By Spiro Zavos
July 1st 2009 @ 1:33am
Schalk Burger should receive six months, at least
South Africa's Schalk Burger walks into the field for his 50th match ahead of the international rugby union match against the British lions at Loftus Versfeld stadium, Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday June 27, 2009. AP Photo/Martin Meissner
The British and Irish Lions, or the IRB, someone, should appeal the appalling decision by the Canadian IRB judicial officer Alan Hudson to impose a playing ban on Schalk Burger of only eight weeks.
The implication behind this decision must be that Burger was reckless and not intentional in his action in fiercely attacking the eyes of the Lions winger Luke Fitzgerald only 32 seconds into the abrasive second Test of the 2009 South Africa-Lions series.
The reason why this must be so is that the Italian captain, Sergio Parisse, received an eight-week ban for his eye-gouging of Isaac Ross in the New Zealand-Italy Test last weekend.
Peter Larter, the Citing Commissioner in the Parisse case, after reading the match officials reports and viewing the tape evidence, ruled that the contact was brief, had occurred in the open, there was no injury to Ross, and that the initial contact had been with the cheek.
Parisse was given an eight-week ban for behaving recklessly.
This is the same punishment that Burger was given. But Burger’s conduct was much worse than Parisse’s. And a very strong case can be made for the assertion that Burger acted intentionally.
If this is the case, the minimum punishment for his offence would have been twelve weeks. The details and circumstances of the Burger incident, though, suggest that he should have been put off the rugby fields for six months.
There is no doubt that Burger acted recklessly. The fact of the eye-gouging is proof of that. There cannot be much doubt, either, that he acted intentionally.
Let’s go through the check list set out in the Parisse case.
The contact was not brief. It went on for many seconds and Fitzgerald was only able to stop it before major damage was done because his arms were (fortunately) free and he was able to prise Burger’s fingers out.
The contact ended up in the open and a tempestuous ruck disintegrated.
But the initial gouging started in the depth of the ruck with players piled around. It became evident when the players started to roll away after the whistle sounded. Burger seemed to continue the gouging after the whistle, even though he was in full view of the assistant referee, the New Zealander Bryce Lawrence.
The initial contact was clearly with the eyes. There was never any suggestion or evidence from Burger’s behaviour that his hand had slipped up from the cheeks to the eyes, as Parisse’s had.
So what we have is an intentional attack on the eyes of an opponent. There were no mitigating circumstances. The action was carried on for some time. The ferocity of the attack warrants an extremely harsh punishment.
What Burger received was a risible punishment that allows him to play the last three Springboks matches of the Tri-Nations and the November tour to Europe.
This is a disgrace, which was made more disgraceful by the outrageous comments made about the affair by the flaky Springboks coach, Peter de Villiers: “I don’t believe it was a card at all. In the first minute already there had been a lot of needle. This is sport, this is what it’s about. If things were clear-cut then we shouldn’t even be bother preparing for a game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”
De Villiers has since apologised for his defence of Burger, claiming that he’d made his comments “based on what I know of Burger as a player, and not on what occurred.”
This is self-serving nonsense.
The first comments were made when the eye-gouging incident had been fully revealed on the video replays. De Villiers was obviously speaking to the incident and making the startling claim that it did not deserve even a yellow card sanction.
This brings me to a point that needs to be made about the Springboks.
They have a history of thuggery to win big matches. Yes, I understand the outrage over the dumping of Brian O’Driscoll by Tana Umaga in the opening seconds of the first 2005 Lions-All Blacks Test at Christchurch.
But this was an isolated incident.
The continual foul play of Bakkies Botha, for instance, is a case in point of the Springboks having a tendency towards foul play.
Botha has finally been punished for dangerously charging into a ruck without binding on a player. The only reason why this practice, which is Botha’s trademark play, was penalised was because this time he broke the arm of Adam Jones.
But virtually every match Botha has done this and got away without so much as a penalty awarded against him.
Some years ago Victor Matfield knocked out the All Blacks halfback Byron Kelleher in the opening minutes of a Test in South Africa, and was not even penalised.
The initial lack of remorse, indeed, the justification of Burger’s behaviour by de Villiers, suggests that the Springboks coaches and players just don’t get it.
Eye-gouging is a rugby no-no.
It cannot be tolerated or excused. It is potential criminal behaviour, if there is damage. Players who indulge in eye-gouging should be penalised so heavily (as Richard Loe and Troy Flavell were by the NZRU) that their careers are virtually put to an end.
The South African authorities say they will not appeal against Burger’s punishment.
Of course they won’t.
Burger has committed a grave crime and has been given the treatment meted out to someone who has committed a petty offence.
The IRB says it is waiting for a report from their judicial officer, Alan Hudson.
On the facts of this case, the IRB should not even wait for Hudson’s report. There is more than enough evidence and justification to have a full review of this unfortunate case, with a view to imposing an appropriately heavy punishment that fits Burger’s serious rugby crime.
That punishment should be a ban on Burger for six months or longer.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(99)
Greg Smith said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:34am | Report comment
As a huge Springbok fan, I agree that Burger should have been punished more seriously. If I had my way… he’d never put on a Bok jersey again !
The whole thing has me perplexed – its like this is scripted. 27 seconds into the game ? Come on !?
A world record ?
And… the Media love this stuff … it sells … thus the inertia to not rid rugby of this ‘dramatic device’
PdV ? He seems to have been studying the IPL Bollywood extravaganza held in SA and is upping his ‘game’, again for extra media mileage. He’s a dramatic device personified ! Our village idiot in the spotlight as a clown !
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:28am | Report comment
Spiro
Today in the London Times a David Watts has written to the editor saying that Burger should be sued for assault by FitzGerald. He should be backed by the Lions. He believes it is only way to clamp down on this type of gratuitious violence.
