KSA Shark ©

Muir’s Ellis Park outburst


Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :In the news, Sharks, Super 14 on 16 Mar 2008 at 12:08
Tagged with :

A seething Sharks coach Dick Muir on Saturday stormed into the press box at Ellis Park and allegedly accused the manager of refereeing affairs at the Lions of cheating.

Rugby 365 reports that Gabriel Pappas, the man in question, was the victim of Muir’s outburst after Sharks hooker Bismarck du Plessis was not allowed to return to the field following a cut to his eye during the Sharks 16-8 Super 14 victory over the Lions.

The confrontation took place in front of the whole media-contingent.

Muir then asked Pappas in the presence of the referees involved with the time management: “Who is the cheat now?”

The incident stemmed from the injury to Du Plessis who left the field in the 20th minute.

He was not back on the field within the 15 minutes allowed for treatment of a blood injury and the fourth referee, who controls the replacements and blood-substitutes next to the field, would not let Du Plessis back onto the field.

Muir first stormed down to the field where he confronted the fourth official, who would not relent.

Muir then came up to the press box where he also confronted Pappas in the presence of the media reporting on the match.

Du Plessis was replaced by Craig Burden, who had to play out the remainder of the match when Du Plessis was not allowed back on.



58 Comments

  • Should be some interesting views on this during the next couple of days.

  • Comment 1, posted at 16.03.08 12:11:44 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • As much as it hurts I think these guys MAY have got it right.

    If he went off in the 20th minute and from what I can gather he tried to come back on 16/17min later then they have it spot on.

    remember that is what we refer to as “running” time and not “playing” time.

  • Comment 2, posted at 16.03.08 12:16:07 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Hey Rob

    you have the game downloaded. Have a look at the timings and let us know?

  • Comment 3, posted at 16.03.08 12:18:47 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • The Law.

    3.10 TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT
    (a) When a player leaves the field to have bleeding controlled and/or have an open wound covered, that player may be temporarily replaced. If the player who has been temporarily replaced does not return to the field of play within 15 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent and the replaced player must not return to the field of play.

  • Comment 4, posted at 16.03.08 12:21:34 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Actual time: Elapsed time including time lost for any reason.

    Playing time: The time that has been played excluding time lost as defined in Law 5 Time.

  • Comment 5, posted at 16.03.08 12:25:15 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Can’t see what all the fuss was about… they (Sharks) farked up?

  • Comment 6, posted at 16.03.08 12:29:53 by bryce_in_oz Reply
    bryce_in_ozCurrie Cup player
     
  • I will check the times and let you guys know a bit later

  • Comment 7, posted at 16.03.08 12:44:57 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • 16.03.08 12:21:34 – KSA Shark ©

    BUT Bismark is a front row player so if they wanted him on they could have let Burden know he should limp off and thus they could get Bismark back on. Easy!

  • Comment 8, posted at 16.03.08 14:25:39 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • JT

    I still read the political site all the time so I know the answer to that question already. :wink:

    As you said there though they would then have faced the risk of Bismarck being injured later and not being able to bring Burden back on.

    And the potential for that was VERY GOOD as the cut on Bismarck’s eye seems rather big and I am sure it would have opened up again and not being able to have Burden on would have caused the embarrassment of non contested scrums.

  • Comment 9, posted at 16.03.08 14:33:14 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Why don’t you guys just moer each other, buy each other a beer afterwards and then life can go on again?? :roll:
    Face to face is so much easier than internet hey!?

  • Comment 10, posted at 16.03.08 14:36:45 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • 16.03.08 14:33:14 – KSA Shark ©

    BTW, could Burden come back on if he “limped” off? You could say he got over it… What does the IRB regulations say about that??

  • Comment 11, posted at 16.03.08 14:38:18 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • To me it’s as simple as not being prepared to turn a blind eye to the racist comments and letting EVERY thread turn into a chance to slate the government.

    I enjoy the Rugby and enjoy talking rugby, can’t stand talking politics.

  • Comment 12, posted at 16.03.08 14:39:01 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • NO he wouldn’t be allowed back.

    A player subbed through injury may not return to the field under ANY circumstances.

  • Comment 13, posted at 16.03.08 14:39:52 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • 16.03.08 14:39:01 – KSA Shark ©

    fair enough. :neutral:

  • Comment 14, posted at 16.03.08 14:40:56 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • You ever get an answer to your other question around max number of subs, ksa?

