By AFP
December 20th 2009 @ 1:47am
View The Roar's top rugby union writers.
New podcast from RuggaMatrix, with Munster Assistant Coach Laurie Fisher as guest. Listen now.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Related coverage
Dupuy six-month gouging ban is anti-French, fume Stade
Stade Francais angrily denounced the six-month eye-gouging ban handed down to scrum-half Julien Dupuy on Friday as “anti-French” and “excessive”.
French international Dupuy received the season-ending, 24-week ban for eye-gouging Ulster flanker Stephen Ferris during the Irish province’s 23-13 European Cup win over the Paris-based club in Belfast last Saturday.
But the decision by the Dublin-based European [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(112)
pothale said | December 20th 2009 @ 5:56am | Report comment
Hmmm. The French do not know their geography or rugby politics. Apoligising for something which is detrimental to their image in the UK misses the point completely. It’s their image in Ireland they need to think about.
In addition, they have questioned the validity of the photographs taken that show Attoub sticking his fingers in Ferris’ eye. They have claimed in court that the photos are doctored. Understandably the photographer in question is somewhat miffed and the four digitial images in question have been sent to an indepdendent laboratory. The allegation is being seen as time-wasting by the French club’s lawyers.
The French club president also questioned this decision being made by a private body in Ireland. Maybe it’s time the IRB shifted its headquarters to Muroroa to keep the French happy.
Intriguingly, the planned H CUp turnaround match between the two teams had to be cancelled today in Brussels’ King Baudoin stadium as a result of the pitch being frozen. French officials are frantically trying to find a suitalble pitch to play the game tomorrow or next day (Sunday or Monday) Ulster have an important interprovincial Magners League match on St Stephen’s Day (Dec 26) so it will have to be before then.
Wix said | December 20th 2009 @ 3:00pm | Report comment
I played rugby for many years in London. I refereed for sevaral years in Sydney. I can confirm that racsism is alive and well in our game. For confirmation ask an Pacific Islander who plays in Sydney. We all know that racism in society generally, simmers below the surface at all times. Rugby, being such a violent game, can bring it to the surface very quickly.
Although I never played in France, I fee l sure the same will apply there.
As we all know, there is no cure. It is, alas, a permanet “feature” of societies everywhere The Dublin based European Rugby Cup committee, surprise surprise, is comprised of people like us
Joh4Canberra said | December 20th 2009 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Not so fast pothale: unless you’re an Irish nationalist, Ulster (or to be 100% technically correct the majority of Ulster since modern day Northern Ireland is not entirely coextensive with the province of Ulster) *is* in the UK.
Rugby is organised on an all-Ireland basis (unlike in soccer where there are separate national teams for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in rugby there is just one national team for all of Ireland) and yet politically the island of Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (a part of the UK).
The four rugby provinces of Ireland are
Leinster (ROI)
Munster (ROI)
Connacht (ROI)
Ulster (predominantly NI = UK)
If you want to get technical, 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster are in NI (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry, and Tyrone) while the remaining 3 (Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan) are part of the Republic of Ireland. But in common parlance “Ulster” and “Northern Ireland” are used interchangeably. AND in any event the majority of the population of Ulster is in the 6 counties of NI (with Belfast the biggest population centre).
pothale said | December 21st 2009 @ 4:42am | Report comment
Thanks for the history and geography lesson – Joh4.
The French statement referred to the ‘Irish province of Ulster’ – a description that some living in Northern Ireland would disagree with. True? Hence my comment about their knowledge of geography.
The terms Ulster and Northern Ireland are not used interchangeably by everyone. They used to be by some of the unionist political parties, but that has decreased substantially in the last 20 years. Northern Ireland or the North are the most common expressions used.
Ulster is used regularly to refer to the entire nine counties which is the geographical area used for GAA and for rugby in sport.
Ulster Rugby is part of the IRFU, it is supported by people living in Ireland predominantly. It plays in the Magners League. It is one of the four provincial clubs that feed into the Ireland national team. And it is highly popular in Irish rugby circles and fans – the first Irish province to win the Heineken Cup, regular winner of Interprovincial matches, etc.
I could hazard a guess and say that Ulster is much more supported by and has a much greater affinity with the island of Ireland and that it’s fan base is rooted and taken from Ireland. My point was that Stade Francais worrying about their image in the UK was misplaced. It was their image in Ireland they should focus on, as opposed to giving out about private organisations in Ireland. (As if the ERC is an Irish entity only.)
One could respond that it is only their image in the UK (in other words, England) that Stade actually care about, in which case, the French statement stands, and my commentary is moot.
Compris?
Joh4Canberra said | December 21st 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
“The French statement referred to the ‘Irish province of Ulster’ – a description that some living in Northern Ireland would disagree with. True?”
No, not in a rugby context. — and context is everything when it comes to the word “Ireland”. (Well ok, you only have to find two people in all of NI and your statement is technically correct. But the force of my point is that people from NI don’t really have a problem with this use of the word “Irish”).
It all depends on what you mean by the word “Ireland”. That little word is ambiguous. Depending on context it can (in a post-1922 context) mean either (1) the 26 counties of the Republic of Ireland, (2) the 32 counties of the whole island of Ireland (i.e. the 26 counties of the ROI and the six counties of NI taken together as a whole) or (more rarely) (3) the six counties of Northern Ireland (as in the “Irish Football Association” which is the governing body for Association Football in NI).
In a rugby context “Ireland” is used in sense (2) above — i.e. the entire island of Ireland. People from NI don’t have a problem with supporting “Ireland” in rugby. That’s their national team as much as someone from the Republic of Ireland because “Ireland” in this sense refers to the whole island of Ireland and not the 26 counties of the Republic exclusively. And for rugby purposes Ulster is quite clearly an “Irish” province. (It is not exactly English, Scottish, or Welsh!). Ulster unionists (or at least the ones I know) don’t have a problem with saying that Ulster is an “Irish” province in the context of rugby since in rugbyspeak “Ireland” *means* the island of Ireland and NOT the 26 counties of the Republic (or the 6 counties of NI for that matter).
But many Ulster unionists would have reservations about saying something like “I’m Irish” or “I’m from Ireland”. But that’s another matter entirely and slightly off topic. But they wouldn’t have a problem with the use of the terminology “the Irish province of Ulster” in a rugby context.
“The terms Ulster and Northern Ireland are not used interchangeably by everyone.”
Indeed they are not and in fact I never said they were. I even went to great lengths to state that for rugby purposes Ulster includes 3 counties from the Republic (although the vast majority of the fans in fact hail from the 6 counties of NI).
And even for people who do use them interchangeably context is everything. The one person may use “Ulster” to refer to the 6 counties of NI in one context and the 9 counties in a different context. As you have pointed out, the context in which “Ulster” is used as a synonym for NI tends to be political rather than sporting and its use tends to be more historical than current. And where its usage is current it tends to be based on historical forms eg “Ulster unionist” and the “Ulster Unionist Party”. But outside of party names and entrenched historical usage you are right to state the modern tendency is to use the term “Northern Ireland” (or Norn Ireland
). And within Ireland (in sense (2) of that word) itself many people simply refer to “the North” and “the South” to refer to NI and the ROI respectively.
“Ulster is used regularly to refer to the entire nine counties which is the geographical area used for GAA and for rugby in sport.”
It goes without saying that the GAA would never use the word “Ulster” interchangeably with NI. For one thing their (nationalist) politics wouldn’t allow it. But much more importantly in a sporting context “Ulster” does not normally mean the 6 counties of NI exclusively. This is as true for the GAA as it is for rugby. In this sense “Ulster” is a neutral geographical term and politics (nationalist/unionist) don’t really come into the equation.
“Ulster Rugby is part of the IRFU, it is supported by people living in Ireland predominantly.”
As long as we’re clear that “Ireland” here is used in the second sense — to refer to the entire Ireland of Ireland — then yes of course that statement is true. In the first sense of the word (i.e. the 26 counties of the Republic) there would be very, very few Ulster rugby supporters in “Ireland”. Mainly “expats” from NI living and working in Dublin. But in the second sense of the word “Ireland”, yes nearly all Ulster rugby supporters would be from “Ireland”. But almost all of these would be from the part of “Ireland” that is politically in the UK.
The IRFU governs rugby for the whole island of Ireland unlike soccer where Ireland is divided into ROI and NI. Unlike soccer, the 1922 partition of Ireland didn’t change Irish rugby. Pre-1922 and post-1922 Irish rugby is essentially the same. Pre-1922 the whole island of Ireland was a constituent part of the UK and the national team in rugby (governed by the IRFU) and soccer (governed by the IFA) was “Ireland”. When 26 of the 32 counties left the UK in 1922, Irish soccer was torn in two (with a rival body the FAI set up and both the IFA and FAI initially claiming to represent all of Ireland but due to FIFA intervention eventually settling on the FAI representing the ROI and the IFA representing NI) but Irish rugby remained unified under the single IRFU banner despite the political partition of Ireland.
Anyway, the fact remains that the vast majority of Ulster rugby supporters are from NI (not to mention the unionist community) and it is therefore not incorrect for Stade Français to refer to *both* the “Irish” province of Ulster *and* the damage to Stade’s reputation “in the UK” based on the fact that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK. Consider the alternative. Had Stade referred to their reputation “in Ireland” would that have been unambiguous? Would it have referred to the island of Ireland or the 26 counties of the Republic? How would all the Ulster rugby fans from NI feel about that? If it was my job to word that statement for Stade then I would have referred to “the UK and Ireland” or more correctly “Britain and Ireland”. That way you cover all bases.
