Wales guilty of eye gouging

Tomas Francis gets 8 weeks. Well deserved but this was one of the most obvious cases I have seen, it seems a short sentence for such a miserable act.

 

 ...don't think Kaplan has as yet confirmed whether there is intent...intent being the overriding factor.....where the hand or foot lies has no bearing whatsoever...

 Lol

Was a cheap shot by a fat arse.....how on earth does such a fat player get to play at the highest level.....same applies to Mako Vinipola......its pathetic

Why these guys think they can get away with this kind of stuff always amazes me. The rules evolve, but quickly become  clear. 
For example this neck roll thing, never really called before the WC, is now carefully patrolled. Especially by George Ayoub, who seems to have made this  offence you could spot in any school playground, almost a criminal act. Overdone? You betcha, when far more dangerous contact is legally made with players contesting the ball on the ground. But it's the new thing and players have to adapt.

Eye gouging has long been one of the big taboos in rugby. So given the disgrace that accompanies an eye gouge, why do they do it?

Hmmmm . . . the heading on this thread says that "Wales" is guilty of eye-gouging . . . not an individual, but the entire country!

Does this mean that the whole of South Africa is guilty because of this . . .

. . . disgusting incident?

And was the melodramatic and biased bigot who started this thread as critical about eye-gouging when it was his hero Skulk doing it? I wonder . . .

 I was also amazed by the heading of this thread.  The heading implies that every player in the Wales team was eye-gouging.   I knew it was only one player who was investigated,
What is really amazing is that the guy who elsewhere advocates that laws of rugby should be ignored in one case - while here he accused a whole team of eye-gouging and the laws should be applied.   Is he a hypocrite?  
    

Thanks that's exactly what I thought you would do AAS and you obliged. I remember the droves of emotional posts you made about the Schalk incident against the Lions....the only black mark in a distinguished career.
But when your Welsh Wallie rakes Coles eyes in the only match I am dead certain you watched all weekend. Nothing. Not even a bit of outrage.

You are in fact a pathetic hypocrite and this proves it again. So take a hike and take your grovelling lackey with you.
LMAO!

 Talking of Burger - my brother who is an ardent rugby supporter -  said this morning that it is time for the Stormers to get rid of Burger since he believes that his performances are sub-par and was in fact so in the last two games.   .   

Well given the gene pool, let's take that from whence it comes. But perhaps he is a step brother?

 Mozart
Stick to rugby issues please - and admit that Burger was below par in the last two games and ineffective in the first game in Super 15.   Not a good start to the eason I must say.  

How do you invariably know when a message board contributor has loads of egg sliding down his crimson face?
When he starts his comment with "I knew you were going to say that"!
LMAO!

 Rooinek
I was in Wales and never saw that the country had fingers to do eye-gouging.  Am I wrong?   

 Sucker....you followed the script exactly, even to your next denial. Totally exposed as a hypocrite live with it.

 The heading of the thread is BS.  Enough said

Its sad to see ou maaaikie reduced to rank of SERVILE GIMP to that underdog rooiwit!!! Ya cant go much lower!

Schalk was just by chance passing his fingers over that ugly mug. He wasnt even looking at the guy. Give the great man a break he has always played hard but clean.Trust ou rootiwt to get it hopelessly wrong! 

 Mike is trying so hard to be a good lackey it's painful to witness.

 Not a lackey of anybody.  I was just stating that the heading of the thread is misleading.  

 I'd expect Rooitjes true to form will be shrieking and finger-pointing Mike as a Servile Gimp, Brown Nose, Alpha Gimp, Lackey, whatever .....based on the above why wouldn't he?

Denny
Querying the heading of the thread was all I did.  I did not side with Rooinek on anything.   This story is routine - I do not believe Rooinek is correct on issues and him bringing in Burger was not rally the issue here.
Mozart with the heading he used is wrong as well.   This one should have been Welsh player guilty of eye-gouging, not Wales guilty of eye-gouging.  Was it wrong of me to point that out?    

"I did not side with Rooinek on anything."
Except for the two times you agreed with him about the heading in this very thread. Why would you agree with someone, and then try to deny that you agreed with them, while the evidence of you agreeing with them is still right there in the same thread?

 Pakie
I did not agree with Rooinek - I just pointed out that the heading of the thread was BS.  Can you please explain how a country can gouge eyes?   In any event do you really think the heading of the thread is appropriate or correct?       

 using the same arguments you all (Beeno1, Denny and Pakie) could be pointed for being the "SERVILE GIMP"s of Mozart,....... an utter nonsense

"I did not agree with Rooinek - I just pointed out that the heading of the thread was BS."