  • Comment 15, posted at 16.03.08 14:41:13 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • and on the other subject, well, I’d rather not discuss it here, but I’m sure everyone knows what my reasons were

  • Comment 16, posted at 16.03.08 14:43:32 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • 3.7 PERMANENT REPLACEMENT
    A player may be replaced if injured. If the player is permanently replaced, that player must not return and play in that match. The replacement of the injured player must be made when the ball is dead and with the permission of the referee.

    As ambigious as the law sounds it is actually very clear, provided you understand that an injured player cannot be temporarily replaced un less that injury is blood.

  • Comment 17, posted at 16.03.08 14:46:02 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Hye rob Yes I did get one. gimme a sec

  • Comment 18, posted at 16.03.08 14:46:29 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Name: Andre Bosch

    Question: Hi Mark.

    Are you able to cast any light on this comment from Dick Muir on the Sharks’ website?

    “The unfortunate consequence of bringing Botha on an off meant that the Sharks used up their full complement of substitutions before using all their personnel. We got caught a bit short with our subs, explained Muir. We wanted to bring on Charl McLeod, but we had used up our reserves, and we really needed him. Fred and Brad were struggling at the end, so it was quite heavy-going in the coaches’ box!

    He makes it sound as if there is a limited number of subs that a coach can use.

    I was of the impression that you have your 7 subs and you can use all of them?

    If you sub a FR then he may come back on for blood or injury to one of the other FRs who are currently on the pitch.

    Why the reference by Dick to “full complement of substitutions”?

    Thanks in advance for your reply.

    Regards – Andre Bosch

    Answer: Mark Lawrence: Howzit, Andre,

    Thanks for a very interesting question. The substitution laws can get very complicated but basically you are quite right when you say you can use seven subs. Two are reserved solely for the front rows and five for the rest. Also remember that a player who is replaced for injury can never come back to the field even if he is a front row and the other guy is bleeding! A substituted player can come back only in the case of a bleeding wound or for the front row. Dick asked me this question before the Sharks/ Bulls game because he didn’t want to end up in the same situation again. What happened is that instead of using two substitutes for the front row they used three and therefore they could only use four substitutes now for the rest of the team and not five! Hence Charl could not come on as a substitute as they used their seven substiutes.

    Regards – Mark

  • Comment 19, posted at 16.03.08 14:47:59 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • 16.03.08 14:43:32 – robdylan

    Duh! :mrgreen:

  • Comment 20, posted at 16.03.08 14:48:56 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • That didn’t really clear up my question so i asked again and got this answer.

    Name: Andre Bosch

    Question: Hi Mark.

    Thanks for your reply regarding the substitutions and being allowed only two front-rowow subs.

    The Sharks started the match with two front rowers on the bench and so could only make two front row substitutions but had to make a “3rd” through injury.

    Does this then mean that If a front ranker is tactically subbed ON (1st substitution) and he then has an injury and has to be replaced by the player who left the field (2nd substitution) it counts as TWO substitutions?

    If that is the case does it also mean that all those times that Rassie Erasmus was playing rolling subs with his Front Rows he was using up one of his 5 available backline subs to be able to do it?

    Thanks. Again.

    Answer: Mark Lawrence: Hello again, Andre,

    Not quite, Rassie used the temporary replacement to his advantage Here is part of it quoted.

    Law 3.10 TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT

    (a) When a player leaves the field to have bleeding controlled and/or have an open wound covered, that player may be temporarily replaced. If the player who has been temporarily replaced does not return to the field of play within 15 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent and the replaced player must not return to the field of play.

    (b) If the temporary replacement is injured, that player may also be replaced.

    (c) If the temporary replacement is sent off for foul play, the replaced player may not return to the field of play.

    (d) If a temporary replacement is cautioned and temporarily suspended, the replaced player may not return to the field of play until after the period of suspension.

    Now that you understand this I know what your next question will be. But you don’t have to ask because you should know the answer!

    Coaches are smart and innovative and always a step ahead of us, hey!

    Cheers – Mark

    I then wasn’t clear on what he thought my next question was going to be so gave up :wink:

  • Comment 21, posted at 16.03.08 14:51:47 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Ksa, I still didn’t understand that. Do you and Lawrence know each other, btw? Jt, I don’t for a second regret the way things turned out and I will never go back

  • Comment 22, posted at 16.03.08 14:53:29 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • What happened is that instead of using two substitutes for the front row they used three and therefore they could only use four substitutes now for the rest of the team and not five! Hence Charl could not come on as a substitute as they used their seven substiutes.
    Regards – Mark
    16.03.08 14:47:59 – KSA Shark ©

    Huh??

  • Comment 23, posted at 16.03.08 14:53:43 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • No Rob

    I don’t know him it is through the SA Rugby referees website that i asked him the question.