Dylan Hartley when he was charged with gouging was banned for 6 months by the RFU and I believe that is the mandatory sentence in England.
PdeV should charged with disrepute, I know he has apologised but there is a mindset that is unacceptable. Adam Jones through the charge by Botha may be out of the game for nine months, does two weeks ring true. Sheridan punch on Bekker should have been investigated but it is potentiallycareer threatening or even as bad as Burger or Botha’s misdemeanours?
I also think touring sides to the UK should also be aware that following a recent case where a Welsh player sued for assault against an opponent and was successful, that dangerous and deliberate play that causes serious injury may end up in court.
The powers that be have got to be tougher if not and it gets out of hand and in extreme the insurance companies decide not insure professional rugby players because it too dangerous, it will kill rugby as we know it!
Taniwha said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:37am | Report comment
Can anyone except Tom Selleck, be taken seriously with a moustache like PdV? It would be interesting to see what the record is for the quickest yellow/red card is.
I don’t think there is any point going back in time to give him more time. It’s done and dusted. Move on. Perhaps review the structure of suspensions and look at match suspensions instead of weeks. Funny point the Lions squad made about how only a yellow card cost them the game? Did he take one of their key players out of the game??? Or can the English only win against a14 man squad…?
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:22am | Report comment
Taniwha
Please don’t show your ignorance only three English players in the Match Day squad of 22. The Lions if you listen to the full transcript congratulated the Boks. The main bone of disappointment was that the ref bottled the Burger incident. There is no gripe that teams should be instructed to go flat out from the off and take no prisoners, but with an undercurrent of deliberate intention to maim and injure is unacceptable. Obviously PdeV post match comments indicated a general intent which should not be part of rugby.
Lessons will be learnt and we shall all move on. I am not interested who has the quickest yellow/red card it is pathetic. I prefer to see rugby move away to no cards and the game played in the right way.
Rob Bruce-Brand said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:31am | Report comment
Like most South Africans, I was appalled by Burger’s act. I wouldn’t mind if he was banned for life. But don’t demonise the whole South African effort. And show some balance please. I’ve heard no comment subsequent to the game of the nature of o’Driscoll’s injury. After being penalised earlier for inciting a flare-up, o’Driscoll launched an illegal, dangerous tackle on Danie Rossouw from a ludicrously offside position, which concussed both players and ended both players’ series. The Sky Sports commentators said it was an illegal tackle, but that this was sometimes necessary in rugby. He received plaudits for it. Dirty play shouldn’t be condoned, whatever side of the fence you sit.
Nelson said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
I guess we need to wait to see the report to determine why he only got 8 weeks. There must be more to it.
Remember this article Spiro?
http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/01/10/peter-de-villiers-at-last-a-coach-of-colour-for-the-springboks/
I feel sorry for Pieter de Villiers . Most of South Africa is against him and a lot of the same people in the media who supported his appointment are now tearing him to shreds. Anyone who has followed rugby over the past 12 months knows the guy clearly has a mouth full of marbles, and facing a hositle British media, speaking a foreign tounge this was always going to be dynamite.
Scott The Aussie in Devon said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:51am | Report comment
English?? They were not playing. This was the British and Irish Lions.
6 months would be about right I’d reckon. I well remember Richard Loe…
Jecker Bonds said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:54am | Report comment
The Boks/Lions game was great theatre – Burger reminded me of Cornwall putting out Gloucester’s eyes, and his punishment should be suitably Shakespearean. Perhaps exile on Prospero’s isle with Caliban – played by Bakkes Botha – his only companion.
Or, to switch plays, Burger is Stanley Kowalski in Streetcar, only this time the guys in the white jackets leave Blanche – played by De Villiers – with Stella and take Burger away to be institutionalized.
Or Arthur Miller’s play, Death of a Flanker… the dramatic possibilities are endless.
Kevin, Meath said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:07am | Report comment
PDV had viewed the TV footage and feels if there was contact with the eyes it was accidental. I think he is quite right. Everyone who doesn’t is being as unreasonable as my wife, on saturday went for a walk got lost went into a pub for directions and accidently said ‘pint of beer please barman’ easy mistake to make! anyone could do that 5 times. On the way home after game (fancy that being on as I walked in ,spooky coincidence) at favourite takeaway asked for low fat healthy salad and the fool behind counter gave me Lamb Buna, Chicken Rogan and KP Madras. Does she believe me ? she did eat the food but only to be polite and so as it didn’t go to waste,didn’t enjoy it at all.
Fitzgerald had been at Burger all game so he was provoked you would be surprised how much a left wing can get at a flanker in 80 seconds of rugby. Fitzgerald does have a reputation! don’t the munster fans call the Leinster backs the ‘Ladyboys’ because of their violent and thuggish behaviour.
8 weeks for gouging and coaches who condones it, its not a shame on SA rugby,its a shame on all rugby. How can I put Burger forward as a great player to kids I coach? How can I tell them to watch how the Bokkes because their a class act when they do and say such things? watch the bokkes, defend, attack, assault someone boys!
Jameswm said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:27am | Report comment
Botha counter-rucked – cleared out, call it what you like. He was on his feet, it was not a shoulder charge and he came through the gate. Show me a counter-rucker who binds.
That suspension is absurd – he was only done because someone got injured.
Burger on the other hand – I agree with the 6 months.
Arky said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
We are far too lenient – he should be gone for six months at least and repeat offenses (he is hardly a saint) should see players like Berger removed from the game. I had to watch this incident with my 12yo boy who loves his rugby – it was blatantly unnecessary and 30 seconds into a game was not prompted by anything other than malice on his part – he is hardly an example to set for future generations.
stuff happens said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
I agree with Jameswm re Bakkies – there are endless examples of counter rucking when not bound.And I’m amazed more players aren’t injured by ‘clearing out’.