“I could hazard a guess and say that Ulster is much more supported by and has a much greater affinity with the island of Ireland and that it’s fan base is rooted and taken from Ireland.”
Yes, as long as “Ireland” means the island of Ireland and not exclusively the 26 counties of the Republic. My point is that six counties of the island of Ireland are a constituent part the UK and it so happens that the overwhelming majority of Ulster rugby fans are from those six counties (and therefore the UK).
“My point was that Stade Francais worrying about their image in the UK was misplaced.”
I think they should be concerned about their image in the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) as well as in the ROI and everywhere else for that matter. I agree it wasn’t the best choice of words to refer *exclusively* to the UK. As I said, I would have said “the UK and Ireland” or perhaps “Britain and Ireland”.
“One could respond that it is only their image in the UK (in other words, England) that Stade actually care about, in which case, the French statement stands, and my commentary is moot.”
This thought also crossed my mind. Despite the fact that this took place in a match against Ulster in Ulster I think Stade are concerned about their image in *England*. England is the biggest market for Heineken cup rugby and if the English press turns against them that will damage their image much more than anything the Belfast Telegraph writes.
pothale said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
What a lawyerly response, Joh4. At least now I know what to call where I live. Thanks.
Joh4Canberra said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Don’t mention it
Seriously, as far as I’m concerned *you* can call where you live (which I presume to be somewhere on the island of Ireland) what you like. Personally it doesn’t bother me in the slightest what you call it.
Dublin Dave said | December 22nd 2009 @ 3:54am | Report comment
“the fact remains that the vast majority of Ulster rugby supporters are from NI”
Phew!! I spy a chance to divert this legalistic loghorrea back to the subject of rugby.
I know of only three international rugby players in history who came from that part of Ulster not in Northern Ireland. The current Irish and Lions three quarter Tommy Bowe is from Monaghan, although he went to school north of the border where he learned to play rugby.
Also from Monaghan was one James Cecil Parke, one of the more remarkable all-round sportsmen of his time, or indeed any time.
He won 20 caps for Ireland at rugby before the first world war. He was also a scratch golfer, a first class cricketer and an accomplished sprinter. But his main claim to fame was as a tennis player. He won Australian men’s singles and doubles titles and the Wimbledon Mixed Doubles title twice. He was also an Olympic silver medallist at Men’s Doubles and played on a Davis Cup winning British national team. (That sort of thing doesn’t happen any more!)
But perhaps the most famous of the three was a Donegal man bearing the name, common in those parts, of Gallagher. Born in Ramelton on the shores of Lough Swilly, a part of Southern Ireland that is more northerly than most of northern Ireland, he emigrated with his family as a child to New Zealand. There the family changed the spelling of its name to Gallaher, and young David grew up to become one of the pioneers of New Zealand international rugby, captaining the first ever All Blacks tour to the UK in 1904-05.
That team made such an impact on the four home countries that they were considered nigh unbeatable until their last match of the tour when they finally succumbed to the Welsh team at Cardiff Arms Park.
The Donegal area is not known as a hotbed of rugby but a local club was established in Ramelton a few years ago and its home ground is named after Gallaher. The official opening was attended by several of the All Blacks team who were touring Britain and Ireland at the time.
It seems they go for quality ahead of quantity in the outlying regions of Ulster.
pothale said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
As ever Dave, you have some pearlers up your sleeve. Nice bit of history. Bowe was a handy GAA footballer for his hometown as well as playing for the Royal in Armagh at school. there maybe a few more to follow in his footsteps.
Viscount Crouchback said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:04am | Report comment
I don’t know why you feel the need to derail the thread every time something touching on NI being part of the UK is mentioned, Pothale. Anyway, it’s common knowledge that most of the Ulster rugby community is Unionist, so the Stade statement is very cleverly worded.
pothale said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:32am | Report comment
And you missed the point of my comment entirely, VC. And I didn’t derail the thread at all. My comment was the first on the article. Three lines were devoted to the point about the French worrying about their reputatation being misplaced. The rest of the comment (80% of it) was on other matters. Joh4 was the one who wanted to get into the illustrated lecture on the different parts of Ireland.
And now you’ve derailed it again. Who’s zooming who?
cookie said | December 20th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
What a load of bollocks, their just pissed because he was banned for so long.
Eye gouging is pathetic and there is simply no excuse for it.
I’ve been gouged with the skin practically coming off my eyeballs and there nothing funny about having little sight and being in agony for 8 weeks as well as wondering if your sight will return to normal.
Frankly they should gouge the bastards after the game.
Rucking on the other hand should be legitimate as there is nothing more effective to get a player off the ball, only trouble is that every so often some moron goes to far.
MM said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:24am | Report comment
Cookie – and others on the technicalities of eye-gouging:
Let us put books aside. Let us consider that the “doctored” photos are in for independent analysis.
Unless the photos are in raw format – not jpeg etc. then an analysis is necessary.
Eye-gouging is overtly serious as has been said. However, what SUBSTANTIVE evidence is this based on – I certainly call for it as do others? Alleged eye-gouging per se without SUBSTANTIVE evidence is of equal tone.
We’re seemingly playing: players, refs, tmo’s and judges – based on what? Before the blood pressure is raised – none of us can tell from screenplay alone – i.e. fingers unfortunately close – fingers in the eye – fingers gouging the eye?
It is a frustrating experience for those in the editing studios with many cameras tasked to focus on individual assignments each for full coverage. As stated in another article’s comment – virtually nothing is missed despite the differing camera-man’s expertise per country – there is too much to ignore. Now and again supporters are given the opportunity of this instant recall playback – I am not sure if it happened in this instance. whilst it serves as an accurate enough measurement for a decision or citing, the frames require careful examination for conclusive evidence.
Turning to a You Tube extract renders inconclusive, inaccurate results for it is not in and under the requirements pertaining to professional studio equipment.
It’s further naive in my opinion to state what the suspension should be at this stage, just as it’s naive to conclude innocence on the part of the alleged “gouger”
Spiro recently wrote a worthwhile column on the inconsistencies – and here we go and quote the IRB when the photos are still in for testing?
If there’s any SUBSTANTIVE, CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE I / we do not know about – please advise – not books, opinions etc as I am part of an international auditing team. NO – that does not make us special – but dedicated to an outcome based on the evidence as said, although we do not get involved per se in the verdict – neither in our capacity in any way other than as we are questioning now.
IF ANYTHING – this column has certainly been an historical and geographic one – Dublin – thanks for trying to bring it on track – but as Pothale says, “who’s zooming who?”
pothale said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
MM – the evidence against Dupuy is based on video evidence which shows quite clearly that Dupuy attacked the face and eyes of Ferris. There’s no dispute about it. Dupuy apologised for it. His club apologised for it. The only quibble they have is with the severity of the sentence which is what this article is raising as an issue. The IRB have made it quite clear over the last number of months, and particularly AFTER the Burger sanction of 8 weeks, that punishments were going to increase to stamp out the practice in the game. Jeff Blackett, the citing commissioner, was quite explicit in his comments when sanctioning Dupuy – he said that he was puprosely making an example of him.
The case against Attoub was postponed – although Attoub has an interim ban in place – until the photos in question are examined. The still photos are the only evidence available of the incident – it was not captured clearly on video. According to the photographer, he shot four stills of the incident which show quite clearly that a finger is being pushed downward into Ferris’ eye as he lies on the ground. The finger is caught in the jersey of Dupuy who is crouched over Ferris but Dupuy’s hands are not near him. It is an odd photo – and I did wonder how the jersey got snared on the finger going into Ferris’ eye. What’s not clear from my viewing of the still in question – only one has been published in media – is whether the offending finger belongs to Attoub. Whether this is the basis of the ‘doctoring’ cited by Stade Francais, I don’t know.
We wait until the photos are assessed by the independent agency in the UK. The photographer has been vociferous in his response that the photos are not doctored in any way. They may have been changed slightly in terms of contrast, tone, colour, etc, but one assumes this is not the kind of doctoring that Stade are referring to.
MM said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
Thanks Pothale
Yes we’re aware of the IRB’s latest statements and governance on the said issue – as well as the alleged offender being made a spectacle of – but prior to the verdict unfortunately.
Ouch Pothale – not personally intended or in any other wrong vein, but video recall not capturing accurately? That’s a sin! I can hardly believe it! Something’s not right there unless it is gross incompetency we’re sorry to express at this point in time.
Obviously the photos will need to be sharpened and lightened for accurate examination – it’s seriously our hope that same is carried out with due adherence to international requirements and objectively.
Unfortunately, no matter what the alleged offender says – the media and public assume such statements as affirmative – it’s not an admission as much as even I’m beginning to believe which is wrong of me.
Pothale – just a re-think on your note – at the beginning you do say that there’s video evidence which is conclusive – yet towards the end – as stated above, evidence not conclusive – this is a little confusing…
A good one! Whose finger is going where – and why caught in a jersey? Time and examination will tell hopefully and accurately.