  • Comment 24, posted at 16.03.08 14:54:59 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • That was my confusion as well JT. :smile:

    And after he didn’t seem to get that with my next question I gave up rather than drag the story wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy past it’s importance level.

  • Comment 25, posted at 16.03.08 14:56:07 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Ok. So we are all still in the dark, then. At least I don’t feel all alone!

  • Comment 26, posted at 16.03.08 14:56:38 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • BTW, Our coaches smart? and innovative? Has he seen Elof and Ludeke’s teams play?? :shock:

  • Comment 27, posted at 16.03.08 14:57:48 by JT Reply

    JT-www.rugby-innsbruck.atUnder 21 player
     
  • :mrgreen:

    I think he meant coniving and sneaky. as in trying to devise ways to get around the laws.

    Murphy says that as soon as i get into a discussion i have to leave. :sad:

    Gotta go guys, will speak from home again.

  • Comment 28, posted at 16.03.08 15:06:31 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Muir wetting his pants for nothing…

    I actually thought Burden was the player of the Sharks forwards….
    Had he got that one pass in he would have pipped Kankowski as MOM…
    Or had Jaco Pretoors jinksed and scored (and Kankowski did not stop the try) Burden would have pipped him as MOM….

    In my opinion….

  • Comment 29, posted at 16.03.08 16:09:03 by Hmmm Reply

    HmmmSuper Rugby player
     
  • quote from above posting

    Now that you understand this I know what your next question will be. But you don’t have to ask because you should know the answer!

    Coaches are smart and innovative and always a step ahead of us, hey!

    Cheers – Mark

    I then wasn’t clear on what he thought my next question was going to be so gave up
    KSA

    Refs getting a bit paranoid :shock: this makes it clearer why they wouldnt let Bis back, Muir obviously had an evil plan to get one over on them.. that cut was done on purpose! :roll:

  • Comment 30, posted at 16.03.08 16:42:09 by spykerbaard Reply

    spykerbaardUnder 21 player
     
  • You Do know that I am a ref right? :smile:

  • Comment 31, posted at 16.03.08 18:22:54 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • ok – just checked this out. Bismarck was replaced at around 18 minutes GAME TIME and attempted to come back just on 30 minutes. That is 12 minutes game time elapsed, so well within the 15 minute window.

    Problem is, they don’t look at game time, they look at ACTUAL elapsed time. This is where it gets very tight. The first clear shot I have of Burden actually on the field is at just after 26 minutes playing time on my video clip. Fast forwarding to Bis trying to come on, we see that he is seen trying to come back on at just a shade after 41 minutes playing time.

    So, if the officials were right here, it was literally by a matter of 15 seconds or so, which seems a little bloody small-minded. Rules is rules, I guess.

    Problem seems to be that there was a reasonably long delay when the heavens opened.

  • Comment 32, posted at 16.03.08 21:02:28 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • Issue is though did they INITIALLY deny his re-entry because they felt the wound was not properly covered/patched or because of the time.

    It MAY have been because of not being properly covered as you later see a shot of them putting a huge blob of vaseline over it.

  • Comment 33, posted at 16.03.08 21:12:23 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • sound like Walter overheard the whole altercation in the press box. Let’s ask him for his take on it

  • Comment 34, posted at 16.03.08 21:14:56 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • Purely conjecture this but what if this is how things happened?

    Bisrmarck gets injured

    They stitch him up and then find that they are running out of time.

    What to do?

    Ah wait let’s send him on as is (not properly covered) if it opens again then we have ANOTHER 15 to get him covered up properly.

    Purely conjecture but VERY possible.

  • Comment 35, posted at 16.03.08 21:15:14 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • The heavens opening should not have caused any delay if anything it would have been in our favour if there were any delays in play.

    If Bismarck, cut his eye open and left the field then that is when the clock started. He would have gone straight to the changeroom to have it stitched. If a streaker ran on the pitch and they stopped play for 13 minutes while the Lions tried to tackle him :wink: it would have been in our favour as we would only have had 2 minutes of playing time before bismarck would be back.

  • Comment 36, posted at 16.03.08 21:19:27 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • yeah – it makes sense.

    I have just watched your pal Steyn kick away a second brilliant attacking ball with 5 men outside him.

    He doesn’t belong at 12, dude… he belongs at 22.

  • Comment 37, posted at 16.03.08 21:24:00 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • No dude he belongs at 12!!!!!

    This match just proved that he is not a 10.

    I agree completely that he had a shocker and on that performance should be booted, but he is a 12 not a 10.

