Manu Tuilagi smashes Tom Williams

Top14 player imposter!

JDV smashed by Benoit August

The Northampton Saints 30m scrum!

Bastareaud huge hit on Rory Lamont

All Blacks skills - Pt 2 In the backyard

Trinh-Duc sets up Harinordoquy try

Wales vs England 1999

Greg Holmes great hit on Francois Louw

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Schalk Burger alleged eye gouge on David Pocock

Saturday’s Tri Nations game between the Wallabies and the Springboks resulted in two players being suspended for dangerous tackles, but many felt that another should have been cited after a scuffle between Schalk Burger and David Pocock.

Pocock was all over the park all night, showing that he’s fast becoming a serious force to be reckoned with when it comes to the break down. He dominated the Springboks on numerous occasions, stealing ball and making a nuisance of himself when possible.

In this clip Pocock can be seen slowing the ball down, being told to leave it as Burger goes in to get it, and then driving through as the two players get themselves in a tangle.

Pocock gets the better of the Springbok as he drives him to the ground with an elbow to the throat, to which Burger retaliates with what looks like a rake across the eye area.

There have been widespread claims that this is a blatant eye gouge and many are incensed that there hasn’t been further repercussions. Referee George Clancy and his officials ignored the scrap, and there have since been no citings.

Burger was infamously found guilty of 'making contact with the eye area' in the second test against the British & Irish Lions last year. He received an eight week ban.

You’d think that if there was indeed any form of contact with the eyes here, Pocock, and indeed the Australian management, would have made more of a fuss about it and a citing would have been the next obvious step.

What do you think – shocked there was no citing, or as Phil Kearns says, there’s nothing in it?



  • I know that many of you hate Schalk Burger. Let's try keep this discussion clean and constructive though please. Any comments that go against the guidelines will be removed. Thanks!

    By Blogger GMC, at July 27, 2010 10:44 am  

  • as a neutral...
    I love Schalk Burger, and when he became captain of the Stormers he improved much his discipline!
    He's a great player, but such things let me without words...

    Just like when Parisse or Bergamasco did it!

    Yes Pocock dived over him with his elbow over Burger's neck, but that fingers... come on!

    By Blogger Madflyhalf, at July 27, 2010 10:47 am  

  • Looks like he put his fingers up into the face. He should at least be cited.

    Pocock was awesome all game.

    By Anonymous danknapp, at July 27, 2010 10:50 am  

  • Really it looked like a reaction to the way he got slammed..

    By Anonymous Akaname, at July 27, 2010 10:51 am  

  • haha... ohh RD you make me giggle...

    David Pocock, you beast! Text books can't even describe what you just did-- neither through the use of words or diagrams. He just displayed an absolutely beyond perfect clean out that brought a tear to my eye!

    Schalk Burger on the other hand; considering his past I think he did well to hold back and retaliate as little as he did! Would have expected a decent 5-10second eye gouge as suppose to a minor eye scrape... Nothing much in it though, maybe worth a penalty if the ref saw but am happy the judicary didn't get involved on this one.

    By Anonymous Ryan, at July 27, 2010 10:52 am  

  • eye gouge?? that was nothing...play on you sissis!

    By Anonymous Zeca, at July 27, 2010 10:52 am  

  • Gee wizz the guy is back in shape, doing good stuff on the field and there he goes again.... sad sad sad.
    Now lez wait what the IRB has to say as I'm sure a few french fellows will compare that to the Attoub incident.
    Both players have already been suspended for that... so should we expect sthg comparable to Attoub's ban ? I think not but lez wait and see.

    By Blogger jay, at July 27, 2010 10:52 am  

  • If there was to be a citing, it would have happened already. I'd say if they cited Burger, they'd need to cite Pocock. That arm to the throat, with the force of a powerful flanker, is fairly dangerous. The other way around and it would have been called thuggery by Burger.

    I dont think there was eyeball contact either, so nothing in it

    Pocock is a machine. What a great game. Everyones forgotten about George Smith very quickly!

    By Anonymous Laz, at July 27, 2010 10:55 am  

  • There is no question - Burger clearly goes for his eyes in retaliation and if it is "only a scrape" then that is due entirely to luck rather than intention

    Burger seems to have an appalling habit of going for people's eyes. Sooner or later he will seriously injure someone

    If Burger does get done for a second time, surely there is a case for a lifetime ban - even if this was not on the scale of Attoub's gouge

    Gouging is becoming more prevalent even in the lower levels and there is no question in my mind that this is due to examples like this being seen week in, week out.

    Its perhaps the most disgusting and cowardly thing you can do to someone on the rugby field and anyone caught doing it should face an instant ban. All it will take is one lifetime ban for a headline player and the number of incidents will drop dramatically

    By Anonymous Paolo, at July 27, 2010 11:10 am  

  • I think the question is was it intentional or was it accidental?

    As a neutral(England) fan it's my belief that there was no intention to make contact with the eyes. He merely put his hand up into his face for obvious reason(was just elbowed in the neck region).

    What's happened is with all the recent eye-gouging rubbish in rugby any hand to face contact is met with a vast over reaction from fans.

    Nothing in it for me.

    By Anonymous Chris, at July 27, 2010 11:10 am  

  • If Shane Jennings got 14 weeks for less than this then you'd expect a citing. Can't put hands in the face like that anymore, although didnt look like Burger was trying to gouge him. Can't believe that Fourie and Cooper got banned for their tackles. This looked much more serious

    By Anonymous MCB, at July 27, 2010 11:11 am  

  • fuck that is an awesome piece of play from Pocock. Schalk get hammered and takes a swipe at at his face, as you do when you get slammed like that with a forearm to your throat, but it looks to be pretty ineffective and it doesn't look very prolonged.

    that was awesome breakdown play from pocock tho, one wrong body position from schalk and it was BOOOM!!!!

    By Anonymous Spartacus, at July 27, 2010 11:12 am  

  • I sometimes wonder if people are watching the same thing as me

    A punch from Burger I could understand in the heat of the moment

    But he doesn't make a fist. He clearly claws his hand across Pocock's face aiming at his eyes. You can see by the way his fingertips catch on Pocock's nose that they are hooked inwards trying to gouge

    To cite Fourie and Cooper for tackles that had already been punished on the field and yet to ignore this makes a mockery of the citing system

    By Anonymous Paolo, at July 27, 2010 11:19 am  

  • Schalk has a history and as nice a bloke as he is off the field, I wouldn't put an eye gouge past him when he is being totally and forcefully outplayed - and Pocock was in his face. Springboks are not known for their negotiating skills and are easily baited, especially by clever All Blacks.

