NPR

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 4:50 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 2:15 pm Oh, did they take statements from both players? Got a link to that info?

From the World Rugby statement:

"Having considered all the available evidence, including match footage, audio and evidence from both teams"

I really don't get all this bullshit about Curry not being given a chance. He obviously spoke to them after the match when he raised the issue of the 2022 allegation.

"Spoke to them after the game, probably" is quite a bit different to the legal process that is followed when this happens in any other scenario. There was no hearing, no thorough gathering of evidence. It's not something that is a quick chat after a game.

These processes are pretty well understood, not least because the proceedings are recorded and usually released to the public, with dates of hearings announced and written judgements available regardless of the outcome.

So no, they did not "take statements" from both players.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:11 am "Spoke to them after the game, probably" is quite a bit different to the legal process that is followed when this happens in any other scenario. There was no hearing, no thorough gathering of evidence. It's not something that is a quick chat after a game.

These processes are pretty well understood, not least because the proceedings are recorded and usually released to the public, with dates of hearings announced and written judgements available regardless of the outcome.

So no, they did not "take statements" from both players.

You're really reaching now.

The Springbok lawyer, Attie Heyns, was involved throughout the process from beginning to end. He was joined by a visual specialist, a verbal specialist, a forwards specialist and a backs specialist.

I assume Curry was represented by a similar team.

You are making out like it was some sort of a kangaroo court.

Considering the abuse both players were receiving online, that is probably why they did not make it public as it would have made it worse. Perhaps they will release them after the final, when SARU are preparing their defamation lawsuit against the RFU.

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:24 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:11 am "Spoke to them after the game, probably" is quite a bit different to the legal process that is followed when this happens in any other scenario. There was no hearing, no thorough gathering of evidence. It's not something that is a quick chat after a game.

These processes are pretty well understood, not least because the proceedings are recorded and usually released to the public, with dates of hearings announced and written judgements available regardless of the outcome.

So no, they did not "take statements" from both players.

You're really reaching now.

The Springbok lawyer, Attie Heyns, was involved throughout the process from beginning to end. He was joined by a visual specialist, a verbal specialist, a forwards specialist and a backs specialist.

I assume Curry was represented by a similar team.

You are making out like it was some sort of a kangaroo court.

Considering the abuse both players were receiving online, that is probably why they did not make it public as it would have made it worse. Perhaps they will release them after the final, when SARU are preparing their defamation lawsuit against the RFU.

Oh that's interesting, it's gone from "spoken to after the game" to a full hearing with both players represented by legal teams and specialists? Can you link the details on that? If the RFU are lying that no independent hearing took place then that's terrible and they deserve criticism.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:28 am Oh that's interesting, it's gone from "spoken to after the game" to a full hearing with both players represented by legal teams and specialists? Can you link the details on that? If the RFU are lying that no independent hearing took place then that's terrible and they deserve criticism.

Why do you keep referring to "spoken after the game", the World Rugby statement refers explicitly to evidence from both teams.

Nor has anybody used the word hearing anywhere. Perhaps they decided they didn't need one because there was no evidence to discuss?

https://rugby365.com/england/new-zealan ... -by-media/

Perhaps you can look into who was the legal representation for Curry.

There are video clips of the game on X where you can here Bongi and other SA players shouting "Wit Kant" during defense, it is a defensive call. A few seconds after these calls were made in one of the clips, Curry went to the ref. The English doubling down on the racist crap and trying to go after a player when it seems to be a clear misunderstanding of languages is ridiculous and in bad taste specially when there is actual video evidence of the Afrikaans calls of the Springbok team. World Rugby did say that video evidence was reviewed as part of the process that cleared Bongi.

This is no better than Rassie's video accusing the ref of doing a bad job. The next time England plays in South Africa I will not be surprised if the crowd keep chanting "Wit Kant" during the game and then the english team can accuse the whole crowd of being racist.

bok_viking wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:00 am There are video clips of the game on X where you can here Bongi and other SA players shouting "Wit Kant" during defense, it is a defensive call. A few seconds after these calls were made in one of the clips, Curry went to the ref. The English doubling down on the racist crap and trying to go after a player when it seems to be a clear misunderstanding of languages is ridiculous and in bad taste specially when there is actual video evidence of the Afrikaans calls of the Springbok team. World Rugby did say that video evidence was reviewed as part of the process that cleared Bongi.

This is no better than Rassie's video accusing the ref of doing a bad job. The next time England plays in South Africa I will not be surprised if the crowd keep chanting "Wit Kant" during the game and then the english team can accuse the whole crowd of being racist.