    As i said before you cannot gauge him on his play at 15 becasue 12 should be his position. In the same way he shouldn’t be gauged at 10. He should be gauged at 12.

  • Comment 38, posted at 16.03.08 21:27:44 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • but he’s playing like a selfish shit wherever he’s picked… you honestly think he’s going to be any better at 12?

  • Comment 39, posted at 16.03.08 21:32:19 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • different no, better yes.

    At 12 his breaks will be effective and usefull. At 10 they suck.

  • Comment 40, posted at 16.03.08 21:39:41 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • eish dude… need to mull over this one as well.

    To be honest, I thought BB was crap as well on Saturday. Tonga for 12?

  • Comment 41, posted at 16.03.08 21:49:16 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • How’s this for an example of Media spin? :mrgreen:

    News 24 run this virtually exact article from 365, without any credit to 365 I may add. That is okay as they credit SAPA who have a REGULAR tendancy to lift articles and then not credit the source.

    BUT how’s THIS for a differing headline on an identical story? :roll:

    Seething Sharks coach cited? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :shock: :shock: :shock:

  • Comment 42, posted at 16.03.08 21:50:55 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • how can they cite the coach? What are they going to do if he’s founf guilty? Ban him?

    Bloody ridiculous.

  • Comment 43, posted at 16.03.08 21:58:32 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • He could be fined like Eddie Jones was, but I think this may be JJ Harmse or some Farmer somewhere hoping that they can shake the bush a little to remind the officials that coaches are not supposed to complain. :wink:

  • Comment 44, posted at 16.03.08 22:01:03 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • BEST EXPLANATION SO FAR

    From 365.

    Bismarck bleeding and the timekeeping

    In the programme All Out Rugby on South African television it was stated that the referee had made a bad decision when Bismarck du Plessis was not allowed onto the field after he had gone off bleeding from a cut above his right eye. Was it a bad decision?

    Du Plessis of the Sharks bled from a cut over the eye. He went off to get attention and then came to the touch-line wanting to come back on. The referee said that he could not come back on. There was a debate on the touch-line in which some of the Sharks management were obviously upset that Du Plessis was not allowed back on.

    It is difficult to give exact times from the television, but as near as possible we give a programme of events. The claim is that Du Plessis had been off for 11 minutes when he presented himself for readmission and that this confirmed to the 15-minute allowance for bleeding players.

    The timetable looks roughly like this:

    14 minutes 54 seconds: Du Plessis and Keegan Daniels bang heads at a tackle. Du Plessis reels back holding his eye. Medical staff come onto the field and attend to him. Play goes on for some time and does not stop till BJ Botha has scored a try.

    16 minutes 30 seconds: Botha scores a try. He plunges over from a tackle/ruck on the Lions line in which Du Plessis was involved. When Du Plessis got involved, it was obvious that his eyebrow was bloodied.

    Rory Kockott kicks the conversion and the Lions kick the kick-off out on the full.

    18 minutes 49 seconds: The referee sets a scrum and Craig Burden is there to take up the hooking position in Du Plessis’s place.

    One can assume that between 16 minutes 30 and 18 minutes 49 Du Plessis left the field.

    30 minutes 19 seconds Du Plessis is shown at the touch-line ready to come on. There is a stoppage at this stage and the Lions are about to kick for touch. Because there is a stoppage it is a suitable time for Du Plessis to return to the field. The referee tells him that he may not return.

    The times we have given are the times as they appear on the television clock. Even if Du Plessis had gone off exactly when Botha scored he had till 33 minutes 40 before 15 minutes was up on the clock.

    The argument is that when he presented himself for readmission he was within a minute of the 15 minutes allowed him.

    That is why the decision has been called a wrong one.

    But it is not as simple as that.

    Let’s start with law and an important little word in brackets.

    Law 3.10 10 TEMPORARY REPLACEMENT

    (a) When a player leaves the field to have bleeding controlled and/or have an open wound covered, that player may be temporarily replaced. If the player who has been temporarily replaced does not return to the field-of-play within 15 minutes (actual time) of leaving the playing area, the replacement becomes permanent and the replaced player must not return to the field-of-play.

    The important little word is actual.

    The time that appears on the television set is playing time, not actual time. When the referee calls Time, the clock is stopped. While Du Plessis was off there were three stoppages, three incidents when time was off.

    The first was at the first scrum after Ross Geldenhuys had been sent to the sin bin. Time was needed to allow JC Janse van Rensburg to come on into the front row and Joe van Niekerk to go off. Then time was needed to attend to hooker Willie Wepener’s thumb which was strapped.

    The second was a short one while a player tied a lace before a scrum.

