Wales guilty of eye gouging

 if you, at least, bothered in reading the articles that you link you would find in the first 2 paragraphs that:

"The Lions fell to a heartbreaking series defeat by world champions South Africa on a day of controversy and accusations of foul play against their opponents.

Two Springboks face bans after being cited last night for dangerous play, with flanker Schalk Burger lucky not to have been sent off in the first minute of the 28-25 second Test defeat for gouging wing Luke Fitzgerald."

There were 2 springboks facing bans accused of vicious attacks, hence "springboks" both in the headline and in the article are referred to Burger and Bakkies, not to all the springboks

 and quit that childish "groupie" stupidity

 And if you bother reading my first post in this string you will see I mention Tomas Francis in the first sentence. The reporting is exactly the same.....a Headline citing the team, and a first sentence narrowing down the incident. 
As for your defence of the headline...nope. If they wanted to bring it down to the two players involved, it would have read : "two springboks accused of vicious attack".
It was a general condemnation of the team, which was clarified in the article. My headline was actually much softer....no 'vicious' attack. Simply a factual description"eye gouging"
Nice try.

 Moz, congratulations on a very successful sting operation......geez, Rooitjies not only swallowed the bait he gulped the fishing rod as well!

 Thanks den

My god it's hard to believe the depths of childishness and infantile petulance that Moffie and Dense can sink to.
And we share a board with these weak and pathetic little losers! We should all feel a bit embarrassed . . . 

  bla, bla, bla,...... bla, bla, bla,....

there's no headline attributing eye gouging to a whole team

as I said springboks is referred to Burger and Bakkies,... the headlines look for putting the lesser words possible
and if more than one player of a team are accused of diferent acts of foul play (let say one is accused of eye gouging and another one of a shoulder charge resulting in a dislocated shoulder and there are another 4 injured players) then it's a very diferent story,.... and, yeah, the team could be accused of attacks (which is used to include all the different attacks suffered by the lions in hands of different springboks players which are then referred as "springboks", is very long to write all the names).

And for the next time, please, don't bring rags like the "Daily Mail" as examples,.... they have no ethic at all

but no headline attributing eye gouging to a team

 Basque, did you mis Moz's headline quote in blue?"All Springboks did was punch and gouge"

 I'm not saying the media is correct with this kind of reporting, but there are more than enough examples of it being reported in this way. You don't have to like it, but it's the way of the world.

 how can anyone accuse others of "Servile Gimp, Brown Nose, Alpha Gimp, Lackey, whatever ...." and then come with "Moz, congratulations on a very successful sting operation"?

mysteries of life,.... beyond any reasoning

 DbD,

no, I didn't miss anything,.... as I said that wasn't the headline, the real headline of the article was:
Lions outrage: Springbok Burger escapes with eight-week ban despite cowardly attack

and, anyway, it's the Daily Mail

 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

Thats the headline in big block letters....live with it.

 RED CARD SINKS ARSENAL AGAIN

 Basque,  irrespective of the quotes in this thread, it's common practice for the media to generalise when it suits the agenda. The OP is typical media style. Nobody thinks the whole team and country are guilty of the act...it's a typical sensationalist headline, and given the context, not misleading at all.

 Dirty Springboks called to account

By Mick Cleary

12:01AM GMT 25 Nov 2002

South Africa flew out of Heathrow last night with condemnation ringing in their ears for their brutal play during Saturday's record 53-3 defeat at Twickenham, a victory that puts England top of the world rankings. It also resulted in a string of allegations against the Springboks for their wild and reckless challenges.

Full-back Werner Greeff was cited yesterday evening by the independent match commissioner, Paris lawyer Paul Mauriac, for the high tackle on Bristol wing Phil Christophers in the 59th minute that led to the awarding of a penalty try. Despite their own anger, England made no recommendations for citing review to the commissioner.

