Steyn the hero as Springboks break Lions' hearts

The Lions got exactly what they deserved. If I see one more article about how the Lions should have won I will freak out. In fact I am freaking out, teams that deserve to win don’t dominate a test for sixty minutes and not put the oppposition away. Teams that deserve to wn don’t let the oppostiton score twenty points to their nine in the second half. The bias is unbelievable. 12 years ago a very average Lions team came to South Africa and was outplayed everywhere except on the scoreboard and I had to hear how the Lions were supposedly a great side,(The better side) caus Percy and Henry Honiball couldn’t kick properly. This year the Boks dominate the Lions for 60 minutes in Durban and the Lions are declared the better side by virtue of all the tries they scored(Read one more than the Boks). Game two comes along and the Boks score three tries to one and whooped de whoo the perimetres for being the bettter side are adjusted to having been on top for the first hour. The truth is just like the All Blacks in France last year, the Lions went from the possibility of greatness to just another side that cracked when it mattered and consequently losers. Teams that perform when it matters are the only sides that deserve to win, teams that perform when it matters are the sides that do win, the Lions have no one to blame but themselves for their situation,not Bryce Lawrence ,not Schalk , not the universe, not anyone but themselves, caus at the end ofthe day they’re the ones who blew a 11 point lead in a Test Match. Hou op Huil (Stop moaning)

Ha ha ha,this is so funny.The usual idiots crying and moaning and wetting their pants.Burger got what he deserves and Bakkies should never have been cited for cleaning a ruck.A ruck that constantly had 2 or 3 Lions players offside and the referee didn t do anything about it.Its been a long time since I ve seen a referee trying harder to let the Boks lose.O'Driscoll shoulder charging Rossouw off the field after he was 1 minute on the field from a offside position.French referee almost shook O'Driscoll's hand for it.O'Driscoll swung a fist at Boks right in front of the ref and missed...ref did nothing,only warns the Boks.Just because the Springboks don t want to cite your players doesn t mean the lions are angels.We still want to play the 3rd test and at the moment you are running out of players.So we wont cite you,OK?Knives Out , you dissapoint me every time you crawl onto this website.Why wouldn t you give Fourie's brilliant try? Rugby is very simple if you understand the rules.The referee rightly asked the 3rd umpire if there is any reason not to award the try.Everyone in the world could see from all angles that no part of Fourie's body was into touch before he scored the try.Now what s so diffiicult about that?

Yep, no holier than thou claims here. For all have sinned and fallen short. Again, the point could not be simpler... except for, it seems, the simple.

Er, why? Just because you say so? No, you’re wrong. My point IS right - proclamations that the Boks are thugs from the display of one Bok after 30s is just hypocrisy. And please don’t say Botha, or I’ll say Hines. Or I’ll mention Heaslip landing on Habana’s head long after Habana had scored the try, or I’ll mention Sheridan hitting Bekker in the groin after one of his many post-whistle tussles. Don’t throw stones. The point could not be simpler. Why don't you mention the last 3N, or do flying headbutts and testicle grabbing not count for much these days, Darryl? Or should we dig into the last Super tournament? Or should we dig even deeper and longer beyond that?

Ian McG is a bit dissappointing ... but we've forgiven him because he got himself into such a one-track focus on winning on the field. I think this ' UK's golden decade' London Olympic games 2012 thing has consumed him. He would normally have at least a word of congrats for the opposition. He's just spent... all is forgiven Ian McG !

I must say that I am a bit dissappointed with Ian MacG, he has not congratulated the Springboks on a fantastic series win, so much for his "values" regarding tours. It is also strange how some people would favour the Lions beating a 14 man Bok team then going great guns against a fullstrength foe, something they eventually did. In the end it was 3 tries to 1, 7 players hospitilised, 2 players banned and still another test to be played.Can't wait.

8 weeks for Burger doesn't send the right message BUT maybe it's enough to end of his career anyway ? Then, on the other hand, the way drama is employed in rugby nowdays I wouldn't be surprised to see him run on during the 3N. Another talking point and he's a buzz machine. I knew South Africa would get citings. I'm sure South Africa have the highest citing ration in rugby union. Could the final test prove costly in terms of the Tri Nations as Victor Matfield and Jean De Villiers etc etc get long citing bans ? Thin the Boks out before the 3N ? Is South Africa a target or a yellow, red & citing magnet ? Finally - if the current media drama is anything to go by ... has anyone considered the impact of these incidents on the media. There is value in a little post match drama ... talking points need to be manufactured for a match to be a classic. This Lions Test is one of my classics. It's got all the ingredients and I wonder if Burger was following a recipe ?

One poster here claims the Lions were are the better team. I fail to agree with this because if it were anywhere near the truth the Lions would have won would they not? At the end of 80minutes the team with the superior points tally would have to be the better team right.? Afterall this is a game about scoring more points than your opponent right? What does it matter if facets of the game are in your favour if in the end you are on the wrong side of the ledger and the series is snatched from your grasp? Secondly I believe the Boks came back from an 11point deficet to take the match with a 55m O'Gara brain explosion. While I am disgusted by the behaiviour of some players namely Burger one cannot take away the fact that the Africans staged a very determined and clinical comeback to all but consign the Lions to the fine print in the history books.

