Why Bakkies Botha wasn’t cited for striking Mortlock
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 24 Jul 2008 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- referees, Rugby Union, SANZAR, South Africa, Springboks, Stirling Mortlock, The Springboks, wallabies
Related coverage
During the coverage of the Wallabies – Springboks Test at Perth, there was a camera shot that appeared to show Bakkies Botha, the South African bully boy secondrower, belting Stirling Mortlock so badly that he was forced to leave the field with concussion.
The television picture looked like the sort of ‘gotcha’ moment that saw the Springboks hooker Bismarck du Plessis caught on camera gouging the eyes of Adam Thomson, an action that resulted in him being outed from playing rugby for three weeks by the SANZAR Citing Commissioner.
Why wasn’t Botha cited and punished by the Citing Commissioner?
On Monday I received an email from BL which was as direct as a punch to the jaw: “Spiro, what is the drum on a Botha citing? Please advise. BL”
I replied: “Hi BL, nothing as far as I know. A disgrace, but someone has to make a citing, or the Commissioner has to intervene. Botha has been doing this for years, with impunity.”
BL wasn’t happy with this answer: “Spiro, as a respected rugby guru you have the power to raise a player’s behaviour for citing. Please do it, or show footage to Mortlock. Has no one got the balls to raise what we all saw on slow motion replay. Please give it a shot, the future of rugby demands these thugs be sanctioned.”
I told BL he should contact the ARU to find out what the official response was. BL did this, making contact with Peter Rowles, the head of Rugby Services.
Rowles made a prompt answer: “BL, thanks for the email and in respect to the issue you refer, I offer the following. 1. The Citing Commissioner of the night from NZ reviewed the incident and 6 camera angles in slow motion frame by frame which picked up the incident. He reviewed this on many occasions post the match, as all Citing members do. 2. The incident shows Botha attempting to clean out Stirling but he misses Stirling and connects with the rib area of Shalk Burger who subsequently had to leave the field. His shoulders do not make contact with Stirling and he seems to clip the head of Stirling with his knee in a non-intentional action on the way through. 3. The Citing Commissioner had to determine if the actions constituted a red card (called the red card threshold). He determined the actions did not warrant a send off, hence the player was not cited. The Citing Commissioner is one of SANZARS’ most experienced and made the call. I understand that on first glance it didn’t look great, but he has the beauty of all the angles upon which to make his assessment.”
BL replied to this in the following way: “Peter, many thanks for the rapid response. M-G Peter Cosgrove would be impressed. Intent? While he may have missed the intended body part, the ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind, intention) was certainly present.”
This is a good point, but I accept that the Citing Commissioner had to go with what actually happened, not what Botha wanted to happen.
The fact remains, though, that referees have been too tolerant to Botha over the years with his smash-and-grab illegal tactics at the ruck and maul.
It won’t be long before one of these illegal shoulder charges will find its mark and then, hopefully, we can look to the appropriate Citing Commissioner to do the right thing by putting him out of rugby for a considerable period of time.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW (4)
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (3)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (51)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack (2)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (64)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (26)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- referees, Rugby Union, SANZAR, South Africa, Springboks, Stirling Mortlock, The Springboks, wallabies
Greg said | July 24th 2008 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Spiro, BL
The Australian Rugby League tolerated thugs like Spud Carrol, Roach, Noel Cleal etc deliberately hurting opposition players. The Richard Loe attack on Carrozza was perhaps the most disgraceful incident coming out of NZ for many years, and most certianly on a par with the Chappel brothers underarm.
NZ and Australian rugby union have cleaned up their acts; when was the last time anyone from Australia had a hot blooded thing to say about NZ violence in a test match?
South Africa are the 1980′s rugby league of the union world. I might add France to that. Bakkies Botha knows that he’s a hated person. He’s surrendered to it just like Richard Loe and eye-pokers of the past.
For reasons that I cannot comprehend (perhaps along the lines of national psychology) NZ dont’ have the same problems with SA as Australia does, at least on the rugby field. My best answer to the quandry lies in assumptions about intelligence; the only way to get at a player more intelligent than yourself is to lower the contest into something more barbaric.