The South African Burger incident: It’s unfortunately not a benchmark to go by. Substantive and conclusive evidence revealed without doubt that both players were in an uncompromising position. What stood in Burger’s favour was the fact that his fingers were close enough to eye-gouge – but they were curled in towards himself – not expanded to the eye. The “offended” player was virtually on top of Burger with the frames showing clearly that Burger was trying to move away as much as the “offending” player decided to do. Based on substantive and conclusive evidence South African’s Burger was given a lighter penalty.
The yells and screams may come in regarding the above statement – so be it, since we comment objectively.
My question then is (and I haven’t gone to the book Spiro and others mentioned), what exactly constitutes eye-gouging? It’s a physical game – a fast one and there will be more unfortunate alleged incidents albeit true or false. Each case has it’s own merit – does the definition of a rule address this factor?
Thanks for an interesting response – if there are any substantive sources – please advise. Thanks in advance if this is possible.
A last note: What is worse – proven eye gouging or a Bakkies Botha (to name but one) being kicked harshly in the groin? Both carry severe repercussions – yet that particular incident was ignored totally albeit overtly obvious during the BIL’s Test?
Where is the rule book really?
pothale said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
MM –
when you say ‘we’ – to whom are you referring? You refer earlier to being part of some “international auditing team” – what team is this exactly? Who set it up, what is its remit, and to whom is it accountable?
You’re aware of the “alleged offender being made a spectacle of”?. To whom are you referring? Who says he is being made a spectacle of? Surely not you as an ‘independent auditor’? If you are referring to Dupuy, he has already had his case heard, and a judgement made. Therefore, he does not fall into an ‘alleged’ category anymore. He admitted that he committed the act.
You said “video recall not capturing accurately”. Cameras do not show all possible angles of what is going on on the pitch – surely this is no surprise to you if you watch rugby on a regular basis. ‘Sharpening and lightening’ the photos as you state will make not make any difference to what is evident in the photos – I presume you’ve seen the still photo in question.
“at the beginning you do say that there’s video evidence which is conclusive – yet towards the end – as stated above, evidence not conclusive – this is a little confusing…”
There is no confusion. I said the the evidence against Dupuy is based on video evidence which shows quite clearly that Dupuy attacked the face and eyes of Ferris. Attoub is a separate case which is being judged on still photos.
If you read the judgement on Burger’s case, you’ll find that it did not come to the conclusion you have made above. I don’t know where you got your “substantive and conclusive evidence” from to state as such.
If you want a definition of eye-gouging – try poking your fingers in your own eye – hard – and see what you can come up with. Personal experience is always best in these matters, don’t you think?
MM said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Pothale
No I don’t think – your last question… It implies that every eye-gouge is the finger full in the eye and this is not exactly true in all eye-gouging cases – I’m talking about internationally – not just Ireland Pothale.
As I was responding largely on what you stated – yes it is highly confusing as there is no distinction as to which video footage is clear and which is not and you cite two cases of video footage.
If I wanted everybody to know the details of our professional body – I’d say so. It is thus patently obvious that a number of us are following certain cases – but to keep you happy, I will refer to “I” and not “we” as it is fair comment you have made.
I have great respect for you Pothale – but just as I do not toss your salad around – kindly refrain from doing so in return since watching a T.V. Screen is NOT anywhere near substantive – I have mentioned the on-board studios available – the necessary requirements relative to both studios and results.
Are you trained in that field? Have you worked with the professional equipment – been in the studios etc? It’s rather impossible for the tasked footage not to have been captured, including the angles which is the point of my statement. Disasters do happen – but who’s asked the right questions in that sense?
Sharpening and lighting photo’s doesn’t make a difference? So that’s another hidden forte?
No – have not seen the specific photo – I am talking in general terms and I am also referring to David Attoub who, if I understand correctly is awaiting verdict. That him and his club have apologised does not necessarily remove the term “alleged”.
Uha – read about the Burger case in the media perhaps? Not being a supporter of the man or the country although they have some brilliant players admittedly, makes the statement more objective.
You find the substantive and conclusive evidence other than media Pothale.
Along the same vein it’s noticeable that there are sealed lips when the overtly obvious kick in the groin to South Africa’s Bakkies Botha during the BIL’s test…??? Just as to other players in other international teams and related offenses. (Citing an example only).
There is sufficient said in many remarks about racism be it veiled or not – that to deny it’s existence is being rather one-eyed – a general but true statement validating many of my questions and statements.
pothale said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:15am | Report comment
MM
I didn’t cite two cases of video footage. I cited one – Dupuy’s case. Read the posts again.
You’re talking nonsense about this professional body – you’re deluding yourself.
tossing my salad? Do you even know what this expression means?
On-board studios is not a technical term in the broadcast industry that I have ever come across having worked in it for over 20 years.
I have both produced and directed TV programmes so I do know what I’m talking about.
It’s not impossible for the angle to have been covered if the camera weren’t pointed at the incident since the ball had moved on in play.
The fact that you haven’t even looked at the footage or a the stills speaks volumes.
What kick in the groin to Bakkies Botha was there in the Lions test? Which test are you referring to?
Or are you just talking complete nonsense at this point?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 6:41am | Report comment
‘The “offended” player was virtually on top of Burger with the frames showing clearly that Burger was trying to move away as much as the “offending” player decided to do. Based on substantive and conclusive evidence South African’s Burger was given a lighter penalty.’
Why would a player receive a ban for attempting to move his body?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
‘Anybody who has been in the studio working with the incoming footage from many cameras knows that virtually nothing is missed as all cameras are directed to focus as tasked.’
Surely a conclusion, MM?
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Pothale – despite stating nothing further would be said, you are correct in that it was not two cases of video footage – one case of footage – another of photos. I do state clearly that disasters do happen where all is not recorded obviously. Unfortunately, I am not at lib to state the body I represent – if you would like to skin me for that – fine – but we adhere to our C.O.P strictly which is all I’m going to say on that with respect. Looking at some of the posts – being delusional might not be a bad state of mind. Obviously we are not agreeing on the live footage aspect – nothing says we have to and it should be respected. In the second case of “offending player” in the Bruger incident – it should have been “offended player”.
I never have a problem owning up or apologising – but the last grammatical error, was taken advantage of by W..W..I note.
Wavell, you like to hear your own voice – and anybody stupid enough to respond verbatim to your non-factual statement w.r.t. the Burger case – who cares? What was the period of his banning? And why?
You be the judge W.. W
Cheers and enjoy!
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
Clearly not as much as you like to hear the sound of your own contradictory, lucid and erratic non-factual statements/finger typing, my man.. or MM. However, what substantive evidence do I have to make that statement?
I would assume that you would care regarding the Burger case simply because you commented on the issue. Why would somebody spend their free time commenting on something to which they lacked an opinion? How bizarre. Personally I am very curious as to how a player would be banned for moving off another player, but then I guess philosophical sporting insights aren’t my speciality as they are yours. (P.S. Responding verbatim isn’t realistic. That would mean somebody would simply copy and paste the initial comments.)
I’m sorry that things have turned awry for you. Perhaps the seeds sown by the butterfly will one day fruit into a mighty tub of butter etc. If they don’t then the Mayan pumpkin has surely greyed a shade of molten. But then the otter only crows at midnight, eh. Peace be present in your trouser pleat and may your shoes be knotted in the manor of necessity and vitality.
P.S. (ii) How do disasters happen when events aren’t recorded when such evidence is inherently flawed (as you stated in a prior post)?
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Listen mate,
Take your pumpkins, seeds and Mayan “whatever” and shove them!
adam said | December 20th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
i think 6 months is a fair call there is no place in the game for dirty play
Ai Rui Sheng said | December 20th 2009 @ 10:48pm | Report comment
The French do not understand and I empathise with them and disagree. It is this Bleatingish and Oilyish racisim that permeates the racist Gerrymander, aka IRB. Why can anyone eye gouge a Kiwi and get off lightly, or off entirely, but not some one from the Homeo Unions?
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:15am | Report comment
I find six months penalty harsh and inconsistent:
- Dupuy apologised
- Dupuy has a good record until now
- Ferris sustained no injury, fortunately, and the gouging was more a swipe and not particularly malicious
- Earlier punishments of other players have been much lighter – only 8 weeks.
He definitely deserved to be punished but I think three months and a fine would have been appropriate as both punishment and message, and would still show most effectively that eye gouging will not be tolerated.
There is a feeling in French rugby that they get hard done by with refs and the IRB, and that they have a unfair negative image that is constantly fed by the Anglo Saxon media. This decision will add to that.
How many times do we hear or read that the French have a mean or dirty streak? Can this be backed up by stats, or other proof or is it just subtle racism? Are they really worse than Kiwis, South Africans, English, Irish, Australians, Welsh, or Scots?
I hope they appeal and get a shorter suspension.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 3:07am | Report comment
The player deserves a lengthy suspension but your claim that the penalty is inconsistent is correct to a point. Dylan Hartley and Neil Best were handed similar suspensions. Regardless, gouging is the ultimate low and therefore a players record is totally irrelevant. To claim that the French have a bad press is completely disingenuous and self-serving. Any rugby fan who has access to the rugby media knows that such tub-thumping is patently false. I suggest you read John Daniell’s record of his time in France.
pothale said | December 21st 2009 @ 5:33am | Report comment
Dupuy apologised. Well of course he did when faced with the undeniable evidence. His reaction on the pitch was to say to Ferris I did nothing – and then has a second go at him. Faux penitence after the fact when you’ve been caught red-handed is not factor for mitigation especially when those around seem to be saying otherwise.
the gouging was more a swipe seeks to minimise the offence when it is clear that he had two separate but linked attempts at Ferris face.