Who knows what was going through Lawrence's mind when he said 'at least a yellow' rather than 'off the field for good'? He may have only caught a glimpse due to intervening bodies and was unsure of the seriousness, maybe he didn't want to impose his views on the ref from the sideline. Any criticism falls on Berdoes not Lawrence. Similarly the ref was incredibly weak on breakdown infringements from both teams in the last 15 minutes or so. Burger is a dirty player and has form and Botha was stupid rather than malicious but for every Burger there are many upstanding players like du Preez, de Villiers, Smith, Brussow who are hard but clean. There was some strange stuff from the Lions (Sheridan) but no team was better or worse than the other as there was no teamwide agenda (eg the 99 call) for dirty play. Just some individual daftness. Who knows what would have happened if Burger was sent off? The whole match was ahead of both teams and it may have gutted the Boks or stiffened their spines. South Africa won and you can't say it was undeserved. Well done. I can't wait for the Lions tour of Australia in 2013.

I didn't think there was too much in the Bakkies Botha shoulder charge - I'd call it more of a clear out. The injury was just one of those things that can happen in a contact sport and if no one had been injured, no one would have thought twice about it. Burger's eye gouge on the other hand... And those criticising Bryce Lawrence, shame on you. He saw it, went in, and told the ref what happened. The ref was just going to give a penalty, but Lawrence then went back and said "at least a yellow", leaving it up to the ref to make the call. The game needed Bryce Lawrence, as he was almost reffing half of it! The French bloke was relying on him a fair bit!

Jerry - thanks for the correction. Love him or hate him, that was a classic jibe. :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg28666NFGc Quinlan. He got 12 weeks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9lUtfzjPU4 Best, who got 18 weeks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X__kjEjTNro And of course, Burger's. What do you think? I personally feel Burger's was the worse, yet got the lightest punishment. So, yes, I do feel he got away with it, slightly. I couldn't find a clip of Hartley's, who got six months. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article5404412.ece A recent history of gouging. As you can see, more and more incidents have occured in the last couple of years. That may be down to improvements in technology and the number of camera angles. However, there was only one incident between 2000 and 2007, but there's been quite a few since then.

Darryl - it was Byron Kelleher on the receiving end of the "4 more years" jibe. Marshall was injured early on from a (marginally late) hit by George Smith.

Colin N: Which is why I said to 'borrow', not to 'quote'. Gregan was taunting his Kiwi mates - specifically Marshall I think it was - about the World Cup, so yes, I'm fully aware that it was 4 more years... just to correct your overpedanticness. :-) 8 weeks huh? Hadn't heard - must be hot off the presses. And look, I'll say it again - if the gouge was bad, then he should have gotten worse. I'm not defending him. And contrary to all the stereotypes, all the South Africans I know abhor dirty play. Straeuli and his Boks were a disgrace and every South African I know felt the same - but we do play hard. I watched the various YouTube videos (Sky and Supersport) quite a few times and the footage isn't the best. The question is, do you feel the citing commissioner would go lightly on something like this, if it was as bad as you think? I did some quick Googling on this and if you look at Quinlan and one of the Italian players, there's no hesitation to go with a harsh penalty if it's deserved. I don't know, I have no idea what the panel saw and discussed. But again, the stupid actions of one man early in a game do not tarnish the valour shown by the rest of the team for the rest of the game. To come back from that deficit, with the amount of niggle (from both sides) on the field, was something to be proud of. And I for one, will be.

"To borrow from the words of the legendary George Gregan: 12 more years mate, 12 more years" If we're being pedantic, I thought it was four more years. "Actually the main point I made there was that he should have been given a yellow card for that. It was a shoulder charge that levelled Fourie Du Preez" I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. Croft's wasn't much, He led with his shoulder, but he didn't charge with much force. It was a penalty, nothing else. Botha's got a two week ban, but that's probably slightly harsh. However, if you take Hines' one week ban, which was also harsh, you could perhaps see why he's been given two weeks. Burger's gouge looked far worse than Quinlan's, yet has only been given eight weeks, which I think is far too lenient. Do we want to stamp this out or not? I believe he pressed and raked his fingers on Flitzgerald's eyelids. He still had to be treated didn't he?

