RugbyRebels

One swallow does not a bj make ...

Sunwolves beat the Stormers in a close one in Hong Kong.

Little incident during the Lions v Brumbies match on SA Super Sport: Ashwin Willemse walks off the show, blaming Nick Mallet & Naas Botha for ridiculing him!



They apparently referred to Elton as quota. That's why he went off on them.

He has every right to. "Quota" is now bordering on becoming a term for racists to decry the selection of black players and bring a racial element into it. A white player is selected, and that's a "bad selection," but a black guy, "he's a quota, he's a quota." Fuck off, and say what you really mean - "Elton Jantjies shouldn't be selected because he's a nigger."

cashead wrote:He has every right to. "Quota" is now bordering on becoming a term for racists to decry the selection of black players and bring a racial element into it. A white player is selected, and that's a "bad selection," but a black guy, "he's a quota, he's a quota." Fuck off, and say what you really mean - "Elton Jantjies shouldn't be selected because he's a nigger."

Indeed.

South African rugby needs to sort itself out...

Plus the Sunwolves won.


Just confirming.

That was a pretty dignified exit.

Couple of kiwi teams lose, good stuff. Kiwi super teams are beatable, the ABs are beatable, so it has always been.

& the Jaguares thumped the Bulls. I wasn't actually expecting that, in spite of recent form. What a revelation the South Americans have been this season! Between them and the Sharks for the last playoff spot, by the looks of things...

Definitely the best weekend of Super Rugby action for quite some time!

rowan wrote:Little incident during the Lions v Brumbies match on SA Super Sport: Ashwin Willemse walks off the show, blaming Nick Mallet & Naas Botha for ridiculing him!



They apparently referred to Elton as quota. That's why he went off on them.

Sports minister Tokozile Xasa says SuperSport must suspend Nick Mallett and Naas Botha during its investigation into an incident involving Ashwin Willemse.

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/sports-mini ... lett-naas/

This report provides more insight, though once they start to quote the Afrikaans newspaper it all seems to get a little biased against Willemse:

ape Town - The relationship between former Springboks Ashwin Willemse and Nick Mallett has been strained for some time, a report indicates.

This follows the drama that occurred in the SuperSport studios on Saturday night when Willemse walked off a live set following an apparent disagreement with fellow presenters Mallett and another former Springbok, Naas Botha.

Willemse spoke of being labelled a "quota player" and refused to be "patronised by two individuals who played in an apartheid/segregated era".

Willemse went on to say he "can't work with people who undermine other people" and that he was "glad it happened on live TV so that people can see".

It was unclear what had caused Willemse's outburst but Afrikaans newspaper, Rapport, shed more light on the matter on Sunday.

Continues here: https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRu ... t-20180520

Classic.

The government can institute a racial quota but a white man's not allowed to talk about it because racism.

You're absolutely right, cashead, what they were saying is that nobody should be selected because of the colour of their skin. I note that you feel free to use "the N word" although you'd shriek blue murder if either of them had actually said what you claim to know they really meant. Because, who cares about reason when you're climbing the moral high ground, eh? Hey, Martin Luther King might have agreed with them.

There's a difference between a discussion in good faith about quota systems put in place that affects the selection policy of a national side of a country that has a recent history of official, institutionalised explicit racism, and using that as a stick to beat certain players with just because you happen to disagree with the coach on why they're there.

And when certain elements start using that term cynically to criticise black players for being selected to begin with, then they absolutely deserve to be called out on it.

P.S.: If you're incapable of, like proper lacking the required facilities, getting over your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage long enough to look at the deliberate use of an offensive term to make a point, and not take into account the context of it, then there is no value in any continued discussion about this with you. Or you can continue to wallow in your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage like the fucking tedious shithead poseur that you are, but that's your prerogative.

Strange that, even though the walk-off clip has been widely circulated, the lead-up to the incident has not been made available online. That would be interesting. Nonetheless, Nick Mallet's reaction to it appeared nuanced with condescension, particularly the chuckling. Naas Botha seemed to be taking things a little more seriously, but I just wonder about the appropriateness of having an Apartheid era Springbok on the show in the first place. Anyway, the South African Ministry of Sport is apparently investigating the incident.