    By Blogger Unknown, at July 27, 2010 11:19 am  

  • I don't know if it can be named an eye-gouge. Because he put clearly his fingers but didn't press on the eyes, more a scrap than an eye-gouge. but he should heve been cited...

    I think he haven't been cited for 3 reasons:

    1- it wasnt very clear
    2- Boks manager would have cried for injustice after 3 short bans with botha, russouw and fourie
    3- his status of player of the year (in 2005) protect him for long bans.

    Personally, i'm quite exhausted to see that players which give nasty headbutts and try to eye-gouge people in summer, just take little bans or nothin... The IRB always wait the autumn to experiment new levels of santions and give huge bans "for the example" to the..... bloody, ugly, children-eaters of french players :)

    Attoub, Dupuy did demoniac things but they must really feel eager when they watch what actually happens on rugby pitchs of the world...

    By Blogger Flooz, at July 27, 2010 11:24 am  

  • a real shame that Fourie and Cooper had been cited for (dangerous) tackle and not burger for eyes gouge...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 11:24 am  

  • Nothing in it!Nice one Pocock!At least Pocock didnt cry about it..now thats why hes from Zim and not whingy Down Under!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 11:34 am  

  • @ Paolo, I agree, everyone sees things differently. That's usually based on emotion or patriotism. :)

    Watch carefully and you'll see that he's simply reached up and at first actually touches Pocock's head. I think if Pocock had longer hair, he would have grabbed that, but his hand slips down and he then rakes it across his face/eyes. There's nothing premeditated about it and while it COULD have been dangerous, this certainly wasn't as no contact was made (judging by Pococks reaction of course).

    By Anonymous Laz, at July 27, 2010 11:35 am  

  • I'm quite anxious to see if Burger will get cited or not for this "open hand" aim to the eye region... Pocock's dive with the elbow right on the throat was quite tough, but considering Burger's past we can't let him walk away like this, only one year after the eye gouge against the Lions...
    The image is not so clear, but at least we have a video of the incident. Attoub got a 72 weeks ban with a picture...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 11:46 am  

  • If you look carefully, I think part of the reason Pocock decided to destroy Burger was that at the ruck, Pocock was fishing around for the ball, and Burger tried to pull his hair. So Pocock didn't like that understandably. I wouldn't either.

    By Anonymous Kearney for tests, at July 27, 2010 11:51 am  

  • Burger definitely initiated a gouge but copped on at the last second,...If your coach doesn't condemn eye gouging then the players seem to think it's OK,

    Some day we'll have HD footage of an eye pop out...

    Stamp out this filth now and before NZ2011

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 12:08 pm  

  • Just watched the whole clip again, good spot for the hair pulling. Man, Burger is a prat. Why can't he just man up and hurt someone legally?

    Pocock is an absolute unit. The way he destroys Burger in that clip... nice.

    By Anonymous danknapp, at July 27, 2010 12:13 pm  

  • Looked like he tried to grab his face and force it away, but his fingers slipped.

    By Blogger Ben Tyson, at July 27, 2010 12:14 pm  

  • Should Pocock not have been penalised for slowing the ball down? The ref tells him off but its already too late as he has his hands on the ball, which is wrong (according to the ref, who told him off), but surely that should then be a penalty? I can understand Burgers frustration in that regard.

    The whole passage of play leading up to that was ridiculous, possibly from both sides even. It was like there was no ref!

    I don't condone eye/face grabbing though. Silly stuff to even go near there really

    By Anonymous Flinto, at July 27, 2010 12:18 pm  

  • I don't get what his hand is doing there. As Paolo said, a punch would've been a logical reaction. As an annoying no7 myself, I never find myself reaching to an opponents face with an open hand.
    Burger should know better.
    In my opinion he is clearly 'raking'.

    By Anonymous Cmon, at July 27, 2010 12:21 pm  

  • It's a shame u can't see burgers face when he does it. He probably had his eyes closed due to the hit.
    When u lie on your back with a big guys elbow on your throat u probably just want to get him off! You'l push whatever is close. Shame he pushed in pocock face.
    Don't start calling everything a gouge! Come on guys!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 12:23 pm  

  • Besides the gouge or not...right at the end I thought it was Fainga that kicked it forward while trying to pick it up after the awesome cleanout.

    Looking closer it was actually the Saffa on the ground and off his feet that kicks it back twice towards his team at 14 15 seconds.

    Hope the aussies got a penalty

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 12:31 pm  

  • 1.Firmly place & position open hand on face

    2.Rake across eye area with open hand and hooked fingers

    Don't start calling everything a gouge..

    Just call the gouges a gouge

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 12:31 pm  

  • Anon above:
    "Don't start calling everything a gouge. Just call the gouges a gouge"

    The Oxford English Dictionary defines "gouge" as :

    "to dig or force out with or as if with a gouge: to gouge out an eye."

    So a gouge isn't necessarily a gouge, it can be a gesture "as if" it were a gouge. ie. it's the thought that counts.

    On the other hand, Schalk Burger is a brilliant player and I agree with Laz on this, he was on the back foot with an elbow in his throat, clutching at straws and ended up swiping his hand across Pocock's face. Nothing in it at all.

    Pocock 10/10 Burger got owned.

    By Blogger Disco, at July 27, 2010 12:55 pm  

  • can you guys grow up. That was such an obvious attempt to remove pokocks retinas. should be cited and banned for rest of tri nations. Im sick of seeing this sort of behaviour from players and im sure others are too. Plus thats not the first time we have seen burgers hooked claws out.
    You think mccaws a cheat: what you call burger then?

    By Anonymous spinelessplayer, at July 27, 2010 12:56 pm  

  • I would agree with some that it was merely a 'fend' if it wasnt so blatantly drawn across his face. If this had been the reverse with pocock raising his hand you may have questioned the intent, but schalk has a record of this and in the red mist that appears after being smashed/cheap shotted etc, this seems to be the inherent reaction from burger as weve seen a number of times (opposed to striking etc).