The reality is that severity of offences have been increasing since Burger’s relatively light sentence in the summer. Jennings offence might previously have been let off with a caution – instead he got banned. The IRB have been quite clear about their motivations and the severity of their rulings. Blackett said in his judgement that he was making an example of Dupuy for others to contemplate. Dupuy may well say – why me, why not someone else? But that’s the point, it has to happen with someone, and a high-profile example makes the point even stronger.
The notion that the French are hard done by is simply a recantation of the same paranoia that comes from Bok players and supporters – they think the whole world is out to get them too.
The reaction of French media e.g. l’Equipe to this incident is instructive. it’s objective, measured and non-hysterical.
A good outcome.
What will be interesting is the case of Attoub. The accusation that the pictures were doctored or altered will be easily proved or disproved. And I suspect that if disproved, then an even harsher sentence/judgement is coming Monsieur Attoub’s way.
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Interesting comments Pothale, I hadn’t heard the accusations about the photos being doctored.
fred said | December 21st 2009 @ 6:27am | Report comment
three players from stade francais eye gouges recently and basterauds problems smacks of ill disciplined culture,doesnt it ?
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Possibly, but only in as much that recent events suggest a “criminal” element in Australian rugby.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Do you watch Top 14 rugby?
Campbell Watts said | December 21st 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
But is that a suprise Parisien?
They all come from convict stock after all!!
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 3:33am | Report comment
“To claim that the French have a bad press is completely disingenuous and self-serving.”
How exactly Wavell? I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t believe it to be true based on my observations and experience.
Do you think Guazzini and Lievremont are over-reacting? That they are alone in France?
“Any rugby fan who has access to the rugby media knows that such tub-thumping is patently false. ”
Is that so? I know many who would disagree with you. Have you read Greg Growden, and Spiro Zavos in Australia, Paul Ackford and Mick Cleary in the UK just to mention a few journalists in the last year who have said or implied that the French have a “dark” or “mean” aspect to their character?
How often do you read the French rugby media? International bias has been discussed more than once…
“I suggest you read John Daniell’s record of his time in France.”
Why, what does he say? And what does it prove?
Anyway, I restate that Dupuy deserves to be suspended, but I find six months excessive. By the way, did you see the incident?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 3:53am | Report comment
To paint the ‘more sinned against than sinner’ picture is entirely self-serving from the point of French rugby. As Trevor Brennan noted, when French clubs lose they like to act aggrieved and indignant: “The weather was bad. The hotel was no good, and the hotel food was rubbish.” There is no accountability, hence what Dupuy did was bad but he received no justice because he was French. I note that you ignore the bans of Hartley and Best.
Lievremont has not said that France has a bad press. I have read what Guazzini has said. His pantomime ire is embarrassing for French rugby. What either have said is largely irrelevant because Dupuy is the first choice scrum half for both men, thus both men have an agenda to free him to play. Hence Lievremont referred to the need to uphold a moral code AND that Dupuy wouldn’t be fit for duty during the Summer tour. Why not ask a goose if he wants to go in the oven this Christmas?
You find me an article from the hundreds and hundreds of rugby journalists that currently describes the French as nefarious cynical villains and I will not offer that you are being melodramatic. Frankly, given that Laporte took such lengths to discipline his side I think you’ll be hard pushed to find anything at all to support your assertion.
I read the French media online weekly. However, I do not see how the French media claiming that there is an international bias supports what you say? Such a suggestion merely reflects the insular tub-thumping that I referred to.
John Daniell’s book describes the context of the gouge in France. You should attempt to read it before making accusations of racism and ‘we woz hard dun by’ rhetoric.
I have seen the incident, Parisien. IMO, Dupuy deserves a lengthy, lengthy suspension. Gouging is appalling and needs to be stamped out. Dupuy may claim that he attacked the face of Ferris rather than a gouge, but I consider that the same thing. The citing processes are often erratic, hence the inconsistencies but that does not mean that Dupuy’s ban should be considered too strong.
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 5:41am | Report comment
Wavell, this is a rugby blog for opinions, no need to get worked up. Thanks for your response and opinion.
I have not made accusations of racism, nor used “we wuz hard done by ” rhetoric. Read my posts again carefully and calmly.
I don’t think I was being at all melodramatic, but may I ask if you are not being just a little indignant and self-righteous?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 5:45am | Report comment
Let me re-phrase – suggestions of racism: ‘How many times do we hear or read that the French have a mean or dirty streak? Can this be backed up by stats, or other proof or is it just subtle racism?’
I’m aware that this is an opinion site, but to be taken seriously opinions should be backed up with fact, and you haven’t offered any, merely broad claims, as we see above.
I’m certainly not being indignant, nor worked up.
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Glad to hear it Wavell.
Replace “suggestions of racism” with “raises the question of whether there is subtle racism”, and you will almost have paraphrased me correctly.
The article calls for opinions: mine was that the penalty was harsh and inconsistent. I stand by that.
I also felt it worthwhile to raise the question of the image of French rugby and rugby players, and the role of the media, if any, in this image. There is room for debate on this and I’m interested in people’s opinions. I haven’t made my mind up on this.
The only “claim” I have made was about specific journalists that I have read on the subject of French rugby. Perhaps you should read back through your own posts and count the number of claims and assertions that are unbacked by facts made by you or others you quote.
I find it disturbing that you are so confident in your own claims and opinions.
As I said earlier, if you or someone can produce facts or statistics that support the notion that the French are somehow dirtier than others, I would be interested in seeing them.
Does this sound reasonable to you?
Eavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
You suggested that racism could be a factor, surely that is a suggestion of racism?
You did raise the image of French rugby in the media and I disputed that there was a particular image. Significantly, French rugby gets minute coverage from the English speaking media. I asked you to find sources of where various pundits depict the French as age old villains and you failed to do so.
If you would like to inform me of what I have said that requires legitimisation then I would be more than happy to remedy that. I don’t recall at any point saying that French rugby is dirtier than any others.
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:58pm | Report comment
No Wavell, I asked the question whether there might be racism, which is not the same as making the suggestion. Read my posts again.
Yes, I did mention the journalists who have suggested or implied that the French have a dark side, but I don’t have time to find the specific articles I have read over the last ten years! I never said they were depicted as age old villains. Stop paraphrasing me incorrectly. As someone who is obsessed with facts, you have a very non-objective way of writing.
Fortunately, Spiro one of the journalists I mentioned has come forward voluntarily so that should satisfy you.
Joh4Canberra said | December 21st 2009 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
Parisien,
The French are full of stereotypes against the English-speaking countries. Perhaps not so much in rugby journalism, but they are still to be found. You French like to huff and puff about the pernicious “anglo-saxons” and “la mentalité anglo-saxon” and make it your national pastime to rail against their advance
pothale said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Don’t think he’s French.
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:58am | Report comment
I think there is a bit of a love/hate relationship between the English and the French, and it goes both ways!
Joh4Canberra said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Pothale, you may very well be right. I was going from his screen name (“Parisien”) and the fact that he appeared to be sticking up for the French. But screen names of course don’t necessarily reveal one’s true origins. And even if they did I could of course at this point make a politically incorrect joke about the difference between Parisians and Frenchmen
But I shall hold my tongue.
Jerry said | December 21st 2009 @ 4:26am | Report comment
The suspensions given to Burger and Parisse were a joke. The IRB recently said it would crack down on eye gouging hence a heavier suspension (which is actually more in line with previous sentences than the Burger/Parisse ones). There’s really nothing to complain about.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
An interesting statement from Andy Goode following the suspension of Ribes and Mela:
“It is a pity that this behaviour, which is still quite prevalent in the Top 14, has now carried through to the Heineken Cup where players will not go unpunished for foul play,” he said. “France, it seems, is the only country in the world where players can get away with punching and, at times, other acts of foul play. The English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Italian teams know they cannot get away with that kind of behaviour, yet the French guys still take a chance…”
“Julien Dupuy has put his hand up and apologised… but there is no place for that kind of thing in rugby. French rugby has taken a bit of a knock and players will continue to overstep the mark until foul play is stamped out in France. What happened at the Brive game with London Irish last weekend was, I guess, typical French mentality with a few punches traded.”
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
“John Daniell’s book describes the context of the gouge in France. You should attempt to read it before…”
You’re funny Wavell ! I’m at fault for not having read a book I’ve never heard of? Perhaps if you send it to me by express mail I can “attempt” to read it before our next exchange on this thread.
An early Christmas present perhaps to go with my literacy course.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Of all the things I’ve said that is all you have to say? I’m not sure why you would be so defensive, and overtly dramatic? There’s a trend here methinks.
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:03pm | Report comment
I’m not being defensive at all, its humour!
I know who you are! Knives Out!
Why the name change KO?
May I ask why are you patronising, self-righteous, rude, arrogant and always so sure of the truth of your posts?
Trust me, I’m laughing as I write this, most good-naturedly!