Entirely agree on six months for Burger who has at least partly wrecked a great career.A few minutes into the game and obviously quite deliberate. PdV is as good as finished in my view.
What a pity – it was such a great game.
mart said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Interesting that 2 incidents in both Tests so far between the French / NZ officials (same two I think but not sure) basically broke down through poor communication. In 1st Test NZ ref couldn’t get why it was a 5m scrum following disallowed try so overruled French TMO and gave drop out. In 2nd Test I don’t think French ref understood seriousness of what NZ lino was telling him regards eye gouge, started to trot off to reverse penalty when NZ lino called him back to say “no hang on … what I said was….” etc. I wonder if there had been a “common language” in each incident whether the decision(s) would have been different ? Possible that a game-defining decision (given it was in the first 30 seconds) was bottled / got wrong / snafu’d (take your pick) due to poor communications ? Burger wouldn’t care at a 6 minute, 6 month, 6 year penalty – he’s played 50 Tests, just won a Lions series, thank you and goodnight. These decisions have to get made correctly at the time of happening to have any real impact…..
Harry said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Agree with jameswm that Botha’s suspension is ridiculous – i suspect handed out as a sop to appease the rightly incensed Lions camp over Burger. Burger should get a year, eye-gouging is disgraceful. And so should the Italian captain, just as blatant. And O’Driscoll should have got a couple of weeks for shoulder-charging, though I reckon that act lost them the game as that let Brousow on and he won at least two vital turnovers in the last 10 minutes, and of course O’Driscol lalso knocked himself out (I reckon he was already concussed before that) and was replaced by Shane Williams who was shrugged off easily by Fourie on the way to the crucial last try.
Ben C said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
I feel sorry the Boks team are now being tarred with the thuggery brush. Aside from Burger’s stupidity (at 32 seconds was it a deliberate tactic) and the occasional brutishness from Bakkies who has form, the majority of the Boks are hard but fair. No one could say Jean de Villiers or Juan Smith are dirty players but now all are being dragged through the mud because of Burger and the unbelieveable response from PdV. Initially I thought PdV was a colourful character and he was certainly a successful coach with the U21s but his comparisons to Jesus, his self description as a God-given talent and his ridiculous defence of Burger force me to conclude he is several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Wasn’t a former SA coach (Mallet?) dumped by the SARU for much less?
That said, Sheridan should have got several weeks as well. His low punch was clearly deliberate. Nuts and eyes – both are sacrosanct on the rugby pitch. Going near either should be a mandatory suspension.
Bob McGregor said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Unfortunately I’m yet to see the match replay but I have seen the incident on Fox Sport News. Blatant intended action by Burger and deserves a severe, prompt response by the IRB.
We cannot allow our code to be brought into disrepute by such actions. Parents – especially Mothers – will be repulsed by such behaviour and steer their children to less violent/riskier sports. The IRB should make an example of him and give him a lengthy forced retirement to hopefully act as a deterrent to all others.
Personally I’d give him at least 5 years – possibly expulsion.
Worlds Biggest said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
That was a disgraceful act by Burger who has now tarnished his reputation. He has now joined his mate Bakkies Botha amongst others in the thug department. He should have been rubbed out for the season ditto Parisse. 8-12 weeks is just not long enough. I remember former Dragons halfback Steve Linnane eye gouging in the mid 80’s and I think he got something like 40 odd weeks. As for the ” Mad Scientist ” Peter DeVilliers he is an embarrasment and he needs to be severely reprimanded by the IRB and SA Rugby.
katzilla said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
‘I prefer to see rugby move away to no cards and the game played in the right way.’
Ian Noble – And then i’d like to see yellow gumdrops fall from a chocolate waterfall. Whats pathetic is berating Taniwha for asking what the record for the quickest yellow/red card is (an interesting stat im sure) and then backing up with this idealistic dribble. Sure he said English when you and i both know he meant British and Irish.
Burger deserved more, thats a given. The process for the way these things are handled at the time of of the incident is also in need of improvement.
South Africa seem to have a disproportionate section of dirty players but none of us are angels, and every single country has someone in their history that proves that.
OldManEmu said | July 1st 2009 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Rob Bruce-Brand said: “But don’t demonise the whole South African effort”. Rob, it would be whole lot eaiser for observers of SA Rugby not to “demonise” if SA Rugby took this matter into its own hands and rubbed Burger out – for good!
I agree with Spiro – there can be absolutely no doubt that Burger’s actions were intentional. If any person can explain to me how there can be a place for eye gouging in the game, then I will listen hard, but I just cannot accept that Burger should be playing any longer. And Rob, with Burger being right to play in eight weeks, he is back in the SA Rugby fold, presumably accepted back into the team by his team mates and coaches, and logically this is an acceptance that his conduct was fair enough. Well it was not – it was a dog act and he must go for good. And if he is the sacrificial lamb, no make that dog, and pays the price for a multitude of sinners in International Rugby, then so be it.
Rob, I love SA Rugby and love watching the Springboks, but if the game is to retain credibility, blatant acts of foul play like Burger’s, with no place in the game, must be eradicated.
Jacker Bonds – to expand your dramatic theme – I think Burger and Botha would would have no trouble slotting into a stage rendition of Resevoir Dogs.
And finally, can any Roarer recall the last time a Wallaby committed a blatant act of thuggery, unprovoked? Incidents in Super Rugby not included – they do not count. I would suggest that the Wallabies are the cleanest team in International Rugby by a very long margin.