A three-man disciplinary panel is to be convened to study Greeff's case and also that of Springbok lock Jannes Labuschagne, who was sent off in the first half for a late tackle on England's outside-half, Jonny Wilkinson. That hearing will probably take place tomorrow.

 do you have difficulties with the understanding? confused and disorientated?

what DbD said was:

"Basque, did you mis Moz's headline quote in blue?"
All Springboks did was punch and gouge"

referred to the following posted by you which is not the real headline of the news (go to the link and check it):

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

Daily Mail › uk › sport › article-1196163

which is very diferent from the other headline you are now talking 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)

where there's not a single "block letter" and, by the way, is not linked to any article

"live with it"

And another headline
Springboks lose respect over stomping affair 
....followed by a description of Andre Venter supposedly raking Fitzpatrick, this from the Straits Times, but I can't get it to copy and paste. One man's actions are attributed to the entire team.

 Silly argument really,  but quite entertaining for fools like me. Interesting reading between the lines.

 and now the other article,....... "Dirty Springboks called to account",........ are you gaga or what?
where the hell is the team accused of an eye gouging in this headline?

this is already surrealist,.... I'm not wasting my time any more with this kind of nonsenses,..... bye bye

 Boks get roasting for dirty tactics

SYDNEY - Australia's Sunday papers concentrated their headlines on Springbok rugby thuggery yesterday but there was plenty of space given to the Wallabies' improved display before their acid test against the All Blacks in two weeks.

Foul play by some Springboks dominated after-match reaction in the Sun-Herald.

"What A Disgrace" it blared on its back page, with sub-headings of Gouged, Bitten, Spat Upon and King Hit.

Other headlines in their pages included "Triumphant Wallabies slam dirty Springboks" and "Victory marred by Springboks' spite".

Writer Greg Growden said the Wallabies were seething, describing the Springboks as the "disgrace of international rugby" after making accusations of eye gouging, biting and spitting.

The Sunday Telegraph focused on the Wallabies ending a losing stretch with a front page headline of "We're Back" followed by "Wallabies burst out of slump for World Cup".

But on its sports page ran the headline "Wallaby fury at gutter tactics", over a story angled on the king-hit by Springbok prop Robbie Kempson which sent Australian No 8 Toutai Kefu from the field with a spinal injury.

 Need I go on....it's absolutely standard journalistic practice to put what the writer wants in the headline. If the player or players are more interesting...they go in. If the team, as in the case of the poor maligned Boks is more interesting....the team goes in.

In this case, I put the team, for my own purposes....to fulfill my own sense of justice. And it worked like a charm.

 Dumb Basque we are talking about a general principle here.....not just eye gouging. We are debating whether the team can be called out in the headline for the actions of one or more players....rather than the players themselves.......nothing surreal. 
And as the many examples I have provided show, it's absolutely normal practice for the team to be called out in the headline.
You shot your mouth off and lost. You can pretend to leave in a huff but it fools nobody. Perhaps you will learn to mind your own business in future.

 An idiotic heading for the thread and that remains a fact.   No amount of side-swiping is needed.  For every heading quoted there is a hundred headings that is accurate.  So what has been done with this heading is just plain BS.  

 Ah the lackey working for his master....such loyalty in the face of recorded evidence to the contrary is commendable. A loyal little lackey.

 Mozart
Because I oppose your rubbish does not mean I am a lackey of anyone.  And read what I said - you had to go back nearly 7 years to find a report in a newspaper to support the junk heading you posted.  Why come up with trivial BS like you did in this case? 

 Oh so you want a more recent referee where the team substitutes for the individual(s) actually performing the act, here you go....Wales guilty of eye gouging, France kick their way to victory.....no difference.

February 08, 2015

Scotland left frustrated as France kick their way to victory in Paris

I guess this pretty much wraps up all the objections from all the lackies...
Argentina lucky not to get a red card this afternoon?

Ramiro Herrera came close to a second yellow card.

Oct 18th 2015, 6:22 PM 16,956 Views   41 Comments  Share22  Tweet32  Email3

IT’S QUITE RARE to see a sending off for two yellow cards in rugby.

Argentina prop Ramiro Herrera very nearly found himself with one today, however.

The tighthead prop picked up his yellow for a first half shoulder charge on Keith Earls, before being involved in this controversial incident with 30 minutes to play and the game firmly in the balance.

Referee Jerome Garces went to his TMO to check the legality of this attempted clear-out on Rory Best.

The TMO ruled that Herrera had bound to the ruck with his left arm, and Garces decided it was worth just a penalty.

Correct decision, or did Herrera get away with one?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3a2mks_rec1635_people

H/T Balls.ie