Vodacom-Red-VIP140x525
South African Super Rugby Franchises

Bulls

**************

Stormers

**************

Cheetahs

**************

The Sharks

**************

Lions

Click on any of the pictures to go to that franchise

Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder backed his team against charges of eye-gouging against the Bulls during their 32-30 Super Rugby loss on Saturday, saying he was concerned the new white card system could be manipulated.

sport24

South African referee Jaco Peyper issued two white cards against the Crusaders after Bulls hooker Chiliboy Ralepelle and captain Pierre Spies, on behalf of lock Flip van der Merwe, made allegations of eye-gouging at rucks.

SANZAR, SuperRugby’s ruling body, introduced the use of white cards this season in cases where referees suspect foul play but have not seen the incident or are unsure of the culprit.

The card alerts the citing commissioner to view television replays and check whether action is required.

Blackadder told a news conference: “Personally, I’m bemused. If the allegations made are shown to be false then I expect an apology because they’re pretty serious allegations. Otherwise anyone can make allegations and we’ll have white cards all over the place. I’m not sure the system is designed for that.

“There’s a process in place, but I would be very disappointed if the allegations are shown to be true. I know my players well, they’re guys of character and there’s no way they would do that. I’ll be interested in the outcome.”

Bulls coach Frans Ludeke said eye-gouging had no place in the game and he would be upset if the allegations were proven.

“There’s no place for foul play and silly incidents like that,” he told reporters. “There will be a review and there may be nothing, but it’s not part of the game. No-one wants to see that sort of thing.

“It’s tough to say what happened, but we’ll leave it for the judicial officers, they specialise in that.”

21 Responses to Super Rugby: Bulls accuse Crusaders of Eye-gouging

  • 1

    Fukken dirty Kiwis!

  • 2

    Will be difficult to firstly find the relevant footage and then to determine the intent from it.

    Usually these things happen in the deepest and darkest parts of the rucks… and at times where the ball (and cameras) have already moved on, following the ball as it goes out… and before the heap on the ground has disolved into it’s different bodies.

    Will say one thing though… Flip’s eyes certainly bore the scars of something… that much was clear.

    … and another thing… why would Chiliboy lie… and doubly so, why would Flip voice the same concern… I smell a gouger!

    There would have to be clear evidence to do anything about it though.

    Todd Blackadder and Kieran Read can say what they want… what else do we expect them to do but back their team members…

    Something else concerns me about the Crusaders too…. the planned blatant cheating freegin obsession of the side to block players… there were 2 Bulls penalties for it, one against Ellis for obstructing Zane Kirchner and one against Daniel Carter for obstructing Bjorn Basson from tackling… both incidents clear as day to see that there was deliberate intent in what was done.

    But go back to the actual Game Article and you’ll see me pointing out obstructive Saders running in front of Saders backline players with the ball, on a number of occasions… and not once did they get pinged there.

    All these incidents are blatant forms of cheating, in no uncertain terms… it is scaly and it is against any form of fair contest… it is cowardly and it is wrong!

    For that alone I hope the Crusaders are klapped sideways by all and sundry from hereon in, I have lost ALL respect for the cowardly cheating tossers!

    Fark them!

  • 3

    Tomorrow I will video capture at least 4 incidents of Crusaders obstructive running… in the 1 game against the Bulls…

    I will upload them ALL onto Youtube.. and I will place them ALL in one Article here on Rugby-Talk…. where I charge them with cheating and bringing the game into disrepute!

    It is time that they are exposed for the scandalous cheats that they are…. then I’ll send the Crusaders a mail inviting them to have a look and defend their blatant cheating.

  • 4

    @ grootblousmile:Hahaha – he’s back. And sommer with the fighting talk ook. I can see the babelas has disappeared, only to be replaced by a dark brooding cloud of lawyer like proportions, ready to put the world to rights. You go boy. Please put up a copy of the letter you forward to the Crusaders – that would really make my day!!!