    By Anonymous Michael, at July 27, 2010 1:03 pm  

  • Only Pocock knows if his retina felt Burgers greasy fingers..Gouged (or attempted) players need to make a stand..Like footers against racism...Ruggers against gouging..Wear an armband, squash goggles, fencing mask, :) etc

    By Anonymous Conor, at July 27, 2010 1:08 pm  

  • Pulling his hair, forcing his head away. You boys don't half come up with some rubbish to excuse Burger

    This is as clear an attempt at an eye gouge as I've seen. Yes, it was done in the heat of the moment, but that does not excuse it

    His fingers are clearly hooked and they are clearly raked across Pocock's face. It is only luck that stops him badly gouging Pocock

    If he was pushing Pocock away he would be doing so with a flat hand. Pushing someone away with hooked fingers doesn't work - try it sometime. Nor is he trying to grab anything, such as his hair

    I used to think Burger was one of the best players in the world, but it is becoming ever clearer that when things aren't going his way, he resorts to actions like gouging

    By not citing and banning him, a seriously bad example is being set. The reluctance to get to grips with gouging at the highest level is having repercussions at all levels. The end result being someone losing their sight - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8489723.stm

    There should be no excuses - eye gouge = lifetime ban

    By Anonymous Paolo, at July 27, 2010 1:13 pm  


    Armbands for the next game anyone? You get the tape, I'll get the marker pens.

    By Anonymous Scrote, at July 27, 2010 1:13 pm  

  • i am not a fan of either, but burger does seem to be a bit of a dirty player. great props to pocock for not retaliating

    By Anonymous rosh, at July 27, 2010 1:21 pm  

  • Personally, i think given by the initial reaction of everyone and the commentators it should have at least been a citing and then turned down, but as far as im aware there was no hint of talking about the incident?!?

    I don't think there was a gouge there really, i mean i dont know how obvious it has to be before a citing....the 2nd lions test was pretty obvious, and the fact kearney showed discomfort over it....

    The forearm to the throat was nothing, pocock had hold of burgers shoulder and as they both went down the forearm briefly went to burgers throat, and was then lifted.

    Hummm watching again, i dunno, i think perhaps burger should have been cited, i think if pocock had said something after the match, or reacted in a stronger way then he would have been cited.

    Although i did enjoy watching burger get flat out owned!!!! Awesome work!

    By Anonymous (u-p)rick, at July 27, 2010 1:25 pm  

  • Paolo, his fingers are taped together! Hooked? Oh my.

    Watch Burger afterwards, hitting Pococks arm to get him off. The guy has a massive forearm on his throat.

    It's not about trying to excuse Burgers behaviour, it's about trying to look at it objectively.

    And once again, did Pocock even so much as flinch? Must have been a painful eye gouge eh.

    By Anonymous Laz, at July 27, 2010 1:27 pm  

  • Na Pocock didn't flinch...he was obviously enjoying the Optometrical examination by the esteemed, world renowned Dr. Burger

    By Anonymous Conor, at July 27, 2010 1:36 pm  

  • Second review now he should have been well and truly cited.....his right arm is way off to the right hand side when he gets slammed, his left hand is on pococks shoulder.....as he gets slammed and reacts he whips his right hand onto pococks face.....he put some speed into getting his hand there!

    As he whips his hand over you can see its open, yet when he hits pococks face his fingers are no longer seen....could mean 2 things:

    1.either his fingers follow the contours of pococks face as he pushes.

    2. he is raking his fingers across pococks face.

    I'd side with number 2, it wasnt a 'dig your eyes out' but more of a scratch your face kinda thing....

    I would agree there was nothing really 'in that' but the fact is it was there....

    We all look at 'spear tackles' and some are awfully bad, some are pretty borderline a regular dump tackle....so the fact is where do we draw the line.....

    in a 'nothing in that' spear tackle we say, well it wasnt really a spear just a borderline dump tackle or 'hard hit'

    In an eye gouge we say 'it doesnt matter if its weak or not he has to go'

    I have to say though im a firm believer that rugby laws should bend accordingly. i think the fact is burger has a history of 'gouge attempts' etc and really should be given a hell of a ban....if only as an example to others!!! i mean attoub got a huge ban and it seemed to calm things down, but they are picking up again, perhaps we need a scapegoat!

    By Anonymous (u-p)rick, at July 27, 2010 1:38 pm  

  • If Burger wouldn't have the ´Lions-incident´ behind his name nobody would think anything of it. Pocock doesn't even blink, the Aussie management didn't bring any case forward so what are we talking about? Play on....

    By Anonymous Bart, at July 27, 2010 1:44 pm  

  • Play on....

    True enough...but it's all fun & games 'til someone loses an eye

    By Anonymous Conor, at July 27, 2010 1:48 pm  

  • i disagree there was obviously some discomfort to pocock otherwise he wouldnt have moved his face out the way....in a shaking head kinda way.

    Yes he didnt stand up and scream 'ref' or punch burgers lights out (which i would have liked to see) but he obviously didnt like the 'hand' on his face...whether that was due to burgers fingers near his eyes or just the fact he didnt want a hand right there i do not know...

    By Anonymous (u-p)rick, at July 27, 2010 1:49 pm  

  • Re Burger - I think he almost did but pulled back from the full gouge. Such a shame as he is a magic player despite the spanking Pocock gave him....

    Re citing the whole process is just sooo inconsistent. Burger should have given him a good old fashioned punch. What's happened to just having a big pager and then shaking hands at the end of the game.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 2:01 pm  

  • Leaving aside any discussion of retaliation etc, the immediate reaction of the players is telling. Pocock didn't flinch when it happened, and made no complaint to the ref. That seems pretty significant.

    One possible innocent explanation is that after Burger was pinned down, he stuck his hand up to the side of Pocock's head to push him away, and when Pocock's head turns, his hand swipes across his face. You might also imagine a guy intending to gouge would aim for the eyes straight away, the first contact here is pretty obviously away from the eyes and on the side of Pocock's head. I'm not saying that's the correct explanation, but the commish might have seen it this way.

    But there's no doubt he would have looked at the incident, and closely given Schalk's history, and yet decided that there was no attempt to gouge. I didn't think it was clear-cut at the time, still don't, and my guess is the commish reached that same conclusion.