USRugbyFan said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
All you guys calling for Burger to never a game of rugby again, what about Dylan Hartley? He got banned for 6 months for a similar act, correct? But I read an article about him in Rugby World, a British publication, that lauded him for “learning” and “maturing” from his actions. Hartley will probably go on to represent England soon, and none of you have said boo about that. I think it’s a bit hypocritical.
USRugbyFan said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:10am | Report comment
OME: Re, the Wallabies, Tuqiri’s spear tackle on McCaw in the 06 3N. Tuqiri tackled him after McCaw had already passed the ball, than proceeded to lift and twist him and drive him headfirst into the ground. Lucky he didn’t break the poor guy’s neck.
Amateur Hour said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Interesting point OME. I do recall Rocky getting penalised (carded even maybe) for charging through a line out and taking out the legs of the Italian jumper. It was quite dangerous and reckless. I seem to remember also that Eddie Jones got a hard on over the incident because he finally thought that he’d found the missing mongrel for his pack. Rocky is still probably considered the hard man of the Aussie pack, but, like Owen Finnegan manages/has been coached very well to channel his aggression in a focused manner.
We always here that the Aussie forwards are soft and don’t stack up to the other forward packs around the world. There is an obvious connection between this and the impression that we are one the, if not the, cleanest teams in the world. What would you prefer?
ShakaZulu said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
What a tirade! Spiro, what do you have against Bakkies except that he can dish it out as well as take it? No arguments on Burger or anyone else who gouges eyes.I think its time the Boks starting more citings rather than let things go. Where is your indignation re cowardly Sheridan?
And BOD? Offside and very dangerous charge. You now have convinced me over a long period of time of your prejudice. Deny it as much as you like – you ARE prejudiced.
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Brendan Cannon’s punch on Mealamu?
Worlds Biggest said | July 1st 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
US Rugby Fan – good point re the Tiquiri spear tackle but don’t agree with you regarding the general consensus on Burger being rubbed out for good. That is the opinion of a few but most would be satisfied with at least 6 months. In saying that I reckon the IRB need to stiffen the penalty for this cowardly act by enforcing a standard 12 month ban. This has happened twice in two tests on the same day by two well known, quality players. Surely there profiles particularly Burger should bring to light the urgency of this matter.
MikeN said | July 1st 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
I personally do not like the way ‘cleaning out’ is implemented and then managed by the refs. Many players, focused on competing for the ball, are ‘blind-sided’ by huge players propelling themselves into them. But it seems to be part of the game so on that basis I saw no difference between what Botha did and what all the NZ forwards were doing in the second test against the French. The AB’s were launching themselves into the rucks having, in many cases, already left their feet before the impact. My major concern was that they were not penalised for leaving their feet, but if Botha got suppended for what he did while stating on their feet, how come there aren’t a number of AB’s sitting on their bums at the moment.
I think the Sprinboks have often justified the use of thuggery as a necessity to win the match. Ther British and Irish Lions have a history of thuggery as well, so they should be a bit careful how they bleat but I agree that Burger should have had a significantly longer punishment. But what Botha did seems to be an accepted part of the game these days but as someone has already said, the only difference was that Jones got injured.
I would like the action of ‘cleaning out’ better defined and policed, not whether a player gets injured determining how dangerous it was.
LeftArmSpinner said | July 1st 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
I fully agree. they should have thrown the book at him and heavily sanction PdV. No player is bigger than the game.
As a minimum, the authorities should pronounce that from now on, gouging and other nefarious behaviour will be punished by a season out of the game!!! rucking/stomping on the head, attacking the “goolies” should be included.
vinay verma said | July 1st 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
Only Politicians can defend the indefensible. Many sports admiinstrators(coaches included) espouse the Spirit of the Game but it all sounds like empty rhetoric when teams close ranks to protect their own. If the Boks continue to play with Burger in the team they are tacitly accepting and condoning his behaviour.
I think the last act of thuggery by a Wallaby was Finnane. That was a long time ago.
Sherry said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:12pm | Report comment
Maybe what’s needed in test rugby is an additional card – a black one. If somebody is caught being a mean SOB, as Burger was, and the touchie reports it to the ref, it’s tough for the ref to bring out a red as he didn’t see the infraction. But because the official tells him it was a heinous offense a yellow is too lenient, so the ref shows the player a black card. This removes him, not for a paltry ten minutes – plenty of teams survive ten minutes with 14 players – but for 30 minutes. This should be plenty of time for the sinned-against team to put points on the board. Afterwards, the player is cited, but he and his team pay for his sin during the game.
OldManEmu said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Thank you Vinay – I could not agree more, and yes the Finnane incident truly is the last time it could be fairly said that a Wallaby committed an act of unprovoked thuggery.
Jerry I said unprovoked. The context of the Cannon Mealamu punch was that there had been significant pre game build up by Eddie Jones complaining about the ABS standing offside and holding onto players defending on the post. Mealamu did just that and so Cannon whacked him and then paid the price by being set upon by five ABs including King Carlos who threw punches while standing behind Chris Jack. Mate what Cannon did was not in the same universe of thuggery as an eye gouge or head stomp. Get real bro.
I am not saying that Australia is devoid of thugs – patently it is not and there are many violent louts in club, subbies and country Rugby; I have the scars, concussions and head to prove it – and in not too ancient history NSW/Qld games have been violent debacles. My point is that the Wallabies are abolute clean skins. It must come from somewhere. AND I am not saying this has always served the Wallabies well.
OldManEmu said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
The Tuquiri spear tackle was not thuggery – it was reckless and dangerous and stoopid and also ACCIDENTAL and derserved a good stretch on the sideline – but it was not thuggery.
