Who holds the crown: South Africa or New Zealand?

why are people talking about religion, this is sport, $#!^ happens

Well I would say that it is important because if that is the case then Botha should never have bitten or gouged an opponent. I would say that it is important too because it implies a certain characteristic that is at odds with malicious play.

Brad, not Reuben.

Benjamin Ruben being saved is irrelevant, Bakkies and Brian and all the Blue Bulls guys in the Sopringbok side are saved (Born again) Christians,

I have said previously that I was not referring to minor moans about scrummaging or 'professionalism' at the breakdown, but allegations of serious foul play and excessive, borderline physicality. Something that in recent years Laporte, Woodward, Jones and O'Sullivan have vociferously mentioned to the media against SA. That cannot be simple coincidence.

Benjamin - All top tier professional intl teams cheat in a systematic way. I have added the extra qualifications of top tier and professional, since I do not see many games with say Gerogia etc. This is a function of professioanl coaches and analysts who work out with the talent they have, the refereeing and what they do not see or let go, the best way to win, which includes tactics that willingly , planned and intentionally so break the laws. I have restricted this to the professional era from 1996 onwards, since to my mind it has exponentially proliferated from that time. As Terry clearly points out, and as I thought I indicated with examples , it was all types of systematic cheating not just physical intimidation. I have not meant to imply that it is stereotypical style of cheating per country based on which country it is, i.e. it is consistent with their playing over the last 100 years. It is more a function of the coaches and players available, an example McCaw is brilliant and quick, but does constantly break the law in his bridging by having his knees supported, by coming in on the side and then swiveling into position to make it look like he came through the gate, by slowing the ball down holding it in. If you dont not have a player that quick and agile off the ground then you could not cheat so much. A lot of it is certain styles are forgiven or overlooked by SH verse NH refs. An example is NH refs do not often enforce tacklers rolling away from the tackle, which they are obliged to do, so NH teams do not do it they lie all over the tackled player. NH refs also allow the defenders to slow the ball down with their hands on the ball more. SH refs allow bridging more whilst NH refs then ping , quite rightly, Waugh, Smith, & co more for it. Also SH refs alow more obstruction in backline moves, so guess what SH teams sytematically run plays that use that latitude. It is all cheating and systematic. People who say it is interpretative and grey , except for the obstruction perhaps, are wrong. It is black and white that a tackler has to release and roll away, no greyness there. Also black and white that you cannot support your knees on the tackled player i.e. bridging. It is black and white what coming through the gate is. All teams constantly cheat with offside, offside at ruck, scrum is very black and white. Histoically SA has had available to it big strong forwards so perhaps for all their history they have used illegal physical intimidation, still does not make them thugs or a thuggish team. As Terry points out the media is replete with coaches etc whinging about the cheating tactics of the opposition BEFORE and AFTER a match, I do not believe that you are oblivious to it.

Terry - Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to excuse Thorn's actions. What he did was bloody stupid and I said at the time he was lucky not to get carded. I just think that when discussing the citing etc, the constant references to Smit's injury are rather unhelpful. Also, as regards Umaga & Mealamu, while there wasn't any specific provision to deal with spear tackles etc, they could have been cited for general foul play, I'm sure. What saved them, more than any other thing, was that the broadcast cameras simply didn't catch their actions. Sir Clive Woodward tried to highlight the incident in his press conference the next day through some grainy stills, but that didn't really shed any more light on the matter. The only decent footage (from a spectator's cam-corder) of the incident surfaced months later - rather conveniently during the AB's NH tour and around the time of publication of BOD's tour diary. If that footage had been available to the citing officer, I'm sure both Umaga & Mealamu would have spent some time on the sidelines - ironically I think Mealamu was probably more culpable, yet Umaga seems to bear the brunt of the ill-will for the incident.

