at minute 30, but there was an excuse for that which had nothing to do with his flaccid scrumming. But for the life of me, I can’t recall that pearl.

Well Plum you know very little let’s face it so the fact that you only rate Ox and Wilco says it all

Fuck knows how Bok rugby is regarded as the premier scrumming side with only two noteworthy props

Have you ever heard of Gerhard Steenkamp, injured at the moment, I take it you don’t rate him?

How the fuck does Thomas make the English Premier side of the year as a tighthead if he can’t scrum

Are you and Moz really this fucking stupid?

Good old Moz has declared that Wessels can’t scrum as he is too ignorant to know that Wessels a few weeks ago was compromised by his opponents early engage - according to this genius apparently one prop can’t pre engage before his prop partner - despite CHAT confirming the obvious fact a prop can do just that - fuck me if you had actually played or been around the game of rugby you would know one prop can pre engage before his partner - helloooooo

Moz what part of Rassie himself explaining why he subbed Thomas. - are you too stupid to believe that Rassie just made his call up when it was as obvious as props being able to pre engage before their partner does

He pulled him as we were down to 7 in the scrum and he is not a specialist loosehead - so shock

shock he brought on Ox the best loosehead in the game to offset the loss of stupid Wiese

Try fucking wake up or better still keep your ignorant rugby takes to yourself - it’s embarrassing

But to your credit it’s not as fucking stupid as Plum wanting Roos at 12 - rugby genius that call

Be honest, Davie...

How badly was that vein in your head bulging and how red was your face when you made that post?

Have you calmed down now?

Perhaps some "dogging near me" might cheer you up?

It’s actually normal Rugby play that all 3 front Rankers engage at the same time…

I suppose a TH or LH can engage before the other one, but this is not normal at all… what happens to the other prop and the hooker??

This will cause everything to be unbalanced and they will have to reset….

Ok so maybe Thomas is better

scrumming at TH. I can recall vs the 38 year old LH from Portugal, Thomas suffered and also had a crooked back.

Was Thomas so successful at scrumming in Europe?? I doubt that very strongly. You say he was dominant on Saturday vs the Georgian pack…

Please provide a video of this where he was dominantly scrumming the TH backwards ….

Just move on Dave and rather stick to other props like Sadie or a Prop that you advocated for in Hanro Jacobs….

Even this Fat guy that look likes two Busses put together Asenathi Ntlabakanye is better at scrum time.

I personally think he is overrated and to fat and slow in the loose….what do you think is going to happen to Tank vs De Groot or if he is at LH vs Lomax??

These two AB props will fold him in half…..Taimaiti Williams will do the same to him…

You Need Wilco or OX, Boan Venter, Sadie, Jacobs , Steenekamp, that are known strong props with strong straight Backs…. Not crooked backs vs Georgian props.

They will have a field day vs Tank. I can guarantee you that Erasmus will not start Thomas against any of the stronger teams…

Its commendable that you loyal to the guy, but he cannot scrum and you fighting a losing Battle!!

Well of course it’s not normal for fuck sake - that’s not the point

But it’s obvious that it can happen despite what genius Moz thinks

If a prop does get an early engage and gets away with it, he has an immediate advantage which is exactly what happened to Wessels

But good old Moz failed to pick this obvious fact up and instead chose to declare that Wessels can’t scrum just like he has Malherbe, Kitshoff and Thomas

Its just a fallacy that the Boks are world renowned scrummagers

It can’t happen it’s nonsense ….when 3 bound players engage 3 bound players it’s so close to instantaneous as makes no difference. Wessels was drilled in the scrums….he is a hooker not a prop.

Poor Moz who knows so little about the game - always the observer clearly never a player - fucking joke

Can a tighthead engage before his loosehead does in a scrum ChatGPT

In theory, no, a tighthead prop should not engage before the loosehead in a properly coordinated scrum. However, in practice, this sometimes happens—illegally—and can cause issues like collapses, angles, or penalties.

Here’s why:

1. Law 19.10 (World Rugby) governs scrum engagement:
2. The front rows must engage simultaneously and squarely.
3. The tighthead and loosehead props must bind on the opposing player before pushing.
4. Early engagement by one prop (tighthead or loosehead) is a penalty offence.
5. 
   
6. In practice:
7. A tighthead engaging early can try to dominate the loosehead by:
8. Angling inwards (“boring in”).
9. Forcing the scrum to wheel or collapse.
10. 
    