Based on further reading, the primary beef is between Mallett and Willemse. Botha was just the unlucky bastard who got stuck in the worst possible place to be in that specific moment and ended up collateral damage.

Of course, Mallett's whopping 2 test caps for the Boks came in the mid-80s against the South African Jaguars (one of those "test" teams the SARU or whatever the equivalent was at the time would invite over to play the Boks) and Botha's career spanned the isolation years, where he got in early enough to play the Lions in 1980 and tour New Zealand in 1981 (where he had a nasty run-in with a bunch of protesters including a colleague of mine in a bakery in Auckland), and 5 tests after reintroduction in 1992, where the Springboks could only register 1 win, against France.

Was Mallet in the mid-80s? I thougth he was post-Apartheid for some reason. Mind you, if he only played 2 tests against the Jaguars, that wouldn't have stuck in the memory. Maybe I'm getting mixed up with his coaching exploits. That first-up win for Italy over France in the 6 Nations remains one of my favorite memories from that particular competition. Anyway, the breaking news this evening is that there is no news yet, basically:



https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRu ... s-20180521

cashead wrote:There's a difference between a discussion in good faith about quota systems put in place that affects the selection policy of a national side of a country that has a recent history of official, institutionalised explicit racism, and using that as a stick to beat certain players with just because you happen to disagree with the coach on why they're there.

And when certain elements start using that term cynically to criticise black players for being selected to begin with, then they absolutely deserve to be called out on it.

P.S.: If you're incapable of, like proper lacking the required facilities, getting over your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage long enough to look at the deliberate use of an offensive term to make a point, and not take into account the context of it, then there is no value in any continued discussion about this with you. Or you can continue to wallow in your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage like the fucking tedious shithead poseur that you are, but that's your prerogative.

Yeah, I know this song:

"It's OK when I do it!"

Pretty funny, all that ranting about pissy self-righteous fauy outrage, coming from you, the pissest most self-righteous poseur here.

scuzzaman wrote:

cashead wrote:There's a difference between a discussion in good faith about quota systems put in place that affects the selection policy of a national side of a country that has a recent history of official, institutionalised explicit racism, and using that as a stick to beat certain players with just because you happen to disagree with the coach on why they're there.

And when certain elements start using that term cynically to criticise black players for being selected to begin with, then they absolutely deserve to be called out on it.

P.S.: If you're incapable of, like proper lacking the required facilities, getting over your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage long enough to look at the deliberate use of an offensive term to make a point, and not take into account the context of it, then there is no value in any continued discussion about this with you. Or you can continue to wallow in your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage like the fucking tedious shithead poseur that you are, but that's your prerogative.

Yeah, I know this song:

"It's OK when I do it!"

Pretty funny, all that ranting about pissy self-righteous fauy outrage, coming from you, the pissest most self-righteous poseur here.

Quoth the guy who came storming into the thread eager to pick a fight to begin with, while demonstrating a spectacular failure to do anything beyond only look at the most superficial of superficial elements of my earlier post and not actually engage with the response. The fact that you've once again demonstrated you're not capable of actually looking at the context of the use of the term pretty much beautifully illustrates my point about you, you tone-policing fuck.

cashead wrote:

scuzzaman wrote:

cashead wrote:There's a difference between a discussion in good faith about quota systems put in place that affects the selection policy of a national side of a country that has a recent history of official, institutionalised explicit racism, and using that as a stick to beat certain players with just because you happen to disagree with the coach on why they're there.

And when certain elements start using that term cynically to criticise black players for being selected to begin with, then they absolutely deserve to be called out on it.

P.S.: If you're incapable of, like proper lacking the required facilities, getting over your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage long enough to look at the deliberate use of an offensive term to make a point, and not take into account the context of it, then there is no value in any continued discussion about this with you. Or you can continue to wallow in your pissy self-righteous faux-outrage like the fucking tedious shithead poseur that you are, but that's your prerogative.

Yeah, I know this song:

"It's OK when I do it!"

Pretty funny, all that ranting about pissy self-righteous fauy outrage, coming from you, the pissest most self-righteous poseur here.