Terry, religion? What? I think that Thorn being a reformed Christian is hardly irrelevant because it suggests that Thorn is not a malicious character. The incidents are not related either? Goodness, you have a real tenuous grip on reality. The example of O'Driscoll was to highlight the difference in intent from the Smit challenge which clearly was not malicious because he was dropped and not thrown, geez, it sounds like you've been dropped on your cannister one too many times. I would like to see medical evidence cases of paralysis induced by people being dropped onto their back onto wet grass from a distance of 4 feet or so. Where's your medical degree? I would also imagine that when the term nation is bandied and the previous conversation had been about inernational rugby then the process would develop logically that the term referred to an international team. There is absolutely nothing to refute the fact that SA have a bad discipliniary record, and as I pointed out have had serious accusations thrown at them from various coaches, and I can not think of any replicated cases in international rugby. Please, tell me what errors you have pointed out...

Benjamin You're shifting your ground again by bringing in religion (utterly irrelevant) and a gratuitous reference to an incident in a different game that has no relevance to the incident we were discussing. Why do you want to know the difference between Smit being dropped on his back and O'Driscoll being driven onto his shoulder? Two completely different, and unrelated, incidents, one of which we weren't debating. But since you ask, I think Umaga and Mealamu ought to have been cited . . . except that under the laws as they then stood, there was no provision to do so: it took a subsequent IRB Law ruling (prompted by a request from the Irish union) to make such an incident illegal and citeable. As for apologising after the event, how cheap is that? (Though I recall that Umaga didn't, or not until much later). Apologies cost nothing. You say that there was "clearly" no malice, but that's just your interpretation; it isn't in the least "clear" on my DVD of the game. And in my book, a player who lifts another off the ground, raises him to above hip height, then allows him to drop onto his back, is guilty of foul play. I agree it wasn't a spear tackle (I've never used the term and, in fact, as Smit wasn't a ball carrier, and the play had been whistled dead, it wasn't even a tackle, within the meaning of the laws). but it is still dangerous (or, at least, potentially so). I have absolutely no problem with all the off-the-ball shoving and barging that goes on, but something that could leave a player paralysed is at least as dangerous as . . . well, as a closed fist rubbed into the cheekbone. As for your comment about coaches, I'm sure I wasn't the only one to think that your reference to teams that "cheat in a systematic way" referred to illegal play in general. Indeed, that's exactly how Peter K introduced it into the discussion, complete with examples (pillars, tugging the jersey, etc). See, I've been following very closely! But every time I point out your errors, you shift your ground. You talked about other "nations" (not international teams) not gouging: I gave you several examples of gouging by players from other nations. Rather than admit you were wrong, you redefined your meaning, after the event. You stated that other teams were never accused of cheating. I quoted a couple of examples, so now you want to redefine "cheating", after the event. If you were to make your meaning clear before the event it would make life easier all round. Jerry You're quite right. There are a lot worse incidents, some illegal, some entirely legal but none the less tragic. What I was objecting to was Benjamin's "very innocuous" description of the incident, as though it could be dismissed as just a bit of a lark. It had the potential to do damage and, if the reports are correct, it did so: what you say about a groin injury being more likely to occur during the (legal, or, at least, not illegal) lifting makes sense, but, given that what goes up usually has to come down, I can't help feeling you're being just a little pedantic!

Yes, I think that Jerry is articulating what I wanted to say better than I have. Comparatively innocuous rather than completely innocuous, but certainly less worse than a lot of incidents.

Re the Smit injury - It's obviously impossible to say for sure, but it seems to me that a player is more likely to injure his groin being picked up rather than being dumped, and the picking up bit isn't actually illegal (though obviously Thorn was doing it after the whistle). Regardless, the severity of the injury/outcome isn't actually that useful in determining the severity of the offence - rugby is a contact sport and players get some hideous injuries in entirely legal manners. Thorn's dumping of Smit would be about as "innocuous" as an illegal back slam type tackle could possibly be - it was certainly far less harsh than, for instance the tackle on Richie McCaw by Tuqiri in 2006 yet McCaw suffered no lasting injury.

Terry, fine, you're right, I retract my previous 'suggested' tone. When I referred to coaches complaining I meant about serious foul play. I cannot recall any of the home nations moaning about serious issues from other players, only when Bergamasco gouged Byrne and also when O'Sullivan accused Scotland of deliberately choking O'Gara. I recall no problems between England, Scotland, Wales, Australia, Romania, Ireland, France etc. That is in stark contrast to SA who have had serious public complaints issued against them by France, England, Australia and Ireland. Thus it appears that my 'irrational and excessive prejudice' appears to be rooted in reality. Regarding Thorn, you tell me the difference between Smit being dropped on his arse and the O'Driscoll-Umaga-Mealamu incident. Thorn immediately apologised, the man is a born again Christian, has an excellent discipliniary record and there was clearly no malice in the act. It was a yellow card incident, no more. Players being dropped like that is hardly outrageous and off the ball tackling, grabbing and shoving in that manner occurs all the time... unlike 'assaults to the face'. To suggest that the Thorn incident was dangerous is really very OTT.