Well if we had an actual disciplinary process, we'd know exactly what the allegation was. i.e when it occurred. As it seems to have been off the ball after the tackle rather than shouted from the defensive line.

Result would likely be the same, but there wouldn't be that confusion about what the RFU are complaining about.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:05 am Well if we had an actual disciplinary process, we'd know exactly what the allegation was. i.e when it occurred. As it seems to have been off the ball after the tackle rather than shouted from the defensive line.

Result would likely be the same, but there wouldn't be that confusion about what the RFU are complaining about.

You can only have a disciplinary process if there is evidence.

The World Rugby investigation found none.

Case closed.

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:11 am

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 8:05 am Well if we had an actual disciplinary process, we'd know exactly what the allegation was. i.e when it occurred. As it seems to have been off the ball after the tackle rather than shouted from the defensive line.

Result would likely be the same, but there wouldn't be that confusion about what the RFU are complaining about.

You can only have a disciplinary process if there is evidence.

The World Rugby investigation found none.

Case closed.

Yep. Clearly

Interesting few pages of red faced pushback from the newly formed People’s Popular No Evidence Front who presumably remain behind the threats to Tom Curry who was actually there, who reported at the time to the referee as protocol demands, and also has been entirely silent since, again following protocol. You needy twats.

Wow. So this whole thing is because a chippy english player mistook Wit Kant (a popular defensive call) for " White Cunt"?

Can you imagine if "White Cunt" was actually a popular defensive call, by a largely black team?

Or "Black Cunt" was used as a defensive call for a largely White team?

Hilarious,

Like any team, not from 1973 would think that would be a great idea.

What the fuck was curry even thinking, when he thought that would ever be a thing?

The English are a vokkop in rugby.

Disgracefull behaviour. Trying to upset one of players before a final.
Springboks should boycott playing them.

Vok me....even Siya reached out to soothe Curry's burning arse

With all due respect....go fix your game and your administration. You cant go though life hoping the refs will blow in your favor

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:13 am The English are a vokkop in rugby.

Disgracefull behaviour. Trying to upset one of players before a final.
Springboks should boycott playing them.

Vok me....even Siya reached out to soothe Curry's burning arse

In fairness to Siya he was standing up for the abuse Curry was getting, not the false claim he made.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:37 pm I don't know what it is about rugby that makes you such a disingenuous prick to converse with but it's genuinely weird.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 1:40 pm I know you're not stupid Os, so why pretend to be on here?

Guys, these seem like honest posts expressing disappointment. They seem genuine, so I'll respond in kind.

I enjoy an argument, South Africans generally do like a fight. There's some similar stuff going on with the Irish (religious society with a manichean outlook, blah blah). The most over the top threads on PR were the SA provincial battles, we've doxxed eachother, we've found accounts of eachother on other sites, extreme personal abuse is the least of it. It was all good fun, no one ever got upset for long, there was minimal reporting.

I wouldn't say I'm better than any of the other Saffas in the group on here. They've all outsmarted me at some point in the past, it would be a mistake to think any of us are idiots, it would also be a mistake to take us that seriously. I do think we tone it down a lot on threads where it isn't just Saffas. I'm not going to argue with someone that doesn't enjoy it, or where there's no possibility of changing anyone's mind or my own mind changing. Wild horses couldn't drag me onto the Israel v Palestine thread, or any of the royal family threads, etc.

On this thread ...

Le Roux celebration. I've never trolled any non-SA teams, or got upset about how other sides played the game. The variety of ways a side can win is one of the thigs that makes rugby interesting. In this RWC I was impressed by how England beat the Pumas and posted as much. In this match England's strategy was very interesting and prevented the Bok counterattack working (because there was nothing to counter from), I also posted pre-match England weren't as bad as some were saying. I'm not some rabid England rugby hater or whatever. England's gamesmanship antics are annoying but I can't recall commenting on them before this match (maybe when Marler grabbed Deon Fourie's dick last year?). For me all this talk about the Boks "destroying rugby" is absurd, and my posts around the Le Roux celebration were about poking some fun at that. They were very much in the style of the posting on an SA provincial thread, where there is a point being made, but there's also a lot of nonsense/trolling some will find amusing.

The Curry v Bongi thing is different, and the exact type of subject I avoid. My posts on that have been short and focusing on process only. What makes it different is someone decides Bongi is potentially racist or not, then it all gets a bit binary. It's not a Le Roux celebration where there's potential for an England fan to think "hmm, maybe our gamesmanship is a bit shit" or a Bok fan to think "this is quite funny". It's more of an Israel v Palestine where people get entrenched and seriously angry.