    By Anonymous edbok, at July 27, 2010 2:02 pm  

  • Pocock on Burger there was a deliberate lifting of the legs with one arm and a deliberate shove with the opposite hand on the sholder resulting a pure deliberate rotating "tip tackle" add the malicious forearm on the throat. Ok! yes a dumb move on Burger but none the less a reactionary lash out when ones larynx is been crushed by the full force of a forearm with a body behind it. Burger landed on his back so therefore was not deemed dangerous. Now come on guys see everything not just one side.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 2:03 pm  

  • Re Burger - I think he almost did but pulled back from the full gouge. Such a shame as he is a magic player despite the spanking Pocock gave him....

    Re citing the whole process is just sooo inconsistent. Burger should have given him a good old fashioned punch. What's happened to just having a big pager and then shaking hands at the end of the game.

    By Anonymous NiWiTa, at July 27, 2010 2:03 pm  

  • It seems that almost overnight we've become a society that over analyzes almost anything, small incidents get blown out of proportion thanks to the media and people's pathetic need for hysteria.

    Paolo, get a life and give it a rest dude! You hate SB and would like him removed from rugby, we get it, but your obsession with him suggests to me that perhaps you've got some unresolved homo-erotic issues...surely you have more going on in your life than endlessly replaying a 40 sec clip and responding to critical comments?

    I truly hope so, for your sanity's sake...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 2:34 pm  

  • 'Pocock on Burger there was a deliberate lifting of the legs with one arm and a deliberate shove with the opposite hand on the sholder resulting a pure deliberate rotating "tip tackle"'

    I take it you haven't played rugby.... you are allowed to lift a players leg in a ruck, infact thats how people can be moved out the way.....

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 2:34 pm  

  • ^ Hear hear

    Come to think of it, same goes to (u-p)rick as well - relax...woossaa

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 2:37 pm  

  • I believe in freedom of speech!

    Schalk Burger is such a tool. I mean the guy has some awesome skill and power:

    Hell of a:
    All round great player

    But his discipline is shite!

    You all argue the forearm to the throat, personally i dont think it was there for very long and it didnt look massively intentional....but hey lets say he was trying to break burgers neck with his forearm or trying to suffocate him, why scratch his eyes? why not punch him in the face.....i mean you'd get less time if you were caught and cited for a punch rather than a gouge....

    its just stupid, and thats burgers massive flaw, he is an idiot...he cannot keep his cool, and if he cant keep his cool reacts stupidly.....

    By Anonymous The one who cannot be silenced!, at July 27, 2010 2:51 pm  

  • hes a disgrace that lad, he gets put on his ass and his first reaction is to go for the face/eyes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 2:55 pm  

  • 'But he doesn't make a fist. He clearly claws his hand across Pocock's face aiming at his eyes. You can see by the way his fingertips catch on Pocock's nose that they are hooked inwards trying to gouge'

    Completely agree with Paolo

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 3:10 pm  

  • 'If Burger wouldn't have the ´Lions-incident´ behind his name nobody would think anything of it.'

    FAO Bart - the problem is that he does have the history of the Lions incident so this isn't an isolated incident. IF he didn't have the Lions incident then he would get the benefit of the doubt. But he did gouge Fitzgerald so he does have a history of it so he should be cited

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 3:13 pm  

  • ^ I agree that the Lions thing DID happen, so this isn't isolated, but where you're wrong is that he was never guilty of eye gouging. He was cleared of that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 3:20 pm  

  • That is disgraceful! Burger has a history of cheap shots and eye-gouging. This is a clear incident that cannot be ignored. I feel serious action must be taken. This sets a bad example to young players and also lowers the profile of our brilliant sport. He should be ashamed of himself.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 3:53 pm  

  • Paolo said...
    I sometimes wonder if people are watching the same thing as me.

    I agree completely. The excuses that are being made for Burger are pathetic. "Didn't rake", "fingers taped together", "no contact made", who are you trying to kid? What was his hand doing across Pocock's face in the first place? He wasn't trying to push him away, he went for the eye region and pulled his hand across. Going on past incidents that's a citing right there, whether an eyeball is actually removed or not!

    By Anonymous eye to eye, at July 27, 2010 4:04 pm  

  • Burgers a bi of a dirty player but he's only got a couple more years left in him.

    You see scratches popping up on players faces all the time, Id say you see it less often after Burger has gone.

    By Anonymous olwakachangchang, at July 27, 2010 4:07 pm  

  • That was a gouge, with bent fingers, raking them across the eyes. End of story. Burger has a lot of form for violent conduct, and was incredibly lucky not to get a much longer ban during the lions tour. This is worse than Alan Quinlan's offense last year. It saddens me to see this - Burger has great talent, but no-one's bigger than the game, and I'm sick of seeing him in a Springbok jersey.

    By Anonymous Karl, at July 27, 2010 4:22 pm  

  • Nothing in it...unbiased Yank here...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 4:42 pm  

  • Ah, come off it! Stop all this pathetic Burger hating. Sure he may have shoveed his open fist in Pocock face and swiped it around a bit. But there wasn't much int it. Most importantly, Pockock was cheating and being a shithead. He was cheating and didnt remove his hands when the ref told him to. Burger lifted him in the hair to remove him, Pocock got pissed. Someone said he tackled him in the ruck, I am not so sure. Either way, Burger didnt have balance and Poccok decided to slam him into the ground and shove an elbow in the neck. Surely Burger had to react...sure a punch would have been manlier. But, then you are guaranteed at least a yellow. if you shove your open hand in the face and move it aound a little, then you don't. Thats how they ref. To call it a gouge is ridicolous, a poke, and perhaps not very manly sure! But, what would you have done?

    By Anonymous punch, at July 27, 2010 4:46 pm  

  • Ps Sorry for the sloppy typing.
    Ps2 Slamming someone not in balance off the ball isnt very brave either, sorry...
    Ps3 The lions didnt loose the series because of Burgers eye gouge, just like the boks didnt loose the last 3 games because of the refs. Let go! That doesnt mean that Burger didnt deserve a red last year or that Rolland was being fair and balanced the other week.

    By Anonymous Punch, at July 27, 2010 4:50 pm  

  • All those saying it was an obvious eyegouge are also those calling him a thug, insulting him, saying they don't like him, etc. If that doesn't prove that you're judging it emotionally, I dont know what does.

    Sure he's a physical player but come on, this is rugby. Don't hate the guy, hate the officials. If they dealt with him how you think he should be dealt with, there would be no issues.

    By Anonymous Flinto, at July 27, 2010 5:11 pm  

  • If the definition is 'making contact with the eye or the eye-area' this is clearly gougeing. I think the citing commissionar gave him the benefit of the doubt, knowing he would at least get a minimum 20 or 30 week ban, taking into consideration he has been banned for this offence before. Nice to see how Pocock keeps his cool though.