Benjamin As far as I'm concerned, an unwarranted and dangerous piece of thuggery after the whistle is not innocuous. If you have a different view, fine, but don't be so supercilious. The only thing that confuses me is your irrational and excessive prejudice.

Terry, the Smit incident was innocuous because there was no spear, or malice, he picked Smit up and dropped him on his back. He didn't throw him. Furthermore I have heard no evidence that being dropped onto his back was actually linked to his groin problem. I think you're confused, follow the threads please.

Benjamin The Thorn incident was "innocuous"? Smit is out for the whole of theTri-Nations as a consequence. You have a very one-eyed view of rugby.

Benjamin Do you go around with your ears closed? Other coaches are always complaining. In fact, there's hardly a test series goes by that we don't hear one or other coach complaining about the illegal tactics of one or more opponents. It's become one of the biggest yawn factors in the build-up to matches nowadays. Just in the last few months we had Graham Henry complaining about England's scrummaging (and that was after NZ had won!), and SA made the same complaint about NZ (though for a different reason). And it sometimes seems that everybody complains about Richie McCaw's "cheating" (note, I put that in quotes because I don't consider it cheating to play to the edge of the laws, where there's always a grey area in interpretations anyway).

Peter K Yes, I see what you're saying about weaker teams getting no credit for "near misses". I agree, it's a flaw. And it surely wouldn't be too difficult to deal with, to some extent. If the weaker team is able to hold the margin of loss to, say, 15 points or less, it would not be ungenerous to allow them some credit for that (and even more for narrower margins). The only flaw in your argument about "constantly" beating a team ranked 10 points less is that because the rankings are zero-sum (what one team gains, the other loses), the gap between the teams will increase with every game played, and the increase in ranking points will steadily decline. I imagine there must come a point when the gap has widened to beyond 10 points, after which further games would be pointless. Incidentally, there's a fascinating rankings calculator at http://www.pickandgo.info/ It provides plenty of fun for those idle moments!

If all teams cheat in a sterotypical way, specific to their country, which it appears you are implying, why do we never hear of international coaches ever complaining about other teams? However, even if you are not implying that, and I have misinterpreted you statement the case still remains, why do no other international teams get bad press from other coaches?

On thugs and acts of thuggery. Every single team has them or at least has had them. In recent times, professional era, I believe SA on balance has had a higher percentage of acts of thuggery, if not thugs since one player Botha is a repeat offender. This does not mean SA is a team of thugs or thuggery is a systemic encouraged activity. Systematically SA have a style of play in using illegal physical intimidation to put the opposition off their game. More late tackles, high tackles etc. In case this statement is misconstrued, this I do not view as thuggish play by and large, just illegal. The referee and touch judges and video are well equiped to handle this. I do not like the whinging though if a player is caught and then suspended. This is just one type of cheating. NZ are masters of cheating in ruck illegalities, holding jerseys, pillars etc. All teams will systematically cheat in some form, willingly and knowingly and plan to break certain laws, and accept getting caught sometimes. It just varies the style of cheating that occurs. The thuggish play I detest, and players should be scrubbed out for (long suspensions) are the cheap shots, which are cowardly, against unprotected players. The king hit from behind. The late, intentional high tackle from behind, how brave is that. The eye gouging at the bottom of a ruck. The knee into the kidneys alah Grewcock.

Terry - The following link explains the formulae for rankings. Yes you are correct that the exchange is limited to a 10 point difference. http://blackswans.org/rankings.htm However a team just losing to a much higher ranked team is not recognised, margins of expected wins or losses are not taken into account. So Namibia losing to NZ in NZ by 1 point gets no gain. So constantly beating a team ranked 10 points less, by 1 point still increases your ranking. This is still a flawed system.