I'm definitely in the camp that Bongi is not a racist, he would've been dropped years ago if he was. It would run counter to a lot of his biography if he were. If someone isn't a racist then they can't do racist things. I do think the UK gets a bit witch hunter around the subject of racism, the bar for racism ends up being extremely low, South Africans have a better understanding of what a racist is imo.

Finding someone guilty of racism means burning their whole life down, It's absolutely correct that there needs to be evidence, as SS posted the testimony of the plaintiff alone is hardly enough. It's not expressed by who you would expect in the way you would expect (it's not lefties waffling on about colonialism), but many white South Africans would say that someone in Curry's situation should just harden up (that sentiment has been expressed on this thread), and that someone shouldn't pay for some words by losing everything. Depending on the context (there's a difference between an opponent in a rugby match and a boss who has power over you) many white South Africans will be quite blunt about "hardening up" when a white person is on the receiving end, but would think the same thing without expressing it when a black person is on the receiving end. Many would not agree that a derogatory word with a racial prefix is automatically burn the witch time. English are clearly culturally very different on this.

I still believe the UK media (especially the Telegraph and Mail), have been irresponsible in their reporting. SA isn't England, under the ANC the SA state has collapsed in a lot of ways, there's no prospect of policing online abuse. It's noticeable SA rugby publications have been muted in their coverage, racial disagreements can get completely out of hand in SA. We're talking: death threats to the entire family, full public doxxing of the entire family, contacting employers, actual mobs of people in real life turning up at the home/place of work, and I'm aware of at least one case of someone being physically beaten by a mob outside their home. Because this is racial in nature it goes beyond rugby into a far more scary place, where crazies back their race group without caring about facts.

Finally, Saffa humour is either word play based and doesn't travel well because it gets lost in translation (Oom's clever "white car" joke). Or it's crude slapstick. This will become a joke in SA, it involves inter language wordplay and talking about cunts, which is the sweet spot. Nando's have already released a kant ad campaign. Streisand effect looks unavoidable.

I am over the English and their crybaby attitude.....like children

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:13 am The English are a vokkop in rugby.

Disgracefull behaviour. Trying to upset one of players before a final.
Springboks should boycott playing them.

Vok me....even Siya reached out to soothe Curry's burning arse

With all due respect....go fix your game and your administration. You cant go though life hoping the refs will blow in your favor

Of all the weird takes from SA, this is the weirdest for me. You honestly think that the England team and management would go out of their way to put off a player for a match a week later they are not playing in? It's a crazy accusation.

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:42 am

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:13 am The English are a vokkop in rugby.

Disgracefull behaviour. Trying to upset one of players before a final.
Springboks should boycott playing them.

Vok me....even Siya reached out to soothe Curry's burning arse

With all due respect....go fix your game and your administration. You cant go though life hoping the refs will blow in your favor

Of all the weird takes from SA, this is the weirdest for me. You honestly think that the England team and management would go out of their way to put off a player for a match a week later they are not playing in? It's a crazy accusation.

There’s an element, not unique to South Africa, where there is an assumption that English people think about and dislike them as much as they dislike us.

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:38 am I am over the English and their crybaby attitude.....like children

Sorry Sards, but as long as we all live the answer to any Saffer saying stuff like this will be, make a video.

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:13 am The English are a vokkop in rugby.

Disgracefull behaviour. Trying to upset one of players before a final.
Springboks should boycott playing them.

Vok me....even Siya reached out to soothe Curry's burning arse

With all due respect....go fix your game and your administration. You cant go though life hoping the refs will blow in your favor

Fuck me! You're barking mad!!!

_Os_ wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:25 am
Guys, these seem like honest posts expressing disappointment. They seem genuine, so I'll respond in kind.

Cheers Os

For what it's worth, I'm absolutely fine with the Le Roux thing. It was the sort of heat of the moment shithousery that you see all the time. I think it's a little worse post game than during, but I'm not a huge fan of celebrating in the oppo's face whenever it occurs. I'm sure a few of the England players have ruffled the hair of their opposite number before after a turnover, which should be punishable by death imo.