Clearly South Africa are changing for the better. Something has happened to their rugby team to make them more likeable. Botha is a dinasaur and the last of his kind. Many will romanticise the fossil, but grimace at the memory of the beast; apparently human.
Greg.
Frank O'Keeffe said | July 24th 2008 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Proof that negligence should be considered a mens rea by the courts!
Craig said | July 24th 2008 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Here we go.
I knew the Aussie media couldn’t resist having a go at that ‘thug’ Botha.
No matter what he does you guys can’t stand him. If he sneezed on a player and gave them a cold I think you would push for a citing.
Botha was cleaning out a ruck. Mortlock was falling. It must have taken an incredibly quick cognative equation on Botha’s behalf to calculate at what rate and angle he should run in to make contact with Mortlocks head.
But of course you don’t think about that. All you see is a player leaving the field with a knock to the head and Botha in the replay hitting him. So he must be guilty! No need to look at the replays! He must go!!
Why not rather focus on the game this weekend and the upcoming games rather than harp on about things that are not to be? Botha will not get cited, nor does he deserve to.
JohnB said | July 24th 2008 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Without commenting on this particular incident, it is worth noting that the laws say this (in Law 12 on Foul Play) –
“Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Penalty: Penalty Kick”
What exactly that means is not obvious to me from the words used. I assume, analogous to what is and is not permitted at the tackle, that you can’t “shoulder charge” – essentially the arm/s have to be up away from the body so the required binding can occur straight away. That would mean that you can’t go into a ruck or maul, whether to join in or to clean out, with the point of the shoulder. Given the potential for injury from such actions, as from the banned shoulder charge in the tackle, that seems a pretty logical conclusion to me. If that iinterpretation is correct, the law should be enforced on that basis, against all teams.
TembaVJ said | July 24th 2008 @ 9:17am | Report comment
Thank god he started to clean out the rucks, the Wallabies were getting away with murder round those areas. That is his job and his good at it, just like McCaw’s good at what he does. If you ask me our forward weren’t cleaning out enough and when you get a bunch of big blokes rushing for an area the size of a rugby ball, someone is bound to get hurt, its not a tickling competition.
Wow Greg that is a really spectacular answer, let me see if I have it right dumb saffa’s trying to bring the clever Aussies down to their barbaric level…
Mike said | July 24th 2008 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Criag – or are you Peter De Villliers in disguise – stop making excuses. The guy is a thug and always has been.
Probalby wasn’t cited purely to give the rugby “authorities” some peace from de Villiers whinging about why SA is picked on by everyone … referees, ballboys, commissioners, the hot dog vendors, Kevin Rudd, the Pope, who’s else?.
stuff happens said | July 24th 2008 @ 9:31am | Report comment
And, let me tell you everyone in Aust, including me, wishes we had a Bakkies Botha in our team !!
Great packs have an enforcer full stop and good night.
TembaVJ said | July 24th 2008 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Bakkies is a thug… one of the best in the world, a classic hard man, every team in the world has/have or will one day will have again.
Mike you forgot O’Neil and George Bush, funny you should complain about SA’s whinging on this post that is clearly a whinging session aimed at the saffas.. ironic isn’t it? I think you will find all 3 these teams are guilty of the occasional bitch. But take the higher ground, I am sure there is plenty of whinging to come from Australia, they only had one game that they have won so far… IF they lose we shall see if your stance can be maintained.
Mike said | July 24th 2008 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Temba you’re right … no one is innocent. You get away with what you can.
Peter K said | July 24th 2008 @ 10:08am | Report comment
stuff happens / tembaVJ – Yes Botha is a thug. I would hate to see a player like that play for the Wallabies.
Yes I want hard men with mongrel. I do not want a thug who takes cheap shots against defenseless players.
What is brave or admiring of a guy who constantly charges into rucks shoulder first? And this is the least of his acts of thuggery. Eye gouging , biting yes a real hard man, you can keep him.
I prefer the man who runs the ball up with 3 guys waiting to smash him, getting up and doing it again. Or tackles headon a formed maul by himself , sure maybe collapsing it and being trod on, but not a cheap shot.
Finegan was our last hardman, with mongrel, but he was a cheap shot merchant or thug.