Colin N: "So you didn’t see Burger make contact around the eye area, with seeming force?" I've just watched the incident a number of times on YouTube, and no I don't see the "with seeming force" that you speak of. If there was seeming force, why did Fitzgerald say there was no damage to his eye? I mean if we're going to knitpick, let's knitpick. There's certainly contact with the face, and if that gets a long ban by the rule book, then as I (and all other Saffer comments I've read so far) have said, he should get his deserved punishment. If he had a red mist moment like Quinlan and deserves a long layoff, then so be it. But you guys are just laying it on as thick as you can with the pejoratives. I say again what I said earlier. Schalk is not historically a dirty player and any assertion otherwise is just nonsense. Knives Out: "Your point, that ‘nobody should throw stones’ is just not right." Er, why? Just because you say so? No, you're wrong. My point IS right - proclamations that the Boks are thugs from the display of one Bok after 30s is just hypocrisy. And please don't say Botha, or I'll say Hines. Or I'll mention Heaslip landing on Habana's head long after Habana had scored the try, or I'll mention Sheridan hitting Bekker in the groin after one of his many post-whistle tussles. Don't throw stones. The point could not be simpler. "I don’t recall ever writing that and I think it displays a real chip in your shoulder to suggest otherwise." My but you get pedantic when it suits you. No of course you didn't say those words specifically but the weight of attention given to the Burger incident by you and the NH collective in the relevant threads here leads me to think it displays a real chip on YOUR shoulder. "The Croft barge was a nothing incident in comparison - hence he wasn’t cited." Actually the main point I made there was that he should have been given a yellow card for that. It was a shoulder charge that levelled Fourie Du Preez - what is Bakkies in the dock for now that you mention it? But if you can make deductions, so can I, and since you're such a fan of the copy and paste, I'll make a few more of my own. Some yours, some not: "Great game, shame about the officiating." "I notice that nobody is questioning Fourie’s try? I can’t see how Dickinson awarded it, personally." "PDV and Bryce Lawrence should hang their heads. Cowards and cheats the pair of them." And I'm supposed to be the one with the chip on MY shoulder? Sounds like a real persecution complex chip on yours. Anyway, I'm bored with this back and forth now. All this frothing and gnashing of teeth just confirms the widely held view in the SH of NH's, which is that whenever you lose, it's always somebody elses fault. You were the better team and you were cheated. Boo hoo. I even read a comment on another thread STILL firmly living in denial that the Cueto try of the World Cup was valid. Whatever! To borrow from the words of the legendary George Gregan: 12 more years mate, 12 more years.

KO - you couldn't say for certain that Fourie was out , no replay clearly showed any part of him in touch - surely, given that he clearly grounded the ball, that should be a try? And to the poster (Loeb?) complaining about interference on the Habana try - the only dummer runner that affected play was Fourie, but the tackler (Roberts I think) was actually inbetween Habana and Fourie. Essentially there were two Boks advancing who could have been passed to and he had a choice of whether to commit to the guy on the right or on the left and he chose wrong.

Darryl, 'Knives Out, no you haven’t defended Croft, but the holier than thou attitude from you Lions fans is a bit rich. “They’re the thugs, we’re above reproach.” Yet one of your own players, Alan Quinlan, could not tour for a similar indiscretion if I’m not mistaken. Point being, nobody should throw stones.' Had a Lions player done what Burger did then my reaction would have been the same, as it was when Quinlan was found guilty. Your point, that 'nobody should throw stones' is just not right. 'your blame for the loss is on the fact that Burger should have been red-carded for his indiscretion.' I don't recall ever writing that and I think it displays a real chip in your shoulder to suggest otherwise. 'tacitly admitting that the only way they can beat the Boks is if they play 15 on 14. Oh the irony.' What's ironic? Have you watched any of the tests?

Sorry, I meant 18 weeks, my mind was somewhere else. Having said that, 18 months might deter this sort of thing.

Burger is an experienced campaigner playing his 50th Test. He knew very well he'd cop this. Don't be naive and think this wasn't premeditated. 1 meter from the side-line judge, 5 meters from the camera ? Because I watched Schalk Burger at a mid-week training gathering for school kids just this week I know he knows and understands there are many agenda's and greater goods involved here. (as a role model for youth etc) On the field he plays a role and I would like to imagine the message is clear. This type of behavior is not acceptable and will be harshly punished. Looking at the footage it's clear to me that Burger was putting in an oscar winning eye gouging display. Who knows why ? I do know if you want to do serious harm to the eyes of another player, heaven forbid, you could put your back into it and possibly walk away with an eyeball. If this is your ghastly aim or intent, normally you'd not do it out in the open like Burger did. The whole thing is a bit too orchestrated for my liking. Burger has probably played his 50th and final game for the Boks. His career path and contract might have been explained to him recently ... I'm just guessing, but I'd agree with those calling for a 18mth ban. And that should set a precedent - I hope New Zealand are paying attention (yes - go on, tell me how innocent your lot are) As a South African and a Springbok fan - I apologise for this type of incident. It's shocking and obviously has no place in rugby. I almost feel sorry for Burger, because if he gets what I think he deserves, his whole career and reputation have just gone down the toilet. Maybe he's calculated this ? And maybe the kids he role models will think twice & seriously ponder the paradox that's Schalk Burger as they progress in their play. Anyone who respects the South African green & gold jumper will know this will not be tolerated - the message must be clear. PdV shows us that he and his guys are capable of serious judgement errors. They are human and I think it's great that rugby union gets another shun from the South African public. From a national psyche point of view, South Africans are like ... lets distance ourselves and work on our morals, values and ethics. It's a healthy process for South Africans. We still won and took the series ! Bottom line ... deal done !