Aussie refs suck(rugby)

[rassie]

DOES AUSSIE REFS SUCK

• YES
• NO

I CAN’T EVEN START TO DESCRIBE HOW I HATE THE BASTARDS.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR OPINION.

[Jinete_Mortal]

Isn’t it great when sports fans scapegoat the referees for a loss? I always thought this is chicken sh*t. Except in the case of the phantom incomplete pass in the '02 Pats/Raiders playoff game. TUCK RULE MY ARSE! :fume:

[Tetsuo]

It’s even funnier because his team was winning up until literally the last minute, which would kind of imply the refs weren’t out to get them.

[rassie]

Please don’t let the refs fool you.They are very clever.I can also blow a game and let a team win in the last minute.

[Tetsuo]

Don’t forget the massive number of unpenalized offsides and the occasional unprovoked physical attack that the Boks were guilty of.

[Bomber1]

aussie refs suck bigtime. perfect case in point would be stuart dickheadson, who had simon shaw sent off even though he was 40 metres from the incident. when confronted afterwards he backtracked and said he couldn’t see everything because his view was obstructed, but it looked like a red card offence. huh?

[Kea]

Oh, and Bomber, Shaw deserved what he got (and was lucky not to get two more weeks) for following a pre-match SCW plan of trying to injure Robo…so let’s hear no more whinging…

Now, Rassie, isn’t there a saying that those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones? Seems that you’re quite quick to criticise Ausy refs when there is a massive soccer ref match fixing scandal back in SA… :s

Read all about it:

Match-fixing scandal rocks SA soccer
suntimes.co.za/2004/06/13/news/news01.asp

[butcher_boy]

1. I don’t think shaw deserved a red card.
2. South Africa were plucky but should have been hammered by a lot more. They were always offside and managed about three attacks in the entire game. Why no kickable penalties for SA? Cause they played the match in their own half. Get over it.

[Alleycat]

[quote=“butcher boy”]1) I don’t think shaw deserved a red card.
2) South Africa were plucky but should have been hammered by a lot more. They were always offside and managed about three attacks in the entire game. Why no kickable penalties for SA? Cause they played the match in their own half. Get over it.[/quote]

We got “hammered”? hahahahhahaahahahahahaahhahaahahahah

[butcher_boy]

[quote=“Alleycat”][quote=“butcher boy”]1) I don’t think shaw deserved a red card.
2) South Africa were plucky but should have been hammered by a lot more. They were always offside and managed about three attacks in the entire game. Why no kickable penalties for SA? Cause they played the match in their own half. Get over it.[/quote]

We got “hammered”? hahahahhahaahahahahahaahhahaahahahah[/quote]

oops. should have left out ‘by a lot more’. do I take it you agree with the rest?

[Kahna]

From Dale Granger in the Cape Argus

The biggest concern was the Boks’ inability - again! - to keep possession through more than five phases. Often that has plagued Springbok test teams in the past five years. This sorry statistic was reflected in a ruck and maul count of 125 to 29 in favour of New Zealand, who had 73% possession and 68% of the territory.

Instead, they were able to control the ball only for eight seconds in the last six minutes and in both passages they fluffed their lines

In the last two minutes New Zealand recycled the ball through 18 phases before Howlett became the 30th pair of hands to control it just before scoring.

But only when the Springboks master the ability to retain possession and win tests against quality opposition on offensive, as much as defensive, ability will we be able to say with real conviction that the Boks are back.

Letting a team win in the final minute? :s Can’t win the game without the ball.