    The third was a long one. First Ross Geldenhuys was allowed back onto the field after being in the sin bin and he was spoken to. Then there was delay for an injury.

    Those were the obvious stoppages when the referee called time off.

    He called time off because those stoppages were not a part of playing time and so not recorded on the television clock. But that time was a part of actual time.

    There is reasoning behind this. The temporary replacement for bleeding is to give time for a minor injury to be attended to – partly for the sake of the other players in days when the possibility of contaminated blood is a worry. It was reckoned that 15 minutes would be enough to get the bleeding stopped and cleaned up in the case of a minor injury. More than that suggested a more serious injury in which case it would be in the player’s interests not to play on.

    Du Plessis had an arch of stitches over his eyebrow. For all anybody knows it may have been in his interests not to come back on – not that that was the referee’s concern but it perhaps explains the lawmakers thinking.

    Now, who keeps time. It is primarily the referee’s responsibility but there are three other people who may come into play in this matter.

    On the touch-line there are two men in referees garb who control the coming and going of players. They are referred top as No.4 and No.5. They are not timekeepers.

    Who keeps time?

    Law 5.3 TIME KEEPING

    The referee keeps the time but may delegate the duty to either or both the touch judges and/or the official time-keeper, in which case the referee signals to them any stoppage of time or time lost. In matches without an official time-keeper, if the referee is in doubt as to the correct time the referee consults either or both the touch judges and may consult others but only if the touch judges cannot help.

    That the referee needs a timekeeper to help him is obvious. Just in this match at Ellis Park he would have had to keep match time, allowing for stoppages, check the ten minutes that Geldenhuys was in the sin bin and keep that time exact and keep tabs on the time Du Plessis was away getting stitched – oh, and see to applying all the other Laws of the Game.

    At Ellis Park where this match was played, there is an efficient system of timekeeping with two timekeepers. One is the manager of Golden Lions referees, the other the chairman of Golden Lions referees, a former provincial referee. Two are used to make doubly sure in case there is some failure in the system. Both have the ability to contact the referee but only one does so, as the Laws of the Game demand – “the official time-keeper”. The referee deals just with the one – the designated one. That is what happened in this case.

    The official timekeeper was able to tell the referee that Du Plessis’s 15-minute allowance had passed.

    There was nothing sinister about what happened. It happened in accordance with the Laws of the Game and the times can in fact be verified because the timekeeper keeps a log.

  • Comment 45, posted at 16.03.08 22:04:50 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • To me that about sums it up really.

    well explained by the 365 guys.

    case closed?

  • Comment 46, posted at 16.03.08 22:13:17 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • OK – I think that’s pretty spot on. Like I said above, it was probably a matter of seconds, though, and one can probably understand why Muir was so annoyed about it.

  • Comment 47, posted at 16.03.08 22:13:48 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • I’m just happy that they quoted the same law I did :wink:

  • Comment 48, posted at 16.03.08 22:17:52 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • well – no, case not closed. We still need to wait for Muir to be cited :mrgreen:

  • Comment 49, posted at 16.03.08 22:18:27 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • Bed time for me.

    Good Night Sportsfans!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Comment 50, posted at 16.03.08 22:18:50 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • And that Farmer asked so nicely :wink: he even put a “?” behind the request. :smile:

  • Comment 51, posted at 16.03.08 22:19:41 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Night D, sleep tight.

  • Comment 52, posted at 16.03.08 22:21:20 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     
  • Sleep tight, KSA

  • Comment 53, posted at 16.03.08 22:32:00 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • Rob,

    You got an email address that you wouldn’t mind giving me? If you don’t want to post on here….please mail it to me

    Edit… I am all-powerful! I already know your email address :) Rob

  • Comment 54, posted at 16.03.08 22:49:57 by Villie Reply
    Competition Winner
    VillieCurrie Cup player
     
  • Mail me at [email protected]. I’m going to hide your phone number.

  • Comment 55, posted at 16.03.08 22:56:32 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • Okay thanks. Don’t think anyone would want to spam me..but maybe that is naive & probably safer to just hide it.

    Oh and of course I forgot you are all powerful! :lol:

  • Comment 56, posted at 16.03.08 23:14:44 by Villie Reply
    Competition Winner
    VillieCurrie Cup player
     
  • yeah dick will get cited and john plumtree will take over and drop frans for a serious case of over-ego. :wink:

  • Comment 57, posted at 17.03.08 08:27:54 by try time Reply

    Super Rugby player
     
  • I see there is now an article around that says a report will be sent to Andre Watson about his behaviour?

  • Comment 58, posted at 17.03.08 08:51:27 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©Head Coach
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.