Quoth the guy who came storming into the thread eager to pick a fight to begin with, while demonstrating a spectacular failure to do anything beyond only look at the most superficial of superficial elements of my earlier post and not actually engage with the response. The fact that you've once again demonstrated you're not capable of actually looking at the context of the use of the term pretty much beautifully illustrates my point about you, you tone-policing fuck.

Again, that's exactly what you were doing to Mallet, and worse you put words in his mouth he never said and you have no evidence he intended.

But your hypocrisy and projection is on full display.

I'm neither offended nor pretending to be offended; I find your hair-triggered hysteria quite amusing.

If it's OK with you, I'll go back to talking about rugby and we can stop talking about each other. In fairness, I won't be offended if you have the last word. Swing away.

Enjoy riding that high horse for all it's worth.

You bitches finished flirting?

scuzzaman wrote:

cashead wrote:

scuzzaman wrote:

Yeah, I know this song:

"It's OK when I do it!"

Pretty funny, all that ranting about pissy self-righteous fauy outrage, coming from you, the pissest most self-righteous poseur here.

Quoth the guy who came storming into the thread eager to pick a fight to begin with, while demonstrating a spectacular failure to do anything beyond only look at the most superficial of superficial elements of my earlier post and not actually engage with the response. The fact that you've once again demonstrated you're not capable of actually looking at the context of the use of the term pretty much beautifully illustrates my point about you, you tone-policing fuck.

Again, that's exactly what you were doing to Mallet, and worse you put words in his mouth he never said and you have no evidence he intended.

But your hypocrisy and projection is on full display.

Ah yes, despite the reports that Mallett has a long-standing habit of referring to players of colour as tokens and quota players. It's amazing how you still can't understand how dog-whistles work.

Not to mention the fact that you've shifted your position to "you used a bad word!" to "how dare you impugn the honour of my boi Nick!"

scuzzaman wrote:I'm neither offended nor pretending to be offended; I find your hair-triggered hysteria quite amusing.

Of course you're not offended, that's why you instigated this shit, right?

scuzzaman wrote:If it's OK with you, I'll go back to talking about rugby and we can stop talking about each other.

"I'll go back to talking about rugby." lol, when? All you've posted about in this thread during this week is me.

scuzzaman wrote:In fairness, I won't be offended if you have the last word. Swing away.

Oh wow, thanks, you magnanimous cunt.

scuzzaman wrote:Enjoy riding that high horse for all it's worth.

Quoted below is the statement of someone who is totally not trying to leap onto the moral high horse. What was that you said about hypocrisy earlier?

scuzzaman wrote:Classic.

The government can institute a racial quota but a white man's not allowed to talk about it because racism.

You're absolutely right, cashead, what they were saying is that nobody should be selected because of the colour of their skin. I note that you feel free to use "the N word" although you'd shriek blue murder if either of them had actually said what you claim to know they really meant. Because, who cares about reason when you're climbing the moral high ground, eh? Hey, Martin Luther King might have agreed with them.

morepork wrote:You bitches finished flirting?

Yep.

So, following the Saders' 24-13 win against the Canes this morning (Turkey time), the Canterbury outfit have opened up a 5 point lead at the top of the table. I've already read one comment suggesting this puts them in the driver's seat. That's not the case. The Canes have a game in hand and a bonus point win is worth precisely 5 points. In fact, the Saders' bye is in two weeks time, so we'll have a clearer picture then. Next week, also, the Saders have the more difficult assignment with a visit to the Chiefs, while Wellington host Otago. The following week the Canes are off to Canberra. The penultimate round in 3 weeks sees both with home games, Canterbury against Otago and the Canes v the Blues, but the final week it's the latter who have the most difficult assignment - away to the Chiefs - while the Saders host the Blues. In summary:

Crusaders 50 points, Hurricanes 45.
Remaining schedules:
Crusaders: @ Chiefs, bye, Otago, Blues
Hurricanes: Otago, @ ACT, Blues, @ Chiefs

Blues should win their next four games with a bonus point allowing them to sneak into the playoffs. We're in the backseat drivers seat, all the way to the title.