Mr Grumpy said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
OME – Michael Brial’s attack on Frank Bunce in Brisbane in 1996.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOHRmmDkdBw
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
OME – if you’re gonna say that adopting the ‘guard dog’ position is provocation for a punch in the face, while arguing that the Wallabies are clean as the driven snow…well, you’re gonna come off as a bit of a dick. I don’t accept when All Black fans try to justify the BOD/Umaga incident by saying BOD was trying to use hands in the ruck. There’s illegal play and there’s illegal violent play and the former doesn’t justify the latter. And given Cannon was standing in front of the last man’s feet himself it’s also fairly hypocritical.
I suppose Richie McCaw ‘provoked’ Phil Waugh by tackling another player in 2006? Is that enough provocation for a swinging arm to the face? Did Richie also ‘provoke’ Lote by trying to run the ball up?
How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51-vckZrIE
Does Bunce raising his arm to try and fend off Brial ‘provoke’ about 10 unanswered punches (the fact that none of them hit is irrelevant)?
How about Nathan Grey on Richard Hill? Did Hill ‘provoke’ a forearm in the face?
You’re talking crap, the Wallabies have a fair bit of poor form over the years, just like any other international team.
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE7FvrKac10
1:05 for Phil Waugh’s swinging arm head high ‘tackle’. I say ‘tackle’ but actually McCaw didn’t have the ball, in fact he was the tackler, so I guess his daring to try to actually tackle a Wallaby is provocation enough.
Jacks Dad said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Burger constantly pushes the limits of acceptable play, a 6 month suspension would send a clear message to him others of his ilk. His coach needs to cop a significant fine & make a genuine apology.
All that said I must say that was the best test match i have seen in some time, a real physical battle with a sea-soaring lead, bloody marvelous stuff! Its Just a shame that it was tarnished by a couple of nasty incidents. Bring on the tri-nations!
Ben J said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
PdV backs his players, they are the world’s best team for a country mile and they just won a brutal test match against a Lions outfit who made their intent clear from the start. There are many instances where a Lions player could have been cited but Dick Muir said that they did not because they have another test to win on Saturday.
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
“Made their intent clear from the start?” What before the eye gouging incident in the first minute? There are a few incidents from the two tests where a Lion could be cited, but none of them would be on the same planet as Schalk’s. And speaking of other planets, that’s where De Puppet must come from.
And I’d wait and see how the TN goes before proclaiming the Boks to be the best.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Spiros, I’m afriad you’re starting to sound like Stephen Jones now (the journalist, not the flyhalf). I think the 8 week ban on Schalk is correct, because I do think it was reckless, not intentional. Here’s why…
Firstly, Schalk has a history of being a hard, sometimes reckless player, but not a dirty one. He’s also one of the true sportsmen in the game, the kind of guy who goes out for a beer with opposition players after a game (OK, maybe not with the Lions players). I think that should be taken into consideration.
Secondly, when you look at the video, Schalk is not looking at Luke, he’s looking away. I think he was trying to pull him out of the ruck, not deliberately trouing to goude his eyes.
I think given his history (as a sometimes reckless but not ditry player) and fact that he was pulling Luke out of the ruck while gouging his eyes, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and be punished for being reckless, and not for deliberately trying to gouge Luke’s eyes. And that’s not just my opinion (as a SA supporter), but also the opinion of the disciplinary hearing.
Greg Smith said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
I’ve just read an interesting ‘conspiracy theory’ site with 2 interesting idea’s –
1. Each union has a quota per season, of yellows, reds and citings – as per the IRB
South Africa drew 2 citings in one match, clearing the remainder of their 2009 season ?
Also this -
2. Burger drew the citing ’spotlight’ which was intended for Bakkies Botha ? Bakkies Botha was scripted a citing and the Bok camp thought 2 citings unlikely in one game. Burger may still save Botha, if his citing is overturned on appeal as condemnation has waned in the focus on Burger. In which case the Burger incident was as tactical success as Burger wasn’t likely to play in the 3N whereas Botha is a vital cog ?
Sinister stuff ! But, considering how the 2008 3N citings tripped up the Boks, not totally impossible ?
South Africa can’t be cited to death in every match ? It wouldn’t wash, nor would constant yellows & reds. Smacks of persecution and bias ?
Australia and New Zealand on the other hand ? Subtract McCaw or Giteau ? That’s a Test.
Graham said | July 1st 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Yep 6 months at least – and Bakkies never gets carded or put out long enough. Its good to see the game played hard, but not illegally – Botha should have been out for however long his victim is – and as for Burger…… life ban – really – if someone loses their eyes, they never get them back. Burger was having a red hot serious go and I cannot understand why he wasn’t red carded there and there. Sorry Etienne, when the drugs have worn off, go and have a serious look at the tape again – you don’t have to look to know your fingers are inserted in someones eyeball to your knuckles! Good call Spiros.
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
Quote from Brian O’Driscoll on the BBC web site
“When you think about a situation where a parent wonders about whether their child should play rugby or soccer, and you hear comments from a national team coach of that sort – and regardless of the apology he may have submitted – it’s essentially bringing the game into disrepute.
“We’re trying to promote the game, and yet you hear comments like that.”
Amen and spot on, the IRB should learn from last weekend and bring mandatory minimum bans for offences to the head and wilful dangerous play. I don’t think anybody can argue with that.
OldManEmu said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
No Jerry I am not talking crap I am providing my opinion based on well reasoned foundation. So I will walk you through it.
Unprovoked thuggery – def’n: eye gouging, head stomping, punching in the back of the head, kicking and so on.
The law in relation to injuries suffered on the sporting field says that people who choose to play a violent physical contact sport consent to very high levels of violent acts being committed against them, provided that the acts are not so far outside the laws of the game as to be against the spirit of the game. Now each of what has been described, Waugh x2, Brial – in my view they are not so far outside the laws of the game as to be against the spirit of the game. Brial gave Bunce a nasty case of wind burn and nothing more, and in context it was retaliation for a hell of a cheap shot from Bunce who ran twenty metres into the side of Brials ribs, Brial lying prone in a ruck.