    By Anonymous dutchrugbyplayer, at July 27, 2010 5:33 pm  

  • absolute disgrace to the game

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 5:41 pm  

  • Though as the commentators say there is nothing in it, but you got to look at Burger's record on this sort of thing. Should have been a couple of weeks, nothing more.

    By Anonymous HwA, at July 27, 2010 5:51 pm  

  • Anyone who thought this was an attempt at a gouge is a one-eyed fool. What's more, if anyone here acts as though they've never accidentally made contact near/around someone else's eyes while playing is either a liar or doesn't go into contact often at all.

    And I don't even like Schalk Burger. But c'mon, this was nothing.

    By Anonymous bracket, at July 27, 2010 6:18 pm  

  • And this has NOTHING to do with the guy's record...if it were Botha, perhaps, since that guy can't seem to go a game without doing something malicious. Burger, on the other hand, has only once incident of eye-gouging and relatively few other incidents.

    I'm a huge BIL fan and was pissed as anyone when the other incident happened, but this is completely innocuous and nothing happened here.

    By Anonymous bracket, at July 27, 2010 6:21 pm  

  • burgers is a marked man with respect to eye gouging since the lions incident. nothing in this one but he should have known better than to leave any room for doubt. he made contact with the eyes, so harsh as it may be he would have had to defence at the citing commision

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 6:29 pm  

  • I don't think it was on purpose, it was the reaction to having been taken down with Pocock's elbow across his neck. Nothing in that at all.

    By Anonymous Sam, at July 27, 2010 6:43 pm  

  • Since his previous blatant actions I think that Schalk Burger has played very well and has been rather restrained in many matches I have seen. Pocock as well as bring another damn fine player did infringe during this game and he did land of SB's throat which was certainly not good but the drive over was. I don't think he should have been cited as from his previous, there really wasn't anything there!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 6:44 pm  

  • Sheet,
    The way rugby is going, shouldn't
    Pocock get a four week ban for taking Burger beyond the horizontal and driving his back into the deck?

    At least keep it consistent with the citings on Fourie and Cooper.

    By Anonymous cheyanqui, at July 27, 2010 6:56 pm  

  • Clear attempt to make contact with the face and calculated to by Burger. He thought about it and then looked up before grabbing at the face. Should be cited and has got away with it again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 8:03 pm  

  • great break down contest, who said there wasn't a competive ruck these days. great game by clancy

    By Anonymous shane, at July 27, 2010 8:06 pm  

  • geezuz man,give schalk a break.he has been playing really good rugby in this tri nations and lead the stormers to a s14 final.he is slowly but surely getting back to his best.too many haters.people can say what they want.him and true bok fans don't give a shit what.too many people on here that think they know shit when they don't.Just like those morons on the bbc rugby union forums.all a bunch chav cry babies.

    By Blogger Grayditch, at July 27, 2010 8:29 pm  

  • re: grayditch

    who gives a crap what kind of form burger is in at the moment? who cares if he is coming into some form? burger has been blighted with indiscretions since he came onto the scene and as a rugby fan i admire his passion but he is no more than a thug in my opinion, any man who sticks his fingers into someones eyes is nothing more than a coward, and as he those incredulous 8 weeks he got on luke fitz last year CLEARLY has had no effect on him, i thnk he should be sanctioned for 12 months easily

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 27, 2010 8:41 pm  

  • LOL at the people who think touching someones face with your hand is a 12 month ban.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 8:51 pm  

  • LOL your an idiot

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 27, 2010 8:53 pm  

  • I think you mean *you're

    So if any of the Irish eyegougers, or sergio parisse, did something similar to this, you'd call for 12 months too? I highly doubt it

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 9:08 pm  

  • ...if you're going to call someone an "idiot", Paul, at least know the difference between "your" and "you're".

    By Anonymous elementary school teacher, at July 27, 2010 9:08 pm  

  • I'm not seeing it. But the boy cried wolf so... probably guilty...

    By Anonymous Feg, at July 27, 2010 9:12 pm  

  • if it was there second offence then yes of course i would, theres no need whatsoever in the game of rugby for it, its nice to see people writing under an unassumed name condone foul play and thugary

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 27, 2010 9:13 pm  

  • I think it only looked bad due to the slow mo relplay

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 9:28 pm  

  • Judgemental much, Paul? Nobody is condoning thugery. All some of us are saying is that this isn't necessarily thugery.

    Unless Pocock is superman (he's close at the moment), then I'm pretty sure he would have flinched after a finger touched his friggin eyeball. So in that case I'm sure it didnt.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 9:34 pm  

  • Will their be any Bok forwards left for the next game?!?!

    By Anonymous BigBucks, at July 27, 2010 10:08 pm  

  • judgemental? look up his disaplinary record on google, absolute disgrace. just because pocock doesnt flinch doesnt mean burger was in the right u can clearly see and look again at burgers wrist that his INTENT is not to go for the mouth, or the ears or anywhere on the face except directly for the eyes. a ban is definately in order

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 27, 2010 10:17 pm  

  • just shocking to see, he goes straight for the eyes.
    guess he is lucky not to be french, although they deserved their bans for what they did. i just ask for consistency !

    By Anonymous someguy, at July 27, 2010 11:14 pm  

  • Paul, you see exactly what you want to see. You seem to have settled on Burger being an intentional gouger, so therefore anything he does remotely close to it means he's attempting to gouge in your eyes.

    That's fine, but don't pawn if off as fact. The guy has also played over 50 international matches over the span of 7 years. How many of those did he go through without incident? The vast majority. How many did he go through without being overly (because all loose forwards are somewhat -) malicious? The majority.

    But what do they say - it only takes 1 bad act out of 100 to make someone forget all the good things? So, I can't say I blame you for being hard on the guy.

    But don't get overly excited yourself. As the (unfortunately) anonymous said above - it's not that we're condoning thuggery, it's that this isn't thuggery. So watch it with the sheep-calling because one day, you'll swing people around to the other side - that Burger seems to be victimized more than need be.