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
You’re being defensive by being unecesarily rude and childish. I’ve countered everything you have said with a measured tone and intelligence, you have made quite a few statements and failed to consolidate anything. Such sarcasm and rudeness is sad and pointless. However, as I have earlier stated, I would be more than willing to remedy what needed legitimisation in your eyes. You have failed to note what needed legitimisation, and I would demand that you would confirm what I have said that is self-righteous, rude and arrogant.Clearly you don’t like being challenged and respodn with wild accusations and broad comments. That’s a shame, it reflects very poorly upon you and it makes me wonder why you would attempt to contribute to a debate/discussion site?
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:41am | Report comment
Wavell/Knives Out
I disagree that I’ve been rude or childish. Your first posted reply to me accuses me of “disingenuous, self-serving tub thumping”. If this is not rude, patronising, arrogant, and self-righteous, what is?
Your answer above proves it again. Have you ever wondered about the tone of your posts and how they reflect on you? And you’ve sure got some history on this site.
I think you are a boor.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:04am | Report comment
‘To claim that the French have a bad press is completely disingenuous and self-serving. Any rugby fan who has access to the rugby media knows that such tub-thumping is patently false.’
To suggest that a statement, and not a person, is disengenuous and self-serving does not compare in any shape or form with the suggestion that a person is self-righteous, patronising and arrogant. That is a personal attack which lacks class, wit and intelligence.
Every time I have asked you to articulate what exactly I have said that is either incorrect or offensive you have lowered the topic into a personal attack without answering the question. As aforementioned in another comment my tone is measured and I debate the topic. You completely fail to debate the topic and aside from rude, personal comments have relied upon broad, sweeping statement. I find it peculair that a person would act like that on the internet? I would have hoped that you would have had the intelligence to debate and engage in an adult manner, but once more you result to personal tactics by labelling me a ‘boor’. That’s just a real shame.
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:53am | Report comment
“it makes me wonder why you would attempt to contribute to a debate/discussion site?”
The comments made by Pothale, Spiro, Joh4 and others have been well worth reading and actually attempt to answer the question I raised.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:05am | Report comment
What question is that and where have I failed to engage with this question? It seems rather contradictory to suggest that I have failed whereas Spiro has succeeded, and yet he agrees with what I have said. If Spiro were to agree with me then is it not logical to infer that what Spiro refers to is an extension of what I have said? I can only take this as you trying to create a personal problem where there is not one.
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:36am | Report comment
Wavell/Knives Out-
sigh, read the posts, again.
Look out for the question marks, and what might indicate what is my actual thinking on the subject, and what might be someone else’s.
And stay clear of discussing logic.
If Spiro agrees with what you have said, that does not logically mean that you have engaged with a question I asked.
Also, logically, if I enjoyed reading Spiro’s post, that does not mean I agree with it, or that he has “successfully engaged” with the question I asked.
Finally, logically, even if Spiro, John Daniel’s book, and the 1999 RWC would all appear to indict them on the subject of eye gouging, it does not prove the French to be more frequent eye gougers than anyone else.
Spiro Zavos said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
I agree totally with Wavell Wakefield on this (there I’ve said it!). John Daniel’s book is very detailed about the role of eye-gouging in French rugby, and over the decades French rugby players have been standouts in the eye-gouging business. Dupuy, a very good player, is part of a long list of French offenders.
In other major rugby countries like South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Wales and England players sometimes eye-gouge. When Richard Loe and Flavell did this in New Zealand they were out of rugby for over a year. Schalk Burger was lucky to get only 8 weeks for his eye-gouging. Part of the difficulty with this sentencing was that it was not clear who had the real jurisdiction to make a decision on the punishment.
As WW points out, Dylan Hartley and Neil Best both have received the same sentence as Dupuy.
In this part of the world it is never forgotten that France used eye-gouging as a deliberate tactic to win the 1999 RWC.
They eye-gouged New Zealand in the semi-final, with impunity and success.
Australia went into the final with the strategy of the captain John Eales having permission to tell the referee he would take his players off the field if he allowed eye-gouging tactics by France to continue.
Eales was duly eye-gouged. You can see photos of him holding up the World Cup with one of his eyes closed tight as an oyster. Referee Watson was told that the Wallabies were leaving the field if the gouging happened again. France was warned and penalised. And after a strong start played tamely to go down comfortably to a defeat.
For the French authorities to say the punishment is anti-France is a travesty of the history of unacceptable behaviour in French rugby, and what actually happened in this case.
Roarers who disagree with this line of argument set out by WW with some precision should buy themselves John Daniel’s book. It is a terrific account of a year in the French rugby competition, the politics, the rugby and the thuggery. It is also one of the best rugby books written in recent years.
Joh4Canberra said | December 21st 2009 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
The real point is not whether eye gouging happens in a particular place — after all it happens across the rugby world — and not whether it is officially considered a crime or even actually considered a crime by the vast majority of people in a particular culture but to what extent it is *tolerated* (approved of even) beyond the surface level of official disapprobation.
Let’s think about the criminal law for a moment before coming back to the rugby field. I’m sure that something like rape is criminalised in just about every country in the world. And it happens in every country. There is not a country on earth where rape doesn’t take place. So no country can take the moral high ground in that respect. Rape happens in Australia. It happens in France. It happens in China. It happens in [name whatever country you like]. And if you asked people then I’m sure that in most countries you’d get a significant majority (I think the vast majority) of people (men included) who would say that rape is “wrong” and should be against the law and attract criminal sanctions. And yet, human nature is more messy than that. Despite a surface level of disapprobation we all know that of rape is *tolerated* in certain cultures and subcultures. And in some more than others. And here I think there is room for moral judgement. There is room for pointing the finger at cultures which tolerate or secretly approve of this practice despite a surface level disapprobation. And it’s no reply for them to say “well rape happens in your culture as well”. Yes it does, but that’s not the point we’re discussing. We’re not discussing whether it takes place but rather the point to which it is tolerated. In other words, how do we react to its presence amongst us? Do we react with horror? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and say “whatever” (or even turn a blind eye)?
And this is the point we have to consider with eye gouging in rugby. Yes it happens in France. And yes it is against the rules in France. And yes players who do it and get caught will be punished. For that matter it happens in Australia and every other country in which rugby is played and players who engage in this conduct in these countries and get caught will also be punished. But that’s not the point. The point is whether it is tolerated (perhaps even secretly approved of) in the rugby culture. Is it a legitimate tactic to employ to disrupt the opposition? Sure, players may know it’s against the rules and cop the penalty on the chin if they get caught. But are they willing to employ this tactic despite the fact that it is outlawed and they would say it is wrong? And would French rugby administrators, coaches and supporters react with horror if they discovered their team was using this tactic to disrupt the opposition or would they just shrug their shoulders and say something like “well if they get caught they should be punished”?
It’s not for me to say whether this is the case for France or not. I suspect there is a greater degree of tolerance of eye gouging in French rugby culture than in the English speaking countries but I’m happy to be proved wrong. But the French (or whoever really — the point I’m making is more general) shouldn’t immediately react to this kind of criticism and say “no, not us”; instead they should honestly ask themselves whether there might be some truth to this and consider whether they are tolerating something which is abhorrent and shouldn’t be tolerated at all.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:18pm | Report comment
Here is the reaction from Perpignan when Marius Tincu, the Romanian hooker, was found guilty of gouging:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/nov/05/perpignan-marius-tincu-heineken-cup
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
Excellent post Joh, and I fully agree with the points you raise.
Parisien said | December 21st 2009 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
thank you Spiro for your comments which are most interesting as always. As one of the journalists I cited earlier I’m glad you’ve come forward on this question I raised, especially as I don’t have time to hunt down all the articles and journalists I mentioned on the internet for Wavell/Knives Out.
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:52am | Report comment
Spiro, I remember the 1999 RWC and John Eales eye too. I also remember Eric Champ’s reputation in the 80s.
Do you know if the IRB or anyone else keeps statistics on this sort of thing? If it can be proven that France are worse offenders in this domain or that its prevalent in their rugby culture, should they not be sanctioned and suspended from competiton?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 21st 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
‘No Wavell, I asked the question whether there might be racism, which is not the same as making the suggestion. Read my posts again.
Yes, I did mention the journalists who have suggested or implied that the French have a dark side, but I don’t have time to find the specific articles I have read over the last ten years! I never said they were depicted as age old villains. Stop paraphrasing me incorrectly. As someone who is obsessed with facts, you have a very non-objective way of writing.
Fortunately, Spiro one of the journalists I mentioned has come forward voluntarily so that should satisfy you.’
I’m not going to debate semantics with you. You asked whether racism was a possibility, thus you are making a suggestion of racism.
‘How many times do we hear or read that the French have a mean or dirty streak?’ I paraphrased this incorrectly how?
What Spiro has said is interesting, however his comments do not confirm your cries of a lack of le fairplay.
pothale said | December 22nd 2009 @ 12:08am | Report comment
So how’s Patrick getting on, Wavell?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 12:23am | Report comment
Wouldn’t know, my man. I’m seriously considering giving up drinking for the New Year.
pothale said | December 24th 2009 @ 3:27am | Report comment
Welll as long as it’s just for the New Year, I suppose that’s tolerable….
Wavell Wakefield said | December 24th 2009 @ 4:07am | Report comment
I think forever is out of the question because I do like the taste of a variety of drinks, but a general decrease in drinking has led to a decreased tolerance which has led to increasingly bad hangovers, thus a reduction of an already reduced past time is necessary. Halves instead of pints perhaps, and no mixing of drinks etc.