To use your phrase, “illegal violent play” is less than unprovoked thuggery. I hope this clears it up for you.
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
Spiro honestly. You’re doing a survey to garner readers opinions to determine how better to moderate comments on this site, yet you post a pathetic biased article like this which is clearly going to a) get lots of hits and b) incite lots of extreme views on both sides of this argument. Can anybody take your survey seriously?
You’re like a wild West lynch mob. “Forget what a judiciary decided, they don’t agree with what I think so they obviously got it wrong.” Don’t you think it odd that virtually the same judiciary would ban Hines for what many even in SA think wasn’t such a bad tackle, Botha for what many even in the UK feel was just a typical clean out, and then be so lenient on Burger? They are the judiciary and the moment we start overruling them, we might as well just don our six shooters and do away with courts of law. I’m not trying to defend Burger. If he’d have gotten 6 months as you suggest, I’d have shrugged and said “well he probably deserves that then”. It’s this “I know better than the judiciary” theme that is building when all teams have had their moments. Take that spear tackle of Thorn on Smit as an example. That should have gotten a long layoff too, but it didn’t and we in SA didn’t like it, but accepted the decision of the judiciary. It wasn’t appealed by SA, we didn’t lay a charge of assault against Thorn. So for a judiciary that had been quite severe on others in this Lions tour there must have been good reason. Let’s see what the report says first shall we?
And lastly your clear anti-SA bias (much like your clear anti-UK press bias) comes out again in the broad brush of declaring that SA are thugs because Botha is a thug. Every dominant team has a ‘thug’ as you put it, a mongrel, with a history of questionable moments but it doesn’t colour the entire team as such. The England WC team had Martin Johnson (and now, it would seem, Sheridan), SA has Botha, Aus had Owen Finegan (and that other dirty lock, Justin Harrison, who made that racist comment against one of our players), and NZ have Thorn. So you can keep your broad brush and holier than thou attitude.
But I’ve no doubt this article will get you lots of sympathetic eyes, feed your anti-SA bias and drive up the hit (and advertising) counter nicely for the month of July. But I struggle to take that survey of yours seriously now. These flame articles suggest that moderation of comments is the last thing you actually want.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Hi Graham. No need to get personal bud… or exaggerate (“up to his knuckles”). I also thought when I saw it “geez Schalk, I know you’re not looking but surely you can feel that you’re at the guy’s eyes!”. All I’m saying is that I don’t think it was his intention to go there, but that he ended up there while pulling Luke out of the ruck, and that he should’ve immediately let go once he realised he was near the guy’s eyes. I don’t think any player, with 10 cameras on him at all times, is stupid enough to deliberately go for someone’s eyes (no comments about all rugby players being stupid please).
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
I DO think it would help the situation immensely if Schalk would just make a statement apologizing for what happened.
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
Er – did you watch the clip? Bunce had the ball when Brial started swinging. Bunce didn’t even touch Brial in the ruck, he picked up the ball and tried to run it. The incident was started when Brial copped an accidental forearm when trying to tackle him. How does the fact that Brial can’t punch for shit affect whether it was thuggery? Fitzgerald wasn’t injured by Burger, does that excuse him?
And what’s the difference between a punch to the back of the head or the front? Just cause you’re in front of someone, doesn’t mean they’re gonna react in time to prevent getting king hit.
M. Adeel Carelse MMM said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:15pm | Report comment
I have to agree with most sportfans. Schalk was lucky not to be shown a red card and that the punishment appears to be somewhat lenient. Being a hardened Western Province supporter, it is not easy to take our own people to task when they mess up, however in the interest of the game and sportmanship we have to accept that this type of behaviour should not be seen on sport fields. let us put a different slant on the issue, are we talking about the same British and Irish Lions that came to South Africa in 1974 with probably the biggest bunch of thugs collectively. And while we are talking about it, let us discuss their infamous 99 code word, which essentially meant that every South African was fair game………Let us discuss the history of this series and maybe get to the root cause of the intensity of the competition between these two teams….. Looks like we will be taking on the Aussies and the Kiwis without one of our best loosies. If that is it what needs to be done to clean up the game, then so be it….. Cheers
OldManEmu said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
No offence taken Jerry. You dont know me from a bar of soap so your comment is what it is and does not reflect in any way on me.
The retaliation I was referring to was for an incident that occurred in a prior game old mate. A bit of research or knowledge beyond YouTube is a wonderful thing. Bunce ran from his position at inside centre and charged into Brial who had his ribs exposed – it was a dog act and if we are being serious here, unprovoked thuggery. Brial remembered it and the next chance he got to throw a few at Bunce he took it. And of course the fact that Brial could not crack wheat affects things. No harm was done – Bunce could have dropped the ball, stepped back and thrown a few himself. He did not need to because he wsa not getting hurt. There are different levels of criminal offence, assault and then next assalt occasioning actual bodily harm, and then next aggravated assualt and so on.
If you cannot tell the difference between punching someone when they cannot see you, and punching someone when they can see you, well I cant explain it to you. But try this demonstration at home (you really should try it) – get one of your mates to stand in front of you and give you, I dont know, half a second warning that he is going to clobber you. Okay – done that. Now tell your mate that you want him to come up to you a few days later, without warning and give you his best shot right into your cerebellum. Okay. Oh sorry; I have made a massive assumption in asking you to attempt this demonstration, one of the variables is absent in your situation.
Have a nice day Jerry
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 5:55pm | Report comment
The dickhead comment was provoked, so it’s ok.
