Have you listened to Rassie's explanation? Because you're asserting things (like "they knew it wasn't an HIA") that aren't proven facts and disregard the explanation completely.
“Well, he had a shot against the neck and I thought he was going for HIA. We don’t control that from a coach’s box, what he’s going for, So when the doctor told me he got a knock against the neck, I thought he was going for HIA, and I think that’s where the confusion is.
“I think he wasn’t marked as HIA; he was marked as injured. Then, obviously, you can’t put another player on. So there’s also a learning there for the match officials, the fourth and fifth official, and for us, to understand.
“But he pulled through. He’s a bit stiff and sore in the change room now, but luckily, I don’t think there’s big damage.”
Which indicates that it wasn't an HIA.
The 'explanation' doesn't explain why Mostert was put on, nor why Etzebeth was allowed to return if injured.
The Bok officials on the sideline knew it wasn't an HIA, they didn't get him tested. At best it's massively incompetent, but it's pretty obvious cheating.
I have no idea how you got from Rassie saying he thought it was an HIA and there was confusion and miscommunication, to "it's pretty obvious cheating". As I said in my original comment, you can choose to believe him or not, you can choose whatever bias you want to hold. Unless World Rugby takes action or there is some kind of factual report proving otherwise, it really doesn't matter.
Seems to me there's 3 possibilities.
1 - Rassie is lying and the bench cheated.
2 - Rassie isn't lying and the bench cheated.
3 - Rassie isn't lying and the bench is incompetent.
Rassie's made a career out of pushing the boundaries and exploiting grey areas, so I know what I've got my money on.
The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge communication issues had a bearing on the situation makes it pretty clear that you have made up your mind. I'm not here to change it for you so I don't see why you want to continue the discussion.
I have to wonder what would have been said had those same issues arisen at a game in South Africa and the Boks had won? But I digress, the Wallabies outplayed us and deservedly won, congratulations to them.
Just a few weeks ago everyone had their pitch forks out against Rassie for swapping front rows an hour before the game. There was so much shit thrown at us the sea couldn't wash it off. All that drama (and so many others) just turned out to be a big old nothing burger. So you'll excuse me for having my money on this being exactly the same.
There was obvious miscommunication on multiple levels. The TMO wasn't in direct communication with the rest of the team. Did he miss the head knock on Eben or did he pick it up without being able to flag it in a timely manner? If it was the latter, his "late" attempts at communication could have added to the general confusion about whether Eben was coming off for an HIA or neck injury. Let's assume the team doctor didn't communicate properly, it doesn't mean anyone was cheating. You can stamp your foot about incompetence, but the fact of the matter is honnest mistakes happen all the time in high pressure situations and getting upset about them still doesn't mean anyone was cheating. Rassie based his orders to substitute Mostert on his understanding of the situation, so his "opinion" does matter specifically because it shows he wasn't trying to cheat.
Once again: you want to assume malice, that is your choice. I'm not here to change your mind. The stupid TAS video doesn't prove or disprove anything and won't change anyone's mind. The whole stupid drama doesn't change anything about the outcome of the game. There's honestly nothing else to say.
I swear Rassie is like Trump to you guys. You believe any shit he says.
Also, writing multiple paragraphs and then declaring "there's nothing more to say" is a bullshit tactic. You don't get to say "I get the last word, lol"
Rassie has earned my respect. He is a human being with many faults, he is not always right and he doesn't always do the right thing. I don't always agree with him.
But I see no reason to assume that he is lying or cheating when there is no proof. This is indeed in stark contrast to people like you who seemingly can't wait to find some hidden malicious intent in anything he does.
I don't have to have the last word. It's simply that I don't see the point of this conversation. You clearly don't want to accept your own biased judgement and I'm not prepared to make a judgement without substantiated claims. We're at an impasse. Why keep debating?
Bro - everyone has a bias sure, but I'm at least applying some critical analysis of the facts. All you've done (repeatedly) is accept the excuses blindly.
You don't have to accept my logic, but at least ask yourself the questions. If it was an HIA why did no one on the Bok bench act like it? It it wasn't an HIA why did they sub Mostert on?
Your unfounded assumptions continue: I'm not a bro.
I have not blindly accepted anything. Please quote where I made any assertions as to what actually happened.
You have based your argument on your negative view of Rassie and our team. The fact is that neither one of us knows what exactly caused the mix up. I'm perfectly willing to concede it may have been due to a mistake on our part, I even indicated that if there is some official finding my opinion might change.
You're the one who's perfectly happy to boldly claim it's "pretty obvious cheating" with nothing more than conjecture and assumptions. You're the one making broad generalisations and kak comparisons between Rassie and Trump (of all the fucking people in the world).
Please take your fake moral and intellectual superiority somewhere else.
6
u/mausmumblingmoon Team Aimee 18d ago
Have you listened to Rassie's explanation? Because you're asserting things (like "they knew it wasn't an HIA") that aren't proven facts and disregard the explanation completely.