I also don't think Bongi is a racist. Ultimately, it's not the result that I've taken any issue with. I don't think you should ever really be finding against someone in an accusation like that without some corroborating evidence. The annoyance is the way Curry has been hung out to dry a bit. You've got lots of people making assumptions that this whole thing is about him mis hearing a SA defensive call, when in reality it's likely there was some proper niggle between the two players after their encounter last year and both accusations actually originated off the ball. Without any of this cleared up at any point you've got 1000s of people online participating in a pile on calling him every name under the sun and demanding an apology. He's had to disable comments on platforms etc. Sure, the likely come back is that 'it's Twitter/Instagram, what do you expect', but that doesn't really lessen the impact.

Ultimately, I'm sure he massively regrets saying anything at all to the ref, which is a shame.

Hopefully it blows over relatively quickly, but I'd like to think WR would come up with a way of better handling a similar situation in the future.

Os you’re a fine fella. Really appreciate the time you took for that post.
Average Joe you are a child.

LoveOfTheGame wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:15 am

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:13 am The English are a vokkop in rugby.

Disgracefull behaviour. Trying to upset one of players before a final.
Springboks should boycott playing them.

Vok me....even Siya reached out to soothe Curry's burning arse

In fairness to Siya he was standing up for the abuse Curry was getting, not the false claim he made.

Why was it a false claim.

Meanwhile, at the RFU...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... d-Cup.html

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:35 am Meanwhile, at the RFU...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... d-Cup.html

This shows the opposite of what you think it does

TedMaul wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:11 am Os you’re a fine fella. Really appreciate the time you took for that post.
Average Joe you are a child.

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:35 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:28 am Oh that's interesting, it's gone from "spoken to after the game" to a full hearing with both players represented by legal teams and specialists? Can you link the details on that? If the RFU are lying that no independent hearing took place then that's terrible and they deserve criticism.

Why do you keep referring to "spoken after the game", the World Rugby statement refers explicitly to evidence from both teams.

Nor has anybody used the word hearing anywhere. Perhaps they decided they didn't need one because there was no evidence to discuss?

https://rugby365.com/england/new-zealan ... -by-media/

Perhaps you can look into who was the legal representation for Curry.

No panel was convened, no hearing was scheduled, no process familiar to anyone in the game was followed.

I'm happy(?) that SA are pleased they were given the opportunity to present their case and provide statements with legal representation - all the trappings of an actual hearing, it seems. But the RFU seem to believe no such hearing occurred for Curry, the victim in this case. Hence, no due process.

I suspect you might be getting confused with the idea that SA responded to world rugby with a legal statement declaring innocence, and that being the same thing as an independent hearing where the parties involved are actually questioned and everything is on the record. Or maybe you think everything that should've happened did happen and both Curry and the RFU are lying.

As it is, Curry raised a complaint about racial abuse he believes he suffered, he suffered extreme abuse and death threats as a result, and both he and the RFU are deeply unhappy that the process was not followed in the same manner as would have been expected given the precedent set on many previous occasions.

Add in the mocking of Curry with that video released by SA and I can't imagine how the RFU and Curry wouldn't be incensed by this.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:38 am

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:35 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:28 am Oh that's interesting, it's gone from "spoken to after the game" to a full hearing with both players represented by legal teams and specialists? Can you link the details on that? If the RFU are lying that no independent hearing took place then that's terrible and they deserve criticism.

Why do you keep referring to "spoken after the game", the World Rugby statement refers explicitly to evidence from both teams.

Nor has anybody used the word hearing anywhere. Perhaps they decided they didn't need one because there was no evidence to discuss?

https://rugby365.com/england/new-zealan ... -by-media/

Perhaps you can look into who was the legal representation for Curry.

No panel was convened, no hearing was scheduled, no process familiar to anyone in the game was followed.

I'm happy(?) that SA are pleased they were given the opportunity to present their case and provide statements with legal representation - all the trappings of an actual hearing, it seems. But the RFU seem to believe no such hearing occurred for Curry, the victim in this case. Hence, no due process.

I suspect you might be getting confused with the idea that SA responded to world rugby with a legal statement declaring innocence, and that being the same thing as an independent hearing where the parties involved are actually questioned and everything is on the record. Or maybe you think everything that should've happened did happen and both Curry and the RFU are lying.

As it is, Curry raised a complaint about racial abuse he believes he suffered, he suffered extreme abuse and death threats as a result, and both he and the RFU are deeply unhappy that the process was not followed in the same manner as would have been expected given the precedent set on many previous occasions.

Add in the mocking of Curry with that video released by SA and I can't imagine how the RFU and Curry wouldn't be incensed by this.