Rooinek first pointed out the problem with the heading. 
So, if you didn't agree with him, that means you don't think there's any problem with the heading. Yet clearly you do think there is a problem, as you just admitted again in your last comment. So, how are you not agreeing with him?
Here are your words in response to him:"I was also amazed by the heading of this thread."
But you're not agreeing with him, right?
It's not a problem, you can agree with whoever and whatever you want. It's just funny that you are trying to lie about being in agreement with him.
To answer your question: I agree that usually we refer to a player that has been found guilty, not a team. Mozart seems to have started a little slapping game about Wales with Rooinek, so that's probably why he referred to the team instead of the player. Either way, not my circus, not my monkeys. They can have their fun on their own time, which I'm sure they are.
I can be bothered with you though, Mr Sanctimonious, since you're the only person on this board who has flat out accused me of lying when I've called you out. So I'm only too happy to point out your little fibs whenever I feel like it, just to show how compulsively you try to worm out of sticky situations, even when, like here, there is absolutely nothing at stake and no shame in admitting the truth.

 Listen Stupid
If you do not understand English - I cannot help you.  Look stupid bum - if you do not realize that the heading of the thread was misleading and should have been recognized as such.  If you want to grovel before Mozart and try and save face for him - like you did in a number of other cases - you are welcome to do so.   But then you must not address other members as being servile to others.  I repeatedly pointed out the fact that the heading was misleading and to say that Mozart used it to provoke a reaction is utter BS.     

Uhm, the issue in question is not the heading. In case you missed it, I agree with you on that. 
The issue is that you are trying to lie about agreeing with Rooinek on the heading being a problem. Which you're yet again avoiding.
Where did I grovel and save face for Mozart? By confirming the facts about the Stormer/Cheetah lineouts, which so far only you, out of everyone on this board, have disputed? By saying he started a slapping match with Rooinek? Which may not even be true, as I am just guessing that his posting of the the eye gouging incident on Rooinek's Wales XV thread was a bit of a wind-up, which it may not even have been.
But never mind, par for the course for you. Address everything except the issue you're being called out on. That's all for today, better things to do.

Oh yeah by the way, where did I address anyone as being servile to anyone else? Ever? Really Mike, just cut out the lying, it's embarrassing. 

You echoed Beeno and your deductions are nonsensical.    

This is the most confusing thread I've ever read.
I don't know what you people are talking about.
PS Note, that is not a request for someone to explain this to me . . . I'm not that interested . . . just confused!

 It's simple RooiAAS, this thread points out the dirty play of the Wallie. But it has a second mission, to get you to make a fool of yourself by revisiting the Schalk Burger incident. Where you used the one time Schalk stepped out of line to vent all yourb bile on him. But of course with the Wallie no comment.

You walked straight into that sucker punch...no wonder you are confused AAS.

 Nothing wrong with the thread heading. On Scalla, he couldn't see what he was doing obviously. His intent might not have been the eyes, but he wasn't petting his dog either. I'm sure he is still embarrassed by that photo. Certainly his worst moment on the field.

The activities of individuals are routinely attributed to the team in sports headlines. Nothing wrong with the headline, even if it totally sucked in the AAS. LMAO!

 Mozart
That is the biggest Load of BS ever - to blame a country for the misdeeds of an individual is laughable.  

 "The activities of individuals are routinely attributed to the team in sports headlines"

not the eye gouging,..... eye gouging s are never attributed to the team,...... let alone to a whole country,...... your headline is completely wrong

 Jones calls Springbok actions 'disgraceful' as pair are banned....

 The actions of a few players are routinely attributed to the team. Eye gouging by one individual does reflect on the team, as does any form of dirty play. Case closed.

 

Lions blast back: All Springboks did was punch and gouge | Daily Mail Online

Daily Mail › uk › sport › article-1196163

 the first is not even a headline, the real second headline says:

Lions outrage: Springbok Burger escapes with eight-week ban despite cowardly attack
eye gougings are not attributed to teams in headlines,..... never to a whole country

 And here is the precise case  RooiAAS and his groupies are complaining  about:

Lions uproar over gouging: Springboks accused of vicious attack after Test triumph with the last kick

By Ian Stafford, Mail on Sunday Sports Reporter/Rugby Correspondent UPDATED: 09:15 EST, 28 June 2009

Not Springbok accused , or Burger accused.....Springboks accused. The team is held accountable for the actions of its players.
It happens all the time...glad to have provided a little education.