11. This is often penalized if spotted, but not always detected by referees.
12. 
    

Conclusion:

A tighthead prop cannot legally engage before the loosehead. All front row players must engage together on the referee’s command. Early engagement by either prop is illegal and can be penalized for “early push” or “not engaging squarely.”

Chat opines:

3. Why a Solo Engage Doesn’t Work Practically

Even if the ref missed it:

1. A tighthead engaging early would lose power transfer from his own pack
2. Without synchronized drive from the hooker and loosehead, he risks being turned in or collapsed
3. More likely to concede a penalty than gain dominance

……….

Poor old Dave…..down he goes in flames again

Ah so now you have woken up to the reality that it is a possibility and then still stupid enough to declare I’m going down

Fuck me how stupid are you?

So Chat declaring the following:

1. In practice:
2. A tighthead engaging early can try to dominate the loosehead by:
3. Angling inwards (“boring in”).
4. Forcing the scrum to wheel or collapse.

Does not count in your world as clearly your take on scrums is soooo astute

Are you now going to acknowledge you know fuck all about scrums?

Moz your ignorance has yet again been exposed.

I find it very peculiar that you did not know one prop could engage before his prop partner - seriously???

Fuck I played in the backs but it was pretty obvious this was a well used tactic by the props

It now explains your piss poor inaccurate takes on Malherbe, Kitshoff, Wessels, CJ vd Linde, Thomas, Brian Mojati - yet you rated useless BJ Botha - go figure

The same applies to lock - you rate useless Mostert over Lood and PSDT as a lock

For ignorant Sharktwat

17 Thomas du Toit – 7

An assured scrummaging display from the bench against the Georgian pack that love to scrum, marching the opposition back with his first effort.

18 Vincent Koch – 5

Penalised by Matthew Carley at one point for going to his knee, and was pinged again for not driving straight

That is one rating, most others rated him badly

Don’t lie you ignorant prick - only your completely inaccurate rating said he struggled in the scrums and conceded penalties

An utter lie - he never conceded a single scrum penalty but did win us a scrum penalty

Feel free to time stamp any scrum that Thomas struggled in or better still conceded a scrum penalty - that should prove your rugby credibility if you can provide the evidence. Take your time and good luck with that you joke

You know fuck all about rugby and I mean that sincerely

Psychoanalysis of “Saffolk” (aka - Fat Dave)

1. Ego Inflation and Narcissistic Defence

Traits observed:

1. Grandiose certainty
2. Dismissal of all dissenting opinions
3. Repeated declarations of others' ignorance

Interpretation:

Saffolk exhibits narcissistic traits, particularly ego inflation rooted in the desire to be recognised as a rugby authority. Narcissism here does not necessarily imply clinical disorder but refers to a protective self-enhancement used to guard against deep-seated self-doubt.

“Fuck me how stupid are you?” – reflects ego defence against perceived inferiority or vulnerability.

The language of omniscience (e.g., “you know fuck all”) suggests a fragile ego bolstered by performative certainty rather than quiet confidence.

2. Projection and Externalisation

Traits observed:

1. Constantly accuses others of stupidity
2. Positions himself as the lone voice of truth
3. Belittles others' understanding of technical rugby detail

Interpretation:

Saffolk projects his internal insecurities and possibly repressed self-doubt onto others. This defence mechanism—projection—involves attributing one’s own unacceptable thoughts, emotions, or failings to someone else.

In clinical terms, he’s externalising blame for discomfort: rather than sit with the cognitive dissonance that Thomas du Toit may be flawed, he attributes “ignorance” to everyone else, keeping his worldview stable.

3. Obsessive Control & Cognitive Rigidity

Traits observed:

1. Demands time-stamped proof
2. Focus on technical minutiae (e.g., early engage mechanics)
3. Refuses to accept ambiguity

Interpretation:

Saffolk displays signs of obsessive-compulsive cognition—not in the clinical OCD sense, but in personality style. He craves control over interpretation and reacts poorly when ambiguity or nuance enters the discussion.

His need for absolute correctness aligns with a rigid superego, which in psychodynamic terms can cause inflexibility and black-and-white thinking.

4. Aggression as a Defence Mechanism

Traits observed:

1. Use of repeated profanity
2. Personal insults directed at multiple users
3. Confrontational language: “twats,” “fucking joke,” “dumbfuck,” etc.