    By Anonymous rygbiman, at July 27, 2010 11:15 pm  

  • Burger is lucky to not be french ...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 11:28 pm  

  • Pocock is a tank.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 11:41 pm  

  • Schalk is a great player, theres no denying it. but i do think, like some of the other more aggressive springboks players he's just inclined to lash out when maybe he shouldnt. i just think he needs to be abit more intelligent on the field at times as he'll get a rep as a dirty player which will completely ruin all the great things he has done as has happened with bakkies botha.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 27, 2010 11:51 pm  

  • I'm laughing that some people are saying that he didn't gouge Fitzgerald. Whatever the legal bull, look at the video of the episode and tell me he is not having a go at Fitzgerald's eyes. If you somehow think he isn't, there's nothing to be said.

    As for this episode - I don't really understand why he wasn't cited, but he wasn't, so there you go.

    By Anonymous Mike, at July 27, 2010 11:56 pm  

  • re rygbiman,
    when you say i see what i want to see i presume you meant by looking at the evidence in the video? why should he put his hands anywhere near his eyes without intent? surely having spent time suspended for it in the past he would have the sense to avoid the eyes at all costs, south africa were outplayed, pocock had just stripped him of the ball, his elbow was on his throat and burger got a rush of blood to the head and went for him, it couldnt be clearer. i just had to laugh when i saw your comment about the 50 caps, its like your congratulating schalk getting through 50 caps without bursting someone, il remember to give him a standing ovation next time hes over in ireland, look wer going to agree to disagree but take the two irish players who have been caught up with the gouging storm, quinlan and jennings, both men have been playing the game far longer than burger and and both have a normal enough disaplinary record, with the case of gouging being the most serious offence committed over the years, people in ireland would like to think there was no intention involved but as an avid munster supporter, if quinny was caught doing it again id be calling for punishment, it simply doesnt belong in the game of rugby union. end of story.

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 28, 2010 12:18 am  

  • There is a lot of burger bashing going on, personally id like to take a stand and say, yes i do not like the bok fans arrogance, which unfortunately leaves me with an anti bok rugby team feeling. i.e i want whoever is playing the boks to win, regardless....

    That is by the by, i can however still recognise fantastic bok players...Matfield for instance, yeh the guy is a tough player, but look at his game, you all love burgers big hits and big attitude, you all love the great 'enforcer' bakkies etc etc, but heck, id pick matfield for my team well over any of those goons, the guy has had some incidents, ill give him that (what second row hasnt?) but he plays such a great game, and he is a fantastic leader. Ball in hand he is awesome, his kicking (i know right!?!?) is bloody good, and his general attack and defence game is awesome. (yet he doesnt go for high profil 'headbutts' or 'facefeeling' (eye gouging is apparently not what burger does....*rolls eyes*)

    But the fact of the matter is, burger is a good player, and as much as he is a tw*t on the pitch sometimes, ofcourse he is going to get the bok jersey, because, lets face it, no one else does the job better....and his general discipline in terms of what the refs catch him for is pretty good!

    However, he has a history of face feeling (i wrongly said kearney earlier, its fitzgerald who had his face felt.) If we take an objective look at what happened (or what didnt happen) then what is our conclusion:

    1.Hand on face...yes
    2.Was it a punch....no
    3.Did he push 'AWAY'....no
    4.Was his hand flat....no
    5.Did he 'pull' or 'scratch' across...yes

    I mean, given the above, it leaves the conclusion that he was trying to cause discomfort to pococks 'face.' This is where it gets messy for me and someone finally has to say yae or nae....it looked like he was trying to cause facial discomfort, the eyes are on the face therefore they are a potential target....ban or no ban

    Now ofcourse from this vid there was nothing really in it, i mean he didnt work the eyes, or face. but should his hand have been there?

    NOW onto pocock (excuse the book im writing) his forarm as stated above did end up on burgers throat, but in my opinion it was only the fact he used his arm to fend off landing on burger, he didnt push burgers neck with the forearm to get him to ground, it simply ended there on impact with the ground...so really, he wasn't trying to choke him etc...however i'd question his rucking technique, because he came off his feet, driving like that is fine, but he didnt particularly remain on his feet.

    CONCLUSION (YAY FINALLY) Burger should have been called up on this after the game and perhaps recieved a caution but no ban, (there was nothing in it guys, admit it) but it should have defintely been recognised as a questionable incident, rather than pushed aside and forgotten....

    By Anonymous (u-p)rick, at July 28, 2010 12:53 am  

  • Okay. And if Schalk Burger was caught gouging again, then I'd say throw the book at him. My point was that this was not a video of him gouging. Keep your pants on until he sticks his fingers in someone's eye again and then you can go to town.

    You're right, we can disagree on what kind of a player Burger is and that's fine. But what is clear is that there is no gouging involved in what happened. You could say he came close, you could even say you think he was going for a gouge, but at the end of the day, there was nothing illegal here - that's why he hasn't been cited.

    I think Kearns' comment at the end sums this clip up perfectly: nothing in it.

    And for the sake of the game, I hope Quinny doesn't get involved in something like that again either. The guy may be a dick on the field, but he's darn good at it and he's a great asset (if he's on the site you're hoping wins) the way he winds up the opposition.

    By Anonymous rygbiman, at July 28, 2010 1:04 am  

  • that was a book and a half! my god! i agree with the majority of what you say however the IRB said a few months back gouging is something they are trying to eradicate from the sport, surely a ban would send out the message that face feeling as you put it wont be tolerated under no circumstance

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 28, 2010 1:07 am  

  • mr gormley, a tip. drink less guiness and all those burger eye gouges will be easier to bear ;)

    By Anonymous punch, at July 28, 2010 1:09 am  

  • if you read my earlier threads i was comending burger on the player he is. but your right about quinny for years we used get such a laugh what he would get away with on the field but he played against ireland for the barbarians recently and my god he annoyed me so much, what a hero will be a big loss when he hangs up his boots, good arguing with you rygbiman!

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 28, 2010 1:11 am  

  • My god is this what professionalism has done to my beautiful game?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 1:12 am  

  • watch anonomous claiming to be webb ellis! ha

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 28, 2010 1:13 am  

  • It's funny people trying to make out that Pocock was doing something wrong and terrible.
    Typical, when someone accuses the South Africans of being cheats and dirty, they accuse that person or team (or even country) of being soft.
    When someone smashes one of their own players they have a cry about how evil he is for cheating.
    Pocock slammed Burger fair and square, he just outmuscled him, he was probably the main difference between the teams.
    Burger was pissed off cuz he'd just been owned at the ruck, so, as he has done before, he attacked Pocock's face.
    And the lack of reaction from Pocock was awesome, the Australian team is disciplined, and so are the players.
    Pocock didn't want to hurt his team by giving away a penalty or weakening the defensive line, so he just got up and went back into defence.