Campbell Watts said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
“I’m not going to debate semantics with you”
But you are the king of the semantic, pedantic debate!!
Eavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
Thank you for the positive contribution, Campbell.
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:08am | Report comment
I have another genuine question.
Do fellow roarers consider eye gouging to be placed in the same category as stomping or spear tackles, given that the latter can be life threatening?
P.S: All opinions welcome, even from Wavell/Knives Out
(thats humour Wavell/Knives Out).
Campbell Watts said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Absolutely! Vile behaviour – worse than stomping.
AndyS said | December 22nd 2009 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
I’d say worse than stomping, worse than upending tackles, up around the same level as intentional spearing.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 2:50am | Report comment
I suggest that you stay clear of discussing both logic and semantics and and read the posts again, Parisien (btw, should that not be Parisian?). I did not claim that because Spiro agrees with what I said that the logical extension is that I must have answered your ‘question’. Were that the case then I would not have asked you to define this ‘question’. However, you might want to consider that you thanked Spiro and others for attempting to answer the question, and given that what he says is essentially an extension of what I have said that one can only infer that there is a parallel. Regardless, once more you accuse me of something unfounded given that I didn’t actually state the above. Further, I asked you to define where I had stated that the French were persistent offenders, something that you previously accused me of without proof. Also, I cannot find one post where I have stated that Spiro’s offering, John Daniell’s book and the 1999 RWC final indicate that the French are more prone to eye gouging. However, were you to actually seek an intelligent and mature debate about the evidence that suggests that violence and eye gouging is prevalent in France then I have more to offer than broad statements and foundless accusations.
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:47am | Report comment
You are being a bit paranoid Knives Out/ Wavell. Your answer doesn’t make sense and you are clearly confused.
All I can suggest is that you get a second person to read all your posts and mine and arbitrate.
I don’t have time to respond to every contentious statement you make or correct all your false logic, accusations and paraphrases.
By the way, “parisien” is french for “parisian”.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 4:55am | Report comment
Yes, I am aware what Parisien means given that I am familiar with the French media. However, it struck me that to use Parisian would have made more sense.
I think that you’ll find that what I said makes perfect sense. Perhaps you could expand upon what doesn’t make sense? You have made various foundless accusations, been unpleasantly obnoxious and also made wildly broad and contradictory statements, so to ignore constant demands for specific complaints etc it is no surprise to see the ‘I don’t have time’ routine. You have offered nothing constructive to this thread whatosever, no empirical evidence, no strong argument and absolutely nothing of value. I really don’t see what you’re attempting to achieve beyond wasting time?
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 5:23am | Report comment
Knives Out/Wavell
I think you’ve gone mad!
What “various foundless accusations” have I made? What “wildly broad and contradictory statements” have I made? Do you have a persecution complex?
I felt Dupuy’s penalty was harsh and inconsistent (an opinion I’m entitled to) and raised the question as to whether there was anti-French bias or not (and look at the article heading). I even clearly say I’m undecided about this question (read the posts again). I also asked about media portrayals of the French, cited specific journalists, one who kindly confirmed his position, and asked whether the French were more guilty than others.
I think the comments provoked show the questions were worth raising and certainly weren’t to waste time. You clearly have the time to respond to my posts.
You are taking it all far too seriously, its only a rugby blog.
As to being rude, stating that someone is self-righteous, patronising and arrogant is not being rude, certainly no ruder than
“You have offered nothing constructive to this thread whatosever, no empirical evidence, no strong argument and absolutely nothing of value. I really don’t see what you’re attempting to achieve beyond wasting time?” and numerous other phrases of the same ilk.
If my posts disturb you so much, may I suggest you ignore them? I’m surprised you keep coming back for more.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 6:04am | Report comment
Firstly, I think you’ll find that this was said: ‘You have offered nothing constructive to this thread whatosever, no empirical evidence, no strong argument and absolutely nothing of value. I really don’t see what you’re attempting to achieve beyond wasting time?’ after you had labelled myself arrogant, patronising and self-righteous, something that you denied was rude. If you think that is humour then I’m flabbergasted and a little peturbed. In terms of what you have offered to the article you have offered nothing beyond suggesting that there is an anti-French bias which may in fact be subtle racism in action. That Spiro has highlighted incidents of French violence certainly does not confirm any anti-French media bias as you suggested, and certainly does not confirm that your wonderfully profound ‘question’ was necessary.
Secondly, if you can’t fathom what foundless accusations/wildly broad statements you have made then all you need to do is re-read the thread:
‘How many times do we hear or read that the French have a mean or dirty streak?’ (I don’t know, how many?)
‘Perhaps you should read back through your own posts and count the number of claims and assertions that are unbacked by facts made by you or others you quote.’ (What unbacked assertion?)
‘The comments made by Pothale, Spiro, Joh4 and others have been well worth reading and actually attempt to answer the question I raised.’ (And I failed to engage with your mythical question how exactly?)
‘I don’t have time to respond to every contentious statement you make or correct all your false logic, accusations and paraphrases.’ (What statements etc? All of the rugby points that I have made have been completely ignored by you.)
Why do I keep coming back? To reaffirm my position in the face of an obnoxious and rude poster who has offered no actual rugby insight in response to my rugby posts and decided to descend into a personal attack. The question surely is why do you keep coming back when clearly you have no rugby chat to offer. I’m genuinely surprised why you keep coming back. You are argumentative, hostile and all too personal. Why would an adult act like this? Do you not like rugby union, do you not want to debate and discuss it? Why can’t you behave like a mature human being and contribute to the topic?
Parisien said | December 22nd 2009 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
Too tragic! I hesitate before answering Wavell/Knives Out because I see now that its goading you on.
However, I’ll be brief and this is my last post on this thread.
I love rugby, have played it, regularly watch it and love to discuss it but not with people like you, and my posts over the last couple of months show my positive contributions to rugby discussion.
On the other hand, you are regularly pedantic, self-righteous and arrogant in your posts, other posters have also pointed this out to you here on this thread and on others, but you refuse to consider changing your tone or style. You love finding holes in people’s posts and adore talking semantics (but hate it if anyone should do it back to you!). You regularly misquote and paraphrase but refuse to admit it.
I thought by changing names from Knives Out perhaps you wanted a fresh start and were turning over a new leaf (and how you bullied Hemjay for changing names!). I guess I am mistaken.
I don’t have time to carry this argument on any further with you. You will no doubt consider this some sort of victory, but I don’t think its doing your mental health any good as you clearly carry around lots of anger, frustration and a constant need to “reaffirm (your) position”. This argument has become pointless and boring to others.
I genuinely feel sorry for you and hope for your sake you have other interests in life than rugby.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 23rd 2009 @ 5:09am | Report comment
You keep saying that you’re off but then you keep coming back to be rude and personal. That says far more about you than it does me, as does the fact that you keep suggesting I am misquoting etc without ever qualifying your statements (nor ever actually discussing rugby – must be a coincidence). They do say the broader a person’s statement the narrower his outlook. Regardless, I’m in Paris next month. We should definitely meet up and chat rugby like good rugby fans and then you won’t have to follow me around on a blog site.
MM said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Parisien – I tend to agree – and to that I add: the verdict is given prior to substantive evidence
Wavell Wakefield said | December 22nd 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Anyhow…
the breakdown of yellow cards in the current HC is thus:
Wales: 12 (Y)
France 11 (Y) , 1 (R)
England: 10 (Y), 1 (R)
Ireland: 5 (Y)
Italy: 4 (Y)
Scotland: 3 (Y)
In light of the above it is certainly debatable just how hard done by the French teams are, as Guazzini suggests is the case with Stade. What is clear is that there is a disparity of discipline between Wales, France and England and Ireland, Italy and Scotland. However, something that is massively significant is that the majority of UK received cards have been for technical offences wheras the French have, in some cases, been guilty of wild and violent behaviour: J. Schuster was yellow carded against Munster on the weekend for headbutting a floored Denis Leamy; G. Ribes was red carded last week for kicking D. Coetzee following a collapsed scrum; JP Bonrepaux was yellow carded for punching D. Coetzee; A. Mela was cited and subsequently suspended for punching D. Coetzee; D. Attoub has been cited for gouging S. Ferris; J. Dupuy was yellow carded against Ulster at Ravenhill (and later cited and suspended) for violent conduct against S. Ferris; D. Attoub was yellow carded in the same match for fighting. Frankly, that does not make for good reading, especially when one considers an interesting quotation from Andy Goode, a Brive player, who was interviewed following Brive’s home thumping by London Irish two weeks ago:
“It is a pity that this behaviour, which is still quite prevalent in the Top 14, has now carried through to the Heineken Cup where players will not go unpunished for foul play,” he said. “France, it seems, is the only country in the world where players can get away with punching and, at times, other acts of foul play. The English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Italian teams know they cannot get away with that kind of behaviour, yet the French guys still take a chance…”
“Julien Dupuy has put his hand up and apologised… but there is no place for that kind of thing in rugby. French rugby has taken a bit of a knock and players will continue to overstep the mark until foul play is stamped out in France. What happened at the Brive game with London Irish last weekend was, I guess, typical French mentality with a few punches traded.”