So Bunce driving into Brial in a ruck IS unprovoked thuggery? How does that fit into your “not so far outside the laws of the game as to be against the spirit of the game” test? Cause as far as I see it, hitting a ruck is a shitload more ‘in the spirit of the game’ than teeing off on someone with a barrage of unanswered punches.
On the subject of punching someone from in front – what I actually said was that cause someone is in front of you doesn’t mean you can react when they punch you – for a start you might not actually be looking at them. Does it really look like Mealamu did anything to avoid the Cannon punch? And you’re also gonna have to explain to me how what Waugh did is much less dangerous than punching someone from behind. He’s behind McCaw who’s got no reason to expect anyone to be tackling him in that situation, much less a swinging forearm to the face. If that’s not thuggery, then neither was Richard Loe’s hit on Paul Carozza – in fact, given you’ve excluded Super rugby or provincial rugby from your criteria, then Richard Loe is a bastion of fair play for the AB’s. We can’t use his eye gouging on Greg Cooper as evidence, after all. Great!
Basically your definition is completely self-serving and inconsistent, other than the basic rule of ‘if a Wallaby did it, then it’s not thuggery’.
Kevin, Meath said | July 1st 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
I mistook the Burger incident when I first saw it, i thought well he will be cited and it will be 12 weeks at least, IRB minimun and given Quinlans ban. I didn’t realise that Burger was just helping Fitzgerald out of the ruck, nice fella, and his mum says he a lovely boy so ban should be reduced.
My little fella want to start minis, his mum (from a GAA background) not sure, my case was not helped by nice Mr Burger.
People should take their nationalist tainted glasses off. PDV should have come out and said it was wrong and will be punished move on, instead simply fed fuel to the flames. There is a big problem with inconsistent penalties,IRB min is 12 weeks for offences on the low order,so presumablely this is even lower than that. So the Canadian cite officer agrees that a slightly clumsy helping hand was being given.
Botha very unlucky, presumably his mum didn’t attend and say hes a good little boy, but what he did is illegal and dangerous but it is done regularly and goes unpunished, if you watch a play back of the very game i expect you will find instances from both sides. His reputation, deserved or not got him his ban.
OldManEmu said | July 1st 2009 @ 6:41pm | Report comment
When did I say or infer that if a Wallaby commits an act it is not thuggery Jerry? You have raised some incidents and I believe I have argued why they are not unprovoked thuggery. If you can point to one Wallaby rucking the head of an opponent, eye gouging, kicking, punching in the back of the head, spitting, pulling a prone player out of a ruck with such force that his hip flexor is torn from the bone or any other such incident then I will read closely and consider it.
Amateur Hour understood the point of my posting – it is not that obtuse. I was saying that without any blind thugs the Wallabys have generally speaking been regarded as a soft target over the last 25 years, with some notable exceptions.
stuff happens said | July 1st 2009 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
I have great sympathy for your argument Kevin, Meath.I have a 15 yr old who loves rugby but my wife thinks we’re basically all repressed thugs. He was concussed a few weeks ago (accident) so, you can imgine. She never watches rugby so I don’t think she knows about the Schalk.
I did make a half mistake the other week when I told her that Quinlan must rank as the most stupid Irish rugby player of all time.But I managed to waffle my way out of the’ who/why’ question.
Nird99 said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
Etienne,
Have a look at the video again mate. If Burger was trying to pull him out of the maul, then his arm (and hand) would have been over his body, or even over his neck. Not coming from the top of his head. His arm was in a relaxed position, not a position that indicated he was trying to do anything else other than attack the eys. Even when they rolled slightly back towards the maul his fingers and hand were still in contact with face and eyes. Go and stick your head back in the sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYONDg4J_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X__kjEjTNro&feature=related
Jerry said | July 1st 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
OME – watch that Phil Waugh clip and explain to me how that is any different than a punch to the back of the head other than the fact that he used his forearm. It wasn’t a tackle that slipped up, it wasn’t even a tackle – why was Waugh swinging at McCaw in the first place?
Rob said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:10pm | Report comment
Can you conceive of any sport in the world that would countenance the continuation of a player / participant’s inclusion in it’s ongoing activities – Hewitt eye gouges Roddick but will return in time for US Open, Tiger Woods eye gouged by Mickelson but holds on to win, not even the UFC (MMA) countenance such behaviour, are you SERIOUS, Burger has no place in modern professional sport, if you think otherwise you are in some fantasy reenactment of a 1950’s game on the high veldt, no amount of cross reference to other rugby incidents mitigates this act by Burger. IF he is selected to play a Test again then in my view you will know with complete certainty that the Springbok organisation not only condone Burger but nurture he and his kind, those willing to do the bidding of the high veldt dinasaurs no matter the means or methods. The game of Rugby has been dealt a sickening blow in front of a world audience, no doubt the Olympic Committee will be keen to have Ruby included in the Olympic program?
johnny-boy said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
For eye gouging Burger should rubbed be out of the game – period. Are some people deliberately trying to discourage mothers from letting their young boys take up rugby ?. Hello. Do you still want to have a game to go and watch in the future ?. The ARU should ban him from playing in Australia at least.
. I had also hoped that the blacks would reject the brutal bullying mentality white south africans had used on them for so many years – and rely on the strength of their minds and bodies that white south africans obviously dont have. Judging by De Villiers obviously not. Sadly it looks like they are just going to emulate their former oppressors. I guess that’s all they know. Freedom obviously didnt bring dignity.
It amazes me given Burger’s sister was apparently brutally raped not so long ago. You’d think he’d susbsequently have more respect for fellow human beings and doing the right thing. Apparently not. Some people are just too stupid to learn.