Surely the burden of proof lies with the RFU and/or Curry. If no evidence exists, then no hearing can take place. The matter is considered closed. It does not vindicate anyone in this matter either. It is what it is and we should all just move on. Nothing more can be done to prove Bongi's innocence or otherwise. There is no winner here, but I have no doubt it will resurface in the future when the sides meet again. I agree wholeheartedly that the abuse that both players received from the pond scum online is deplorable and unnecessary.

LoveOfTheGame wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 12:40 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:38 am

assfly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 7:35 am

Why do you keep referring to "spoken after the game", the World Rugby statement refers explicitly to evidence from both teams.

Nor has anybody used the word hearing anywhere. Perhaps they decided they didn't need one because there was no evidence to discuss?

https://rugby365.com/england/new-zealan ... -by-media/

Perhaps you can look into who was the legal representation for Curry.

No panel was convened, no hearing was scheduled, no process familiar to anyone in the game was followed.

I'm happy(?) that SA are pleased they were given the opportunity to present their case and provide statements with legal representation - all the trappings of an actual hearing, it seems. But the RFU seem to believe no such hearing occurred for Curry, the victim in this case. Hence, no due process.

I suspect you might be getting confused with the idea that SA responded to world rugby with a legal statement declaring innocence, and that being the same thing as an independent hearing where the parties involved are actually questioned and everything is on the record. Or maybe you think everything that should've happened did happen and both Curry and the RFU are lying.

As it is, Curry raised a complaint about racial abuse he believes he suffered, he suffered extreme abuse and death threats as a result, and both he and the RFU are deeply unhappy that the process was not followed in the same manner as would have been expected given the precedent set on many previous occasions.

Add in the mocking of Curry with that video released by SA and I can't imagine how the RFU and Curry wouldn't be incensed by this.

Surely the burden of proof lies with the RFU and/or Curry. If no evidence exists, then no hearing can take place. The matter is considered closed. It does not vindicate anyone in this matter either. It is what it is and we should all just move on. Nothing more can be done to prove Bongi's innocence or otherwise. There is no winner here, but I have no doubt it will resurface in the future when the sides meet again. I agree wholeheartedly that the abuse that both players received from the pond scum online is deplorable and unnecessary.

There's no burden of proof on any party. Curry raised a concern, it gets investigated and someone impartial decides whether there is a case to answer and whether guilt is established.

The main bone of contention is that the decision that there was no case to answer appears to have occured before the evidence itself (at least Curry's provision of it) was formally gathered, assimilated, validated and considered. That's a very odd way of doing it.

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:56 am

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:38 am I am over the English and their crybaby attitude.....like children

Sorry Sards, but as long as we all live the answer to any Saffer saying stuff like this will be, make a video.

Yeah, the lack of self awareness is quite extraordinary

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:38 am I am over the English and their crybaby attitude.....like children

We still remember Krige complaining about concussed players.
One of which was his own guy he punched

I know there is a pressing fixture this evening, but the next South Africa England game will be a doozie

Glaston wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 6:05 pm

Sards wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 9:38 am I am over the English and their crybaby attitude.....like children

We still remember Krige complaining about concussed players.
One of which was his own guy he punched

Honestly. You lot are an embarrassment. And you are doing it all to yourself. Grow up

Is this still a thing? Move on ffs.

Well it is for shrill little dickweed up there

TedMaul wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 2:22 pm Well it is for shrill little dickweed up there

It's everyone else's fault ne.

Grow up man.

Dear fuck this thread
Look, lets face the facts there should have been a hearing and Curry should have had the opportunity to say hispeice.
This really is plain and clear. Btw I am not exactly known for sticking up for England.
Some of the SA fans need to stfu and show some objectivity.

Indeed...theres alot to admire about the Spingboks and ive meet loads of great SA rugby guys but some of the online fandom is toxic.

Let's try make this clear.....

There are a shitload of English people with access to computers. Surely M6 or whatever has audio technology that can resolve this. Bring the evidence and you may be surprised with the results. But all we have is one man's word against another.

That's all world rugby and everyone here is asking for.


Simple.


Otherwise you are just looking like bitter twats

Sards wrote: ↑Sat Oct 28, 2023 3:40 pm Let's try make this clear.....

There are a shitload of English people with access to computers. Surely M6 or whatever has audio technology that can resolve this. Bring the evidence and you may be surprised with the results. But all we have is one man's word against another.

That's all world rugby is asking for.


Simple.


Otherwise you are just looking like bitter twats

Why the fuck don't you just give it a rest
It's finished, it's over. You're like a broken record.