    By Anonymous Jono, at July 28, 2010 1:18 am  

  • And by the way, gouging is not new, there is actually much less of it now than their was 10 or 15 years ago.
    During the 1999 World Cup Final John Eales actually threatened to walk his team off the field at half time the French were doing so much of it.

    By Anonymous Jono, at July 28, 2010 1:20 am  

  • I weep for humanity. So-called 'men' have been reduced to pathetic, whiny little bitch boys...

    Paul Gormley, please do us all a favour and end your life - not only are your spelling abilities a ridiculous joke but your stubborness on this issue resembles that of a spoilt toddler, you most certainly should not be allowed to father any offspring...EVER! Who cares by now? It happened 3 days ago and the Apocalypse hasn't arrived so just live your life and stop embarrassing yourself FFS!

    From a neutral

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 1:32 am  

  • some man logging in under an unassumed name my boy, clearly have no life when you change a rugby argument into a suicide hope! haha your a pathetic man, you would make a great waterboy

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 28, 2010 1:39 am  

  • keep it to the rugby lads

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 1:39 am  

  • Read the very first comment before writing up repulsive threads. There is no need for that here. Pete in Wales.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 1:42 am  

  • it makes me laugh when you get people saying "im not trying to excuse what burger did", thats exactly what your doing, any man in their right mind who was taking offence to a elbow on the throat would throw a punch or try to push the guy off, burger clearly rakes his hand across the eyes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 1:43 am  

  • now see i dont know if this is the same creep bothering me a minute ago or a diferent anonymos but look at the video pocock didnt jab his elbow into burgers throat it was how he fell while trying to retain the ball

    By Blogger Paul Gormley, at July 28, 2010 1:48 am  

  • Jono ofcourse gouging is not new but it is more documented (cameras everywhere) and therefore highlighted much much more.

    Its ugly and the irb have always tried to stamp it out, nowadays there is more evidence to convict someone for it, hence more bans and more uproar.

    By Anonymous (u-p)rick, at July 28, 2010 2:09 am  

  • Absolutley, but the truth is the game is much, much cleaner than it was 15 years ago, because of the intense scrutiny proffesionalism has brought.
    That's all I meant.

    By Anonymous Jono, at July 28, 2010 2:59 am  

  • Not a lot in it really. Pocock plays on unfazed. A credit to his game.

    No suprise either, it's Burger's default setting to go for the eye gouge!!

    The Saffa's should have a good look at their discipline. Most cards in international rugby. You'd think the coach would really be onto them about this, but then again he is a clown who condones it most of the time.
    "Why don't we go to the nearest ballet shop, get some tutus and get a dancing shop going?"

    They play the victim with all the cardings but then you see this play from Burger, Botha a few weeks ago...and add in the spear tackles etc. and you'd think they'd get the message. Take responsibility for your actions!!
    The coach should be coming down hard on this because you can't win games with players off the field. Simple.

    By Anonymous Mart, at July 28, 2010 3:17 am  

  • As a Wallabies fan I thought there was nothing in it. He started to go for the eyes but thought better of it. Pocock reacted honestly and did not make a meal of it. He's not precious. Good to see.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 3:37 am  

  • I Think the key action is that Burger lifts his right hand to go to the Far side of Pococks face. If you just wanted someone off you would n't you take the shortest route to push them off??

    Then again not enough eveidence and no reaction from Pocock (Well Done!!)

    By Anonymous Ned2or3, at July 28, 2010 5:47 am  

  • Coming from a Kiwi, I rate Schalk so high as a player... And off the field he seems like a legend, its a shame he has those little brain-snaps and does stupid shit.

    Having said that, I don't think there was anything in this...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 7:31 am  

  • You'd have thought with Burger's previous experience of the citing commission he'd be trying to keep it a bit cleaner. Although there wasn't much in this, it's obvious the game is trying to crack down on gouging (which is good) and players who've been cited previously are going to get a tough reaction in a hearing. It should be pretty obvious following the previous two games that the IRB are getting tough on anything they deem as illegal play.

    Although there was no damage done, it's a bit silly doing this sort of thing when you're aware of he penalty if you get caught. Pocock's clear out was aggressive, but players like Burger are targeted for their short fuse. Look at Botha.

    By Anonymous Nick, at July 28, 2010 11:20 am  

  • How can people be so blind? He clearly went for the eyes, there are no excuses for what he did, he should have been cited and suspended

    By Blogger filipe, at July 28, 2010 11:28 am  

  • @filipe

    Pun intended? :P

    By Anonymous Sam, at July 28, 2010 11:32 am  

  • Just seen the hair pulling.....

    So in 10 seconds of play he pulls someones hair and then does some really dodgy rake across the face.

    I'd rather there was a brawl than this kind of underhand rubbish.

    By Anonymous Nick, at July 28, 2010 11:35 am  

  • I saw this live and at the time I thought 'Oh no Schalk is gonna be in deep shit for that'... but nothing came of it. Pocock didn't care so maybe Pocock didn't think his eyes were in danger?

    By Anonymous Resta, at July 28, 2010 12:06 pm  


    By Anonymous TURDburger, at July 28, 2010 1:14 pm  

  • Well, to be completely neural, it's very hard to call from that angle alone.
    Come on, imagine yourself in a fight, when you get pressed down on the ground, going for the face is just a very likely reaction.
    I'm not defending Burgar or anything, I'm just saying it's impossible to conclude anyth from that alone

    By Blogger vinniechan, at July 28, 2010 1:50 pm  

  • To that idiot above my last message, who suggested that Burgar should be banned on the basis he tried...
    Which part of the laws of rugby states that "conspiring" is an actual offence?
    You might as well ban a player every time he drops low, lines his opposition up with his shoulders for a big hit, for "trying to spear"
    Look, I'm just saying there's no way we can conclude anything from that clip, and we can't just throw intangible moral accusations at a player as grounds for banning him.

    By Blogger vinniechan, at July 28, 2010 2:21 pm  

  • "LOL at the people who think touching someones face with your hand is a 12 month ban."