  • 5

    In all seriousness though, I also commented on the ‘lazy runners’ (trying to use a kind name) in a thread yesterday, and don’t think it’s just confined to the Crusaders. It has crept in in a couple of NZ teams. What they do is leave a player far enough away so as not to infringe, but close enough to block the line of vision of the defending team, as well as some players. The ‘lazy runners’ then do exactly what you said with DC, and claim that he was within his rights as he was behind the ball and player.

  • 6

    4 & 5 @ Just For Kicks:
    Freegin cheating skunks!

    I was also trying to think of a kinder term to use…. I suppose one would call it “Running Blatant Interference” or “Decoy Runners”… just running far enough away from their own ball carrier and clearly marking and obstucting specific opposition players not only to go for a tackle on a ball carrier but also obstructing the defenders’ vision to see what the attackers will do with their attacking ball.

    I will support ANY side playing against the Saders from now on… any side…

    They are like Offensive Line Blockers or whatever you call them in gridiron football!

  • 7

    @ grootblousmile:What was said in the presser?

  • 8

    7 @ Just For Kicks:
    Did not stay for the pressers… could not.

  • 9

    3@ grootblousmile:
    Didn’t see any of the game so will keep an eye out for that footage should be interesting Gbs, this blocking is something that I have been complaining about for ages with it making rugby look like grid iron football at times and have been confused as to why it seldom seems to get called. Certainly hope the allegations you make are not true as have had first hand account from someone who was in same hotel as Crusaders last week that they were first class blokes, really friendly and sounded like really good ambassadors for their club certainly off the field.

  • 10

    Obstructing players can be a mystery at times for me especially when it comes to mauls, often you see a team driving the ball metres up field with the ball carrier right at the back of the wedge behind loads of his team mates, surely this is obstucting the other team from getting to the ball carrier at the same time as gaining ground?

  • 11

    10@ Bullscot:It’s not obstruction as long as there is one opposition bound. It is effectively a driving maul. What some teams are doing very cleverly, and we saw a classic example yesterday, is that when this wedge forms at the line out, the opposition players just stand back. Then it is construed as obstruction, and duly blown up

  • 12

    No evidence found for eye gouging, Blackadder now demanding an apology.

  • 13

    Die feit dat daar nie video bewyse is nie, beteken nie dat daar nie ‘n oogkrapery was nie. Hoekom sou Chili en Flip dit genoem het, hulle sal mos weet wat die gevolge van valse aanklagtes is ? Maar tegnies gesproke kan daar geen optrede wees nie weens die gebrek aan bewyse. So, ‘case closed’, maar as die twee spanne mekaar later in die reeks weer gaan kry gaan die vonke – en hopelik nie die oë nie – spat ! Daar kan dalk reeds spanning wees komende Saterdag tussen die Stormers en die Saders. Dink net hoe dikbek gaan die Saders/NZ wees as die Stormers hulle op hul tuisveld stil speel. Hoop die Sharks en Cheetahs maak ook so !

    Ek het ‘n ander vraag: hoe werk die reël by ‘tackle release’ reël ? Hoe lank mag die verdediger die aanvaller vashou VOORDAT dit ‘n strafskop is ? Voorbeeld: die drie van die Saders waar Hougie die Saders speler geduik het en toe (lyk dit?) skielik weer gelos het, en toe gaan druk daardie Saders speler. Was dit Hougie se blaps wat die Bulle amper gekos het of die reël wat die Bulle amper gekos het ?

    So die probleem is: jy duik die teestander, en as jy hom nie vinnig genoeg los nie, dan is dit ‘n strafskop teen jou; los jy hom egter vinnig genoeg, dan hardloop hy verder .. en druk ‘n drie soos in die voorbeeld wat ek hier noem.

    Kan iemand my verduidelik wat die reëls sê in so ‘n geval, veral as dit naby die verdediger se doellyn is.

  • 14

    Fark… someone deleted my PVR Recording of the Bulls / Saders match…. but it shows again early tomorrow morning, so I’ve scheduled a record for that. What that means is that my Article about Crusaders cheating and obstructive running will have to wait till after that.