Obviously it would be unfair to broadly label French rugby as grossly violent and untamed, but to an extent there is a clear undercurrent of violence that still remains from years gone by (Victor Matfield cited the consistent violence as one of the reasons he left Toulon), something that John Daniell describes in his book, ‘Confessions of a Rugby Mercenary:
‘anger is commonly employed in France, where it is often confused with courage, particularly by smaller teams who know they are going to struggle on talent alone and are looking for something to compensate. French rugby has more frequent boil-overs than rugby elsewhere … In France, I’m afraid it is rugby. But it is so engrained in the culture that the French don’t think of it as unusual.’
James Haskell also alludes to the insular mentality of the smaller clubs:
“It very much depends on the opposition you’re playing and the circumstances of the match. In our early games in Paris, the physicality wasn’t as great as I assumed it might be. But when you play the likes of Toulouse or go to places like Albi when they’re defending their home turf it’s extremely physical. Some individuals are far more abrasive than they would be in the Premiership.”
“In the Premiership you have your big derbies but there’s a lot more emotion over here. They’re just naturally more emotional and that’s reflected in the way they play. It’s often more of a one-on-one challenge, rather than a team ethos. At Wasps, hanging tough in defence was a collective mentality. Here, there’s an understanding that if you play rugby it’s going to be a tear-up. There is such huge passion.”
An intriguing paradox is the way that Bernard Laporte tried so hard to eradicate foul play from the test side, even to the extent of Anglicising the French tactics, publicly remonstrating certain players and dropping notorious offenders. But when faced with the scenario of an unprovoked Fabien Pelous elbow dropping Brendan Cannon in a test (Pelous was banned for nine weeks) Laporte blamed the media for releasing the images, as if Pelous was simply unfortunate to get caught. Such a bizarre response to foul play is also evident in Guazzini’s stance to Dupuy’s suspension, whereby he appeared to ignore Dupuy’s crime and simultaneously question the integrity of the rugby authorities. The same response was seen when Perpignan’s Romanian hooker, Marius Tincu, received an 18 week ban for gouging (as it was from Colomiers when Richard Nones was given a two year ban for the same offence in 1999):
“USAP believe this decision is quite simply scandalous, even grotesque, and is based on no real fact since no image or injury to the Welsh player could establish that Marius Tincu could be blamed for this reprehensible act,”
“It is a shameful decision worthy of a banana-boat republic where people get punished only on someone’s say-so, without any material proof.
“USAP will use all means possible, including going in front of civil courts if necessary, to defend their player Marius Tincu and reserve the right to resort to measures which will have the heaviest consequences for the competition if the club aren’t heard.”
I’m not suggesting that gouging is a natural adjunct of foul play, but there has been a history of gouging in French rugby. That much is undeniable. Spiro Zavos highlights violence that was pandemic during the 1999 WC semi-final and final to the point where John Eales threatened to lead the Australians off the field. John Daniell also provides a useful source when considering the French context of the gouge:
‘One of the great specialities of French rugby is la fourchette, the eye-gouge … In fifteen years of rugby in New Zealand I was eye-gouged twice … Within the first month of being in France I lost count of the number of times it happened.’
Now, it is worth considering that the 1999 WC was 10 years ago, and that Daniell is recalling rugby during the mid-90s to early 00s. Professionalism has decreased the chances of serious foul play, but as we saw recently some French players seem to resort to the gouge when pressured. The recent France v NZ test match was marred by claims of gouging, lest we forget. Of the 14 players banned for gouging only three have been French: Nones, Azam and Dupuy, however, three other players banned for gouging: Mauro Bergamasco, Sergio Parisse and Marius Tincu all ply their trades for French teams, and despite Bergamasco and Parisse being banned whilst on test duty it is perhaps not an unreasonable leap of logic to suggest that their years spent in the French leagues might be at least mildly responsibly for their actions.
Campbell Watts said | December 22nd 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
I’ll take the time to read this post tonight – when my insomnia is playing up!
Zzzzzz………..
Wavell Wakefield said | December 23rd 2009 @ 3:03am | Report comment
Thank you, Campbell, for mocking something that I have taken time to out to write. If there’s one thing I really appreciate it’s good intentions and good humour, and you really do possess a subtle yet hilarious blend of wit. Yet another in the long line of famous Australian comedians (actually perhaps that should be comedian and not comedians, unless there is another jokemeister beyond Dame Edna?). Thank you so much.
Btw, I hope your circadian rhythm is less troublesome, but hey, if reading doesn’t help then why not try a visual aid? There was some great games involving Australian rugby teams this year. Whack some of those beauties in the DVD player and you should be away in no time. Even better, the lack of tries would mean that you won’t be getting too excited come bed time, and the lack of Super final rugby means that your electricity bill won’t be too high. Every one is a winner… apart from Australian rugby teams of course. Oh well, every cloud…
Campbell Watts said | December 23rd 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Mate I’m a kiwi!
The DVD’s I’ve been putting in the machine late at night lately have been the AB’s last 2 northern hemisphere tours – UNDEFEATED WITH NO TRYS SCORED AGAINST THEM!
Ahhh…. that leaves a warm cosy feeling.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 24th 2009 @ 2:08am | Report comment
Touche. You’ll have to lend me that DVD some time.
Brendan said | December 23rd 2009 @ 6:07am | Report comment
Fella’s
While we were on the subject of dirty French players who was the dirtiest/hardest French player you guys have seen?
I remember Eric Chomp, an 80’s flank who liked the rough stuff. Other players who come to mind are Frank Tonaire, Jean Michel Gonzalez and Olivier Merle while I also remember Serge Blanco flattening an English player (Simon Halliday?) in the 1991 WC semi or Q-final?
I once read about a fellow called Gerard Cholley. Apparently he was a parabat in the French army and was in a bar in the south of France somewhere one night when the local rugby team squared off against their visitors. The story goes that this Cholley fellow was the last man standing following which the local team’s coach approached him with an offer to come play for his side as he much admired his pugilistic skills. From never having played rugby before Cholley, apparently, made his debut for France a year later.
In fact I found the following from the NZ Herald website:
Wynne Gray looks at the greatest thugs of the great rugby nations
1 France: Gerard Cholley
His shadow was frightening enough. It seemed to occupy the entire stairwell as we ascended the staircase at Agen to watch the All Blacks play a French Barbarians side.
A mere “excusez moi” did not seem sufficient, but it did the trick as Gerard Cholley moved his substantial frame to let us pass. The man was gigantic. He was reputed to be 19 stone in his playing days but had ballooned to about 25 stone as we squeezed past.
This was the former Army boxing champ and spud farmer whose deeds in the Tricolores uniform earned him a nice little sinecure as a chauffeur for senior French officials. He was the most feared among a group of men in the 70s who rampaged around France’s rugby fields.
He laid out four Scots in one game and on another occasion, when one of his team was beaten up in a match in South Africa, punched out three Western Province players.
When Gary Knight made his All Black debut in 1977, Cholley eye-gouged his opponent and tore his eyelid. The same year before a test against Ireland at Lansdowne Rd, Cholley punched the ceiling in the changing room so hard he put his first through the timber.
His hand swelled to the size of a small melon, but he took the field and France won 15-6.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 23rd 2009 @ 6:12am | Report comment
Too many players to mention? You might find this interesting, Brendan.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article740129.ece
Brendan said | December 23rd 2009 @ 6:26am | Report comment
Thanks WW
It makes for interesting reading. Actually a few of the players mentioned come from Beziers, a town I visited not so long ago. I found it very tranquil and quaint with a magnificant cathedral!!
Wavell Wakefield said | December 23rd 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Coincidentally, one of my old school teachers actually played a few seasons for Beziers during the 80s. He wasn’t a huge man but he played prop. Goodness knows what he saw and did, especially as he was your stereotypical well-to-do English gent. He had ears like a baked alaska.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
You are the first person to offer that Bakkies Botha was kicked in the groin during the BIL series, MM. Where is your evidence and why have I not heard of this incident through the media? Also, how can you assert that he was kicked when essentially your post-modern stance makes redundant the validity of visual ‘proof’?’
MM said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Wavell
Am I the one you should be asking as to why you haven’t heard of the incident? I doubt. I am neither the first and only to know of it.
Second question: the answer is in the last response.
None of your lengthy posts thank you as I’ll also need to be an insomniac to drawl through them albeit you have provided some great links and points.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
The attempt to talk cryptically only serves to undermine what point/s you are attempting to define, MM – something that others have noted. What last response, and what response to whom? Also, I would ask you to humour me and provide me a link so that I can verify that Botha was indeed kicked in the genitals. I would be most grateful given that it is clearly a hugely significant incident.
MM said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
I make no attempt at talking cryptically – it is your viewpoint and you’re entitled to it.
Who stated the Botha incident was “hugely significant”??
Don’t put words into any person’s mouth. If I wanted to provide links I would have – they are there to find.
Enjoy.
Obviously the response is the one on which you based your questions – strangely enough.
It is suffice to say that there has been sufficient debate and no more is being entered into irrespective of what is said further.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:21pm | Report comment
I stated that the Botha incident was hugely significant. It is hugely significant, however apparently not significant enough to merit any media coverage whatsover. Please provide me with a link, substantive evidence is necessary – although, as aforementioned, I am curious how you could sugges that the incident ever occurred given your post-modern stance that makes such proof (i.e. substantive evidence) non-existant? Also, given that I didn’t imply that anybody else had confirmed the significance of the alleged incident I would ask you that you don’t put words into any person’s mouth.