    Well actually ERC believes touching someone's face with your hand is a 6 month ban : that's what happened to Dupuy for exactly the same thing

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 3:36 pm  

  • Skip to about about 2 mins in on this video and tell me Dupuy just 'touched' Ferris' face... Disappointed me so much as I loved Dupuy when he played for Leicester

    By Blogger RedYeti, at July 28, 2010 7:07 pm  

  • Whoops, forgot the link >.>


    By Blogger RedYeti, at July 28, 2010 7:07 pm  

  • sorry RD but the man has got to be banned for many many months. an obvious eye gouge but it isnt the first time that 'vermon' of a person. he is not only a cheat but a criminal as well. this is not the first or even second time he has gone for someones eye let alone the countless amount of times he has been cited or has got away with horrible assults
    no room for a guy like this in rugby. he is pure evil and should be banned for months. a year would be perfect.
    oh and im a bok

    By Anonymous hefler, at July 28, 2010 7:11 pm  

  • ^ suuurrre you are with english like that.

    'Vermon' of a person? 'Criminal'? 'Pure evil'??? Get a hold of yourself man. He was in a scuffle and pushed the guys face and came close to touching his eyes. People like you make me want to defend Burger even more.

    Re. the other comment about Dupuy - thats what I call going for the eyes deliberately, twice. Sergio Parisse did the same. Atoub got done by a ridiculous photograph.

    This video however is hardly conclusive proof of EYE GOUGING. He wasn't even cited, when the citing commision are as strict as they've ever been. Maybe there's something in that.

    By Anonymous Laz, at July 28, 2010 8:28 pm  

  • Schalk is a legend and just because he made contact with the face with hands when Pocock clearly had his elbow on Schalks throat, does not mean that this is a eye gouge. So sick and tired of hearing all these things about the saffas. As soon as something is discused concerning them they dont get the benefit of the doubt. all referes are against the saffas all the time

    By Anonymous Simon, at July 28, 2010 9:21 pm  

  • Do yourself a favour and make an armband about it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 28, 2010 11:40 pm  

  • I definitely believe that the intention was there. However I think the reason there may not have been as much contact as in other incidents involving Burger is because he kind of stopped himself making it too serious as he has learnt from his mistakes. And to set the record straight I am by no means a follower of the man. Personally I think he's a dirty Springbok so-and-so, I'm just presenting a neutral point of view...

    By Blogger Tom Griffiths, at July 28, 2010 11:58 pm  

  • It would be easier to defend yourself by punching the chin, pushing the chin away or pushing the body of the attacker away. But Burger goes straight for the face and eyes. He also hooks his fingers and drags his fingers across the eye area.

    Definitely worth a citing, particularly with Burger's record with peoples' eyes.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 29, 2010 6:45 am  

  • punching a guy while he's on top of you and you're lying on the floor???
    unless you pack a punch like Mike Tyson and can end it with that one punch, that sounds like a pretty quick way to taking a good pumping

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 29, 2010 2:20 pm  

  • Lets see how many boks can get banned this tri nations?? Great tackle from Pocock BOOOM!! I love the replays at the Thanks RD!

    By Anonymous Conor, at July 29, 2010 6:03 pm  

  • Why are you moaning ? He got a green jersey, so there's absolutly no problem.

    By Anonymous Dalma, at July 29, 2010 9:16 pm  

  • great clear on burger. Not much in the alleged gouge in my opinion

    By Anonymous Rob, at July 29, 2010 10:07 pm  

  • how can you call that an eye gouge?
    he just pushed his face away!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 30, 2010 5:19 am  

  • He is too stupid..and sometimes happen this!!!!!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 30, 2010 1:29 pm  

  • I think he learned his lesson, he strapped his middle fingers together to avoid doing proper gouging even if he would like to!!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 30, 2010 4:03 pm  

  • Typical Burger (Dirty player)
    Typical Pocock (Fantastic work counter ruck at breakdown)
    Typical Commentators (Nothing wrong with it my ***)
    Typical IRB Judiciary (Doing nothing to the more renound players as they did for burgers gouge on Fitzgerald but someohow attoub gets 70 weeks)

    Let me guess that other plank De Villiers defended it too???

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 31, 2010 12:48 am  

  • " Pocock reacted honestly and did not make a meal of it. He's not precious. Good to see."

    If only the same could be said for the B & I Lions. Never seen more precious players & fans than in their recent SA tour.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at July 31, 2010 12:55 am  

  • Its clearly not a gouge - so quit the wumming.

    In the real world where judicial processes ascertain guilt, the prejudices and bleatings of blog-posters and talkback callers mean nothing. Thank Christ.

    Under a true legal system, past actions prove nothing regards to guilt - each case must be proven on is own merits. Past behaviour should only considered when assessing punishment. At leasrt thats how it should work.

    Burger did his time.

    All of that said:
    - Burger did pull Pocock's hair
    - Pocock did elbow him back
    - Burger reacted idiotically and basically put his playing future in the hands of the judicial process.

    And please saffers stop belittling Lion's fans complaints regarding the past gouging. Burger was representing your nation and he disgraced it.

    PDV disgraced and continues to disgrace your country, only more so as he has plenty of time to think before putting his feet in his mouth. Still he tries to shove both legs in his gob an a weekly basis.

    By Blogger RememberTheMer, at July 31, 2010 7:56 am  

  • thats scotty right there...lol

    By Anonymous Schalk Burger and Botha 4 President, at August 02, 2010 6:54 am  

  • pocock did really well - aggresive counter ruckin. 100% legal . burger den swipes he fingers through pococks face - causin no harm bt cud of easily done so. he intent was once again 4 de eye. probably deserved a 1 match ban.

    Fair play to pocock 4 nt reactin nd startin a brall on de floor, bcoz den Burger wud of definately been cited.

    Pocock in my opinion is de best player in de world

    By Anonymous Kevin, at August 26, 2010 1:23 am  

Please note: All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.

Post a Comment

<< Home

Missed out on recent posts? View by monthly archive
July 2011 | June 2011 | May 2011 | April 2011 | March 2011 | February 2011


Ultimate Rugby Sevens | Frontup.co.uk | Whatsisrugby.com | RossSkeate.com | Fusebox | Olympic-rugby.org
The Rugby Blog | Blogspot rugby | Free Sports Video Guide | Lovell Rugby Blog | Lerugbynistere | Free Betting Offers

All videos featured are hosted externally and property of the respective video sharing platforms.
Rugbydump features and archives them in an effort to promote the game worldwide.
Copyright © 2010 Rugbydump