Interpretation:

This is a textbook display of defensive aggression, used to protect the ego and exert dominance in a tribal setting. It may stem from:

1. Low frustration tolerance
2. Identity threat
3. Or previous humiliation in similar group contexts

Freud would likely interpret this as “Thanatos”—the death instinct—turned outward: a venting of inner turmoil upon others to avoid introspection.

5. Group Identity & Alpha Role Behaviour

Traits observed:

1. High post count (28,699)
2. Uses seniority as proof of authority
3. Derides newcomers or those with differing views

Interpretation:

In Jungian terms, Saffolk plays the “Shadow King” or “False Prophet” archetype—someone who uses perceived status or knowledge to impose control on a group but resists authentic, evolving discourse.

He sees himself as the “guardian of truth”, but this is undermined by emotional volatility and intellectual inflexibility.

6. Insecurity & Fear of Obsolescence

Subtextual traits:

1. Harsh toward new players, new posters
2. Idealises past performance, rigidly defends certain figures
3. Loathes being contradicted

Interpretation:

Beneath the bluster lies a deep fear of becoming irrelevant—whether as a rugby analyst, a forum member, or a “voice of reason.” The intensity of his reactions suggests ego fragility, not strength.

This may stem from:

1. A lifelong need to “prove” himself
2. Anxiety around perceived loss of control
3. Struggles with evolving rugby narratives that challenge his internal model

Diagnostic Summary (Personality Spectrum)

Conclusion

Saffolk is not merely rude—he is enacting a psychological drama wherein his identity as a rugby sage is continually under siege. His rage and insults are not random; they are self-protective responses triggered by perceived loss of control, status threat, or ego injury.

He must believe he's correct at all times, because to admit otherwise would collapse the personal myth he's constructed: that he is the one true rugby oracle in a sea of fools.

Of course one prop can make contact marginally ahead of his partners, but it will have no effect….as Chat points out, doing that eliminates transferring power. It’s an ignorant defense of a very poor scrumming performance by Wessels. The man is a promising hooker….a dominant loosehead he certainly isn’t.

Anyway we have cleared up that stupid point using the very source you used, live with it.

Um Chat says it is used to the advantage of the prop engaging early

Do you want me to repost this fact so it sinks in?

But I see you are now saying the early engage is possible when in the past you said it was not

So what is it? You seem a little confused

Wow Shark - you really are pathetic

Imagine taking the trouble to come up with that and have no one bother to read it

You sad fuck

Very informative and take some advice Dave, read it, take it to heart, you need it!

No Chat says an early engage won’t work:

3. Why a Solo Engage Doesn’t Work Practically

Even if the ref missed it:

1. A tighthead engaging early would lose power transfer from his own pack
2. Without synchronized drive from the hooker and loosehead, he risks being turned in or collapsed
3. More likely to concede a penalty than gain dominance

Oh what bullshit - an early engage gives the prop an advantage on impact evidenced by Wessels starting the scrum on the back foot

Evidenced by Chat saying there is an illegal way to gain an advantage by engaging early

It’s fucking obvious that by hitting your opponent early you get an advantage - fuck me stop being so damn stupid

Its like saying a boxer getting in a good first punch is at a disadvantage

This is like debating with a child

Well if it happened in one scrum Wessels was damn stupid not to anticipate it in the next scrum. But of course as Chat point out there is no way one attached member of the front row can project any force if the others are stationary.

…complete laughable nonsense from the man who has a problem seeing things. No vision Dave.

Bullshit Chat must be confused because it tells us that a prop pre engages to gain an illegal advantage

If you know your rugby you will know this fact

You clearly don’t

Wessels was only compromised in that first scrum never again - it was a technical issue - not a strength or technique issue

If he was left to settle at loosehead instead of playing hooker every second game these technical issues would not happen

All very obvious but clearly beyond you

"Wow Shark - you really are pathetic

Imagine taking the trouble to come up with that and have no one bother to read it"

I read it, and it's pretty accurate.

Also, Dave, allow me to prove Shark's point.

You are lying about the early engage. There was an early engagement in the very first scrum of the scrum of that game. And then zero after that.

So your entire argument is based on one incident. And that singular incident doesn't even clearly back up what you are saying.

Fuck off Plum you prick - the first scrum was the only one Moz and I were debating

Try fucking catch a wake up

That scrum was the only one Wessels had an issue with - helloooooo

Wessels was in trouble throughout as I recall