‘Second question: the answer is in the last response.’
This is not an answer – strangely enough it is simply a strange collection of words that have no relationship with the question that elicited them.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Pothale, after all those Father Ted jokes make my day and tell me you were involved in the production/direction of the Craggy Island sagas.
pothale said | December 30th 2009 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Fraid not W2 – English production company with Irish director, Declan Lowney – not me.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Such a declaration is unecessary and unfortunate, MM. Be more definitive; coming across as harsh, plain ignorant and just stupid is just that – but where else is there room for such analysis but on a rugby forum? Live it – and then comment. Right? Nothing complicated about that. I don’t tell you what to shove, don’t tell it to me, especially where substantive evidence is lacking. You have erred here. You could play the ball, but then what evidence is there that playing the ball is necessary and even possible, and without considering verbatim responses – who cares? Add to the thread, but no not add to the thread in the manner of cynicism and overt crudity. One could consider racism as a core tenet of such a response, it certainly would be naive to suggest otherwise. Whos zooming who though? The evidence is out there – enjoy.
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Wavell – I was about to ask you the same thing – does poetry form part of a rugby forum? That is my version of what you responded with – not necessarily yours.
It’s not a site to be personal or make enemies – but there is a way to state things – like I have no problem seeing where Pothale is coming from and many others. It’s not necessary or a prerequisite to be right all the time – we share and we learn more.
Your accusations have been rolling in Wavell – you think I’m cryptic – I don’t – I state the fact without embroidering further on it.
Perhaps you monitor word for word 24/7 and perfect each statement 100 times (for argument’s sake) before uploading – where I err I admit – if you don’t perfect 100 times before uploading then good for you – and I mean that sincerely.
Your one quote strongly implies as a result of what I have stated, that the ban on Burger (no we’re not pals nor neighbours – surely an example can be used if you do not mind…) that the man got a ban for rolling away – that is not fair play and I do not think that is what this forum is about – do you?
Many pals have been made through assisting with oversights, but where does it get people interested in the same debacle to go into conflict??
I do not deny that I will discuss to a point – but I do not have to justify my existence and do not ask you or anyone else to.
What may clarify matters is that we are required to be formal and to the point (if that is what you mean as cryptic). To rid of a virtual life-time habit is akin to asking you to change the way you speak Wavell.
I really do not think the backwards / forwards tossing has been of any contributory interest other than entertainment – and I include my own errors.
If you are unable to be human, shake hands albeit you still disagree – little more can be said other than there are no grudges.
pothale said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:25am | Report comment
MM – can I ask where you are from and what country you support?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Accusations rolling in? Burger was banned for rolling away? I have very little idea what you’re talking about. Generally I think you tend to contradict yourself, MM, and I think you try and belittle people with nonsensical statements – something that hasn’t gone down all too well recently. That’s unecessary and unfortunate, but I hold no grudges, and apparently neither do others. To quote a wise man you can shove it! Obviously I say that with the best intentions, MM, unless I severely misunderstood you?
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
I think you did misunderstand me… cool down a little Wavell – let’s try and be decent – can you manage that?
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment
I thought that ’shove it’ was your way of being decent, MM? My mistake. Don’t shove it then, keep it instead. Looks like it’s all gravy now after all. Good stuff.
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
Being decent and tolerant (last comment I made) clearly was not worth the time as the pedantic remarks continue.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Perhaps you deserve no less? However, clearly you misinterpret once more. You need to step back, re-read and lighten up.
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Most Certainly Potchale,
Zimbabwe – formerly Rhodesia as I prefer to call it. I’m unfortunately not resident in a particular country long enough to state so however – and that is due to work commitments around the Globe.
I cannot attest to supporting a country – my team of preference – very deeply embedded is the famous All Blacks team. As rugby is the only sporting interest I have – there are admirable occasions where all teams are worthy of support irrespective of northern or southern hemisphere. Same to certain individual players.
This year I have certainly admired John Smit for his supremacy in leading the Boks and according to my knowledge, they’re a rough bunch who won’t bow down to an undeserving captain. It’s been an honour to go into the change rooms and hear how he motivates his men.
Of equal honour – if not more, was chatting to various members of the All Blacks – an experience to die for, as the term says.
Very interesting indeed.
For all the media generated from Australia regarding Matt G, he’s not a bad lad – still young and a little honing is needed. Stirling Mortlock (sorry if spelling is incorrect) is a great guy – one with the right attitude.
I haven’t had the privilege of chatting to northern hemisphere players – but that’s coming… Only Argentina – also inspirational and interesting.
Let me answer the question indepth further than asked to the best of my ability within the boundaries of my C.O.P.
I am an international I.R.C.A. Lead Auditor with years of experience in many genres – extremely varied. As we cover the entire spectrum of business and other genres, we are continuously up to date. I answer to the I.A.F. in Germany only because of their admirable standards and governance. (I’m not German…)
It’s normal to do a two – three day stint in investigations which is apart from I.R.C.A. without a break or sleep.
The rewards are phenomenal in terms of knowledge and experience.
MM said | December 30th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
Wavell…
1] It is patently obvious that you alone cannot interpret even the most clear comments since Pothale pointed out earlier what he did – why you only?
2] Throughout virtually all comments, you have got personal to others – call them stupid etc and by the large majority, the opinions of others are unnecessarily shredded apart by you – again with personal connotations.
3] What is the difference between “rolling away” and “moving away” in the Burger incident? You said it – do not now deny it.
4] You have without substance accused myself and others of various – to myself, amongst many statements and the twisted, sarcastic use of some without validation or proof.
5] In case you hadn’t noticed, check back on the articles and you will find the majority of resistance to your apparently superior approach. Just who do you think you are anyway???
6] Having chatted about your booze openly, one doesn’t know to what extent of sobriety you are in – but certainly one of immense self-importance and overtly ego-centric.
There is nothing cryptic or untrue in any of the above statements because the evidence is there – much of it in your own words.
Doubt you’re in a frame of mind to comprehend the earlier, sincere post – neither this one. Be it at your peril unless you want to get up and do something with your life. It’s little wonder that some favourites gave up on this column frankly.
Wake up and smell the roses.
Clearly, no matter in what vein – albeit a hand of decency, you are unable to accurately and with goodwill respond.
Finished, Verby, Au Revoir and good bye -Finito!
Wavell Wakefield said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
2. I have not called a single person stupid. In contrast you have been rude, and as I recall started being personal. I have not been personal with you. Look at yourself first.
3. I didn’t make a parallel between rolling away and moving away. I asked you how a player could be banned for merely moving away – clearly an attempt at controversy and argument on your part. You became churlish and decided to ignore the question, as you do with others by offering nonsensical and hypocritical statements and by giving a short shrift – certainly by not offering a positive contribution.
4. Define and clarify or remove.
5. Resistance in the form of low-wit and low-class personal abuse from one person who avoids any talk of rugby (as you do). That Spiro agreed and extended the rugby discussion that I had galvanised says it all. This site is for rugby. Did you know that? Certainly not for depressed pilot fish who merely add on negative drivel to discussions and generally upsetting the apple cart.
6. Again, look at yourself. I have openly stated that I hardly drink at all, so not only is your suggestion offensive and personal it is also innacurate. Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the threads then your silly comments wouldn’t be so consistently pulled up by other contributors. Your hypocrisy is astonishing, as is YOUR ego, I would imagine. Like I said, I’m sorry your cryptic wonders have gone awry. Time for a new hobby and something positive in your life. Go well.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 31st 2009 @ 6:19am | Report comment
Anyhow, aside from the silly kiddies comments… back to the matter in hand. The Toulouse v Perpignan match has just been soured by a rather comic moment. Fred Michalak appeared to insinuate that his face had been attacked in a maul and hit the ground. A Perpignan player trotted over and forcefully rubbed his head (the old “Hope you’re OK, lad.” trick). Michalak then rose, took a run up and kicked the Perpignan player up the arse. Comedy gold. It would take a real Eisenstein to suggest these boys and this league aren’t full of naughty men.
pothale said | December 31st 2009 @ 7:07am | Report comment
Classic – can’t wait to catch that on Setanta replay or you Tube – whichever manages it faster.
Obviously a favoured French tactic – I seem to recall whatisname, the French bloke with the craggy face, being similarly provoked in a Munster match and kicking Alan Quinlan in the derriere – he promptly got carded.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 31st 2009 @ 7:09am | Report comment
The French bloke with the craggy face? Sarkozy?
I couldn’t believe my eyes. I spat my snowball everywhere.
pothale said | December 31st 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
Sarkosy?
Fabien Pelous is who I meant – I think he’s more popularly known as ‘Lurch’ from the Addams TV show.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 31st 2009 @ 7:29am | Report comment
You said craggy faaced and he popped in my mind. I thought it an unlikely scenario at the time but you never know with the French. For the record the hardest tackle I ever saw was from Pelous on Keith Woods. It was horrific. Apparently Pelous also stabbed Michalak in the hand with a fork when Michalak was misbehaving in Toulouse colours one evening AND… he sells wine. A man of many talents.
Wavell Wakefield said | December 31st 2009 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Wait until you see Poitrenaud’s 72nd minute try, Pothale. Yet more comedy gold.