Lion's mane representation

Readers' comments (1)

• Anonymous | 4-Jul-2009 1:37 pm

  Without condoning any of the South African's actions, I think after re-watching both games without biased eyes, " There’s been no shortage of law-breaking, largely by the South Africans" is a ludicrous statement. It should maybe read..."there's been no shortage of law-breaking CAUGHT, largely by the South Africans". As far as Im concerned, apart from 3 or 4 South Africans, they have been by far the cleaner side overall. Punching the groin, grabbing people around the neck, kicking on the ground, kneeing people when on the floor, standing on them... all of this is foul play seemingly missed by the eyes of the Lions supporters. I think it is sad that one team seems to think they are angels, when a majority of their players have acted like thugs too. I will never condone the actions of those who break the rules and am glad that those who did break the rules on the South African side were punished, but justice is about fairness and equality. Why was Sheridan not cited for hitting Bekker in the groin? Or Rees banned for 2 weeks for doing EXACTLY what Botha did to Jones, in the very same movement? Nah, complain all you like, but as much of a fool our coach continues to make of himself, so does the British press keep up their image of being biased and over-zealous. They have lost 2 tests in a row to a side better than them, who are under-cooked, yet their quality showed that even playing badly they could beat a good side. There are a number of reasons that dozens of South Africans have played for British teams at national level, and very few British have managed a Springbok spot. Let's not forget that.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment