UPDATED: Springbok CLEARED as citing dismissed for brutal Kerevi clean out

That's right, Clash, as it was against, the Halfback, Hastings, I think his name was, when Colin was sent off for a dangerous kick, in which the ref thought he was aiming for Hastings head. What I got from ' the horse's mouth ', Yeh Piney, was, as most thought, he was actually going for the ball. So I would rather believe from the actual person that was involved, than some that don't know better. So whose embarrassing, 'yersel' now?

To my, almost certain, knowledge, Colin Meads was sent off only once in his rugby career. It was at Murrayfield in 1967. It was massive news at the time. How do I know? I wis there. Still dispute about whether he should have been sent off. What a daft fight when you don’t know the facts Mister Muzzo as you’re just embarrassing yersel.

That Bok player only had a nibble at Fitzpatrick's ear . Never bit a piece off .

Ah cmon Muzzo, I’ve actually quoted you. How did I twist your words? You either need to name the offender, his position and the victim or stop this silliness

Isn’t the issue that he publicly criticised the referee and therefore put the game in disrepute? That's the start of it, yes. Then there's the hour long video attempting to destroy a man's career, kind of takes it to another level.

Well truthfully that says it all.

Well even your response is as ridiculous as your assumptions as well. So let's not be a hypocrite, & twist my words to benefit your beliefs. FFs were you even around in those days? As it seems, by degrading others, with what was commonly known.

Geez Bro some of your assumptions, are quite laughable, especially Piney being sent off a ' couple of times'???? Please elaborate!!. I can remember, him playing with an arm in plaster, along side a great mate of mine Keith Murdoch, RIP. , over in the Republic. Such things as that, now would not be allowed to happen. I've seen so many rule changes over the years, some for the betterment of the game, some that have different interpretations, in different corners of the globe. If anything, at least Piney, & his brother, Stan, ( who Piney always said was a better player than he was, but someone had to stay at home & look after the farm) did put plenty back into the game, after retiring. Ffs even Stan coached Martin Johnstone, the Englishman, to end up playing age group for NZ. during his time in NZ. But honestly Piney held no hate for any race, colour or creed, as he was far from being a racist. Try speaking like that around Te Kuiti, & you wouldn't go far.

Completely baffling that that was a ‘nothing to see here’ moment.’ It looked like they just didn’t want to see it.

Whether the player was injured should have very little to do with this. When there is an injury to a player during fair play, the injury doesn’t lead to a penalty. I hope they’re consistent from now on because many players have been punished far more for the same crime.

What he said. Meads was just a little before my time so I never saw him play. I met him and he was a thoroughly likable gent. On the other hand any contemporary view describes him in the terms of hardest, most uncompromising etc. In my view that is a compliment well earned. An incredible life story. He was sent off a couple of times and happened to break a Welshman’s jaw into the bargain. A possible candidate for breaking McBride’s jaw but it did not happen. Also struggling to find any reference to McBride’s jaw being broken. The reference to him not liking Australians was peculiar to a particular incident that day which still amuses us. The reference to 40 years ago was not personal, I wrote it to mean I wouldn’t have liked to play against him 40 years ago. Probably would not have mattered what national or provincial team you were in. You are still coming up skinny on some facts. Maybe you should change your story. The saddest thing is that the Australian sides through that period generally lacked that violent edge which resulted in more losses than reflected the collective talent.

The problem I have is that there is really very little clarity and reinforcement coming in relation to 'protecting the head' and stamping out foul play. If they really want to do something about forcing tackle heights down they will have to be quite ruthless and it will involve marginal cases being punished as well as the blatant ones. There are very few cases so blatant and so obvious that there are not some who will defend it by reference to some form of bio-mechanics, the speed of the game, the player dropping into the tackle, relative heights of two players and on and on and on. If they are not that concerned then they shouldn't pretend they are. Swinton's problem is that he barely dropped his height, meaning the contact was always likely to be at, or above the required height, Weise came in late and made contact with the head with his shoulder and I am still fascinated that throwing your foot out after you take the ball in the air is now regarded as a legitimate action (despite several quite similar examples landing lengthy bans). Rugby is a dynamic, inherently dangerous, physical game. Hard physical contact is part of the game. However, if protecting the head is regarded as important (and I support this) then players who roll the dice and don't drop their height as they go to make a tackle, or players coming in late to rucks and cleaning the head of a player, or those who throw out a foot in front of them when in the air should expect to be suspended for a few games. Otherwise the lottery of judicial hearings will continue and nothing much will change. Referees need to have confidence that their decisions on the filed will be supported unless they are clearly and obviously wrong. The opposite is happening right now. The mitigating circumstances that tend to get argued back and forth should simply go to the number of games missed. I can see defences for all 3 examples I have given and I have seen far worse examples of foul play, but the fact is if you want to do something to change an entrenched problem you have to go hard, be consistent, do it over time and support your foot soldiers, which here would be the refs. The present situation is idiotic. Players don't know what will happen, refs are all over the place and supporters continue to argue about foul play incidents from 30 years ago (Loe), 50 years ago (Finnane, the 99 call) and 60 years ago (Meads and Catchpole), showing that you will very rarely find clear cut examples of foul play where everyone agrees.