    Regarding there being no evidence for gouging… I said yesterday that to find footage for that would be difficult.

    So, Blackadder and the Saders can go get knotted, there is no way the Bulls will apologise!

    13 @ bdb:
    BiDiBiDi,

    Ek het gekyk na daai laaste drie, Hougie het geslip daar, Taylor was nooit grond toe gebring nie, die tackle was halfhartig en nie naasteby voltooi nie.

  • 15

    Bulls official Media Release about Todd Blackadders demand for an apology is as follows:

    Vodacom Bulls dismiss need for apology to Crusaders:

    The Vodacom Bulls will not agree to a demand from Crusaders coach Todd Blackadder that they need to apologize after no evidence of eye-gouging was found by Sanzar’s judiciary system, High Performance and Media Manager Ian Schwartz said on Monday.

    Blackadder told a post-match media briefing in Pretoria on Saturday that he expected an apology from the Bulls – a statement he repeated to the New Zealand media – should the allegations proved to be false.

    According to Sanzar, no evidence on the matter could be sourced via video material available.

    SANZAR CEO Greg Peters said there was no evidence to substantiate the claims after it was fully reviewed by the citing commissioner (Freek Burger) and the video evidence did not support any further action being taken.

    “The Bulls are not interested in getting into a public spat with the Crusaders, as we always had the greatest respect for them and a very cordial relationship,” Schwartz said.

    The Bulls are standing their ground on claims made by the players.

    “The rules are clear and we applied them 100 percent correctly. We had the right to raise the matter with the referee and we accept the fact that there was no video evidence.”

    He stressed that the Bulls’ players’ integrity is above reproach.

    “I just want to say that our players’ integrity is just as important to us, as the Crusaders’ players integrity is to them. I feel the players will not make unfounded accusations unless something has happened.”

    No apology will be extended.

    “For them to suggest we must now apologize, just because there is no video evidence available, would mean we have lied. It is ridiculous to suggest that every time there is a citing and there is not enough evidence, the other team should apologize. It is a pity they have raised the matter through the media, as our doors of communication with them has always been open for a direct approach. We would have followed the official and appropriate channels.”

  • 16

    gbs @ 2
    same thing happened in the stormers/ highlanders game. examples of it were players way in front of the ball carrier who kept on moving forward (thus were not there for either support of the ball carrier or to secure the ball0, but were placed their for nothing else but to obstruct the defence and/or provide a channel for attack.
    there was also the example of one of the highlanders players (cant remember who it was), who followed up a kick from one of their players, ball bounced out of reach of both aplon and joe pietersen, but this player went through and interfered with both aplon and pietersen with no intent of getting to the ball (which he by that time have overrun). if one of his players had secure the ball in that passage of play, it wouldve been an easy try for them because his interference meant that neither aplon nor joe wouldve been in a position to defend their line.
    they are coached that way (and have been coached that way for the last few years).

  • 17

    gbs @ 15
    i do not agree with the bulls’ approach here
    ..
    listen and listen well … you should always apologise to god’s gift to rugby (ie nzland rugby) … and you should be ashamed of yourself for winning against them!! gaan staan inni hoekie, my f*k man!!

  • 18

    16 @ Ashley:
    Etzakkerly… you saw exactly what I saw… and that from another New Zealand side’s Game…

    That simply means one thing and one thing only… it is a blatant cheating directive from the NZRU, and that we’ll see that from their National side as well!

    Fok ek raak kwaad vir die swak fokkers!

    17 @ Ashley:
    Ek sê hulle se grootste moerre man…. hulle kan almal loop skyt!

  • 19

    gbs @ 3
    please use that one example of the highlanders’ no8 also … think it was towards the end of the 1st half … not sure!!

  • 20

    morning everyone!!
    hey gbs, i’m still waiting on your promised article regarding cheating by the nz sides!!

  • 21

    20 @ Ashley:
    Will do, will do… regular work comes first though


SAAAC

Bam Advert


Bornman Graphic