Gatland has been implicitly criticised by WR for his comments about the appointment of a SA 4th official in the first Test. If Gatland was wrong to express his dismay (he did no more than that) at the appointment of a non neutral 4th official then tell me why WR and other bodies have seen fir to have neutral offficials at all matches in their jurisdiction for as long as I can recall.
Furthermore, to deal with Erasmus and Gatland in the same statement seems to imply some equivalence between what they did. WR talks about the integrity of the game. For the life of me I cannot see how Gatland has diminished that with the measured but justifiable expression of dismay. Maybe WR themselves did with the lack of foresight to cover an official with a neutral?
We all know that when it comes to Erasmus hearing it will just amount to a no punishment outcome like a slap on the wrist and he will have got away scott free with what he did.
Another nail knocked into my enthusiasm for the game (jones, Sarries, ring fencing, England performance etc). Knock enough nails into a piece of wood and it falls apart!
I cling onto Wasps.
Topic: World Rugby (Read 527 times)
Always a Wasp