I wish they'd make up their minds, either you can contact the head if it's accidental or you can't. No one seems to be worried that this was after the whistle, either

What a great steaming cauldron of that which is powerful and promotes growth. Not the first time that the SANZAAR tribunal has pre-determined that a player will get off and then tied itself in pretzel-like knots to justify itself. Seems pretty clear now that all you need to do is go in low, not flat-out and vaguely flap an arm somewhere within a metre of the ball. Then it’s open slather. Oh, and eye-gouging is back in fashion. Unless your name is Swinton, of course. Then it’s guilty, why do we need evidence?

OK, let's get this straight. You kick off with "that hit by Loe. was bad, but nowhere near as bad as that Wallaby lock that used to ‘king hit’ from behind, & along the way did break opponents jaws, including the great Irish lock Willie John McBride". You can't name the lock and nobody else has any recollection of the incident or the player. We propose that it was Finnane, a prop, who definitely broke the jaw of a Welsh prop (not McBride as he never played a test against him). Your comeback is "As I said previously DA, I wasn’t sure of the name, of the player, but I do know he was a Wallaby lock that had broken the jaws of the odd opposition players by ‘ king hitting ‘ them from behind. It might have been Steve Finnane, I’m not sure, but it was around that time". Strong argument sure to change people's minds, made less so by the fact that Finnane played only six tests, was a prop, and hit only one guy when standing in front of him. I raise the point that Haden was a thug, that Meade's wishboned Catchpole out of a ruck and finished his career, and that most great locks and props from the error weren't innocent. Your response "Piney, was pulling him clear of the ruck, as he said, otherwise, he would’ve, copped a terrible ‘ spitting out ‘ , so to say". And "Pity, there were so many international teams back then, had no idea in the art of rucking, where many resorted to ‘stomping’. Can I suggest, that you talk with someone that knows, instead of making these accusations, which are false"? A little condescending, no? And lucky for Catchy that Piney was there to save him from a stomping, sorry rucking, Kiwis didn't stomp. And your coup de gras: "I’ve been in the company, & socialising with Piney on a few occasions, & to make that assumption on him, the way you did just showed how outta whack you are in his respect. Like there is a big difference of spending a few hours with him, & knowing him, as I did!" Please note the exclamation mark, it means you're really serious. You sound like an incoherent 60yo fan boy, misremembering a mystery Australian lock (maybe prop) whose name you can't remember breaking the jaw of a player(s) you can't remember by hitting them from behind (or perhaps not) and assuming your time spent with Meads years after he retired allows only you to an opinion on his playing career. I have had enough of this discourse - on one side it doesn't require anything more than a faulty memory and schoolboy-like fascination, and when presenting facts, the other side is derided for not having had a beer with the mighty Piney. Enough.

Eh? One of the cleanest players to strap on a boot. This is getting silly

Wrong there Muzzo. What I said was that Meads wishboned Catchpole and ended his career. 100% accurate. I called Haden a thug and said great players in those days tended not to be choirboys. In my opinion, again 100% correct. That you chatted with him and he was a nice bloke doesn’t change what he did on the field. Don’t be so naive

Well possibly you need to check your facts Muglair, as I've been in the company, & socialising with Piney on a few occasions, & to make that assumption on him, the way you did just showed how outta whack you are in his respect. Like there is a big difference of spending a few hours with him, & knowing him, as I did!

Muzzo I think you need to go away and check all of your facts. Looking at the Australian forwards who actually played McBride, none of them had that sort of reputation, except maybe Slaggy Miller, but it was his last test at 38, so I am doubting it. If you can find the name of any Australian who played against Haden and McBride you will be doing better than me. I was lucky enough to spend a few hours in the company of Colin Meads about 15 years ago. As you say, a lovely gentleman, but still did not like Australians so I am glad I did not meet him 40 years earlier.

Well if he gets no sanction then just wait till 1/4 finals time at the next WC and see 8 x 62 102 min video's all handed in and all make public. Complaints about refs are nothing new but this is wrong and if you dont see it I cant help you.