I had hoped that the more blacks that came in to the south african game the more athletic and skilled their team would be and consequent less reliance on cowardly dirty play, which the white springboks have employed for so many years to make up for their obvious physical limitations (in more ways than one
johnny-boy said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:30pm | Report comment
ps – if the black south africans do ever start to dominate south african rugby – using their minds and bodies – with dignity – the rest of us might as well pack up and go home. I’m not sure i want this to happen
westy said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
Johnny -boy and that will never happen. They overwhelmingly play football . they use their minds and bodies with dignity there to.
westy said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:35pm | Report comment
thank heavens for small mercies at least hoppa confined himself to a finger up an opposing player’s anus.
Ian Noble said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:42pm | Report comment
The crux of this debate is what happens from now on. The citing commissioner is independent from both teams and reviews the game and looks at incidents that have picked up by the ref or have been missed by the officials. His decision to cite is his decision and his alone. The cited team can appeal against the decision. It takes the debate out of the heat of battle and allows for proper reflection.
The real problem here is poor guidance from the IRB, the sanctions both on the pitch and post the match should be clear and undoubted. It will help the ref if for example the sanction for gouging whether actual or attempted is clear. then he can not be criticised if he dismisses a player in the first minute of the test match.
Players like Burger always play on the edge and it would be sad if they were lost to the game, but they also need clear guidance and if they continue to transgress then the sanctions must be clear and severe with the threat of life ban for continual offending. I also agree with Rob that rugby is becoming an important world wide sport and the reponsibilty on the games administrators to maintain the balance between the physical elements of the game and it continued appeal is greater than ever before. I hope 7s makes the Olympics but poor leadership by the IRB could derail it.
Ben J said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:43pm | Report comment
Johnny-boy
I am amazed how you managed to get rape, eyegouging,race,physical limitations and apartheid history all in one post. Fantastic.
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Rob – and we will draw the same inference if Quinlan ever gets selected for Ireland or Parisse for Italy, mmkaay?
What’s at issue here is your interpretation of the incident. Just because you say it was intentional, doesn’t make it intentional. Nor does it make Burger a thug, nor does it mean the Springbok organization condone such violence. Sorry to burst your bubble. It’s simply your opinion – which you have every right to. The judiciary happens to disagree with you, and that’s unfortunately the decision you’ll have to find some way to live with.
I don’t hear the Lions fans appealing to the Irish Rugby Union to ban Quinlan for life. Funny that. And yet if you look at the evidence of Quinlans offense, it’s far worse: “The Times of London reports that Cullen appeared at the post-match press conference with a welt stretching from below his eye to his forehead.” Fitzgerald had no such long lasting physical wound. And then just look at who stands up for Quinlan: “Paul O’Connell, Munster and Lions captain, doesn’t believe Quinlan would have intentionally eye gouged Cullen. ‘Quinny isn’t that type of guy,’ he said. ‘He is a tough player. It is the one thing he hasn’t got in his record book. If it looked bad, I am sure there was nothing in it.’” Oh my word! Is the Lions captain actually suggesting that it wasn’t as bad as it looked?! What a thug! Clearly he condones such behaviour in rugby. I’m disgusted! Funny how what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. Because if a Saffer says the same thing in defense of Burger, we’re in denial, we’re condoning violence in rugby, we’re all thugs, etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Talk about pot and kettle.
johnny-boy: Cry me a river. The focus on this incident is just beyond ridiculous now. That it will discourage mothers from letting their young boys take up rugby?! That’s just your own hysteria. Followed up quite closely in your response by your subsequent racist comments about whites. Nice one. And furthermore it’s not worthy of a response, so I won’t.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:09pm | Report comment
Nird99
Whether Schalk was pulling him out of the maul or not is a matter of opinion. There is evidence to suggest that he was merely pulling him out of the maul – the gouging hapened as Schalk was pulling Luke out of the maul after all – and there is evidence that he was in fact going for the eyes – his hand was on the guy’s face. A judiciary hearing, who’s JOB it is to deal with this sort of thing and go over every detail (which we also have thanks to You Tube) as well as every testimony (which we DON’T have) and make a decision. And their decision was clearly that it wasn’t intentional, but that it was reckless.
I appreciate that you based your argument on what you observed and not on your opinion of Schalk (which is a lot more than most people are doing), although I don’t agree with it (as I explained above). What I don’t understand is why you decided to get personal at the end, or how that enhances your argument. Go stick my head in the sand? If you’re going to get personal, at least use your real name… Nird99.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:11pm | Report comment
Johnny boy
I think it’s disgusting that you brought the rape of Schalk’s siter into this. You should be ashamed. Do you really think your dislike for Schalk justifies doing that? Come on… stick to comments about rugby, and leave the guy’s family out of it.
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
“I don’t hear the Lions fans appealing to the Irish Rugby Union to ban Quinlan for life.”
There have actually, on other blog sites. If you’re referring to this site, I don’t think there’s been any Lions fans saying he should be banned for life. Like the Quinlan case, people have been calling him to be banned for life, on other sites.
“Is the Lions captain actually suggesting that it wasn’t as bad as it looked?”
You could say double standards had he commented on the Burger case, which I don’t think he has.
USRugbyFan,
I don’t think you’ve ever commented on the Burger case, why? You seem intent on picking holes in other cases, and looking at the morals of other gouging cases, why? You seem to be defending the guy, why?
“But I read an article about him in Rugby World, a British publication, that lauded him for “learning” and “maturing” from his actions”
Perhaps, it’s the fact that Burger is an experienced international and a person who sets an example. This was also in a huge international game, Harley’s took place in a GP match. Perhaps Rugby World want to interview him again, and therefore don’t want to put something that causes offence to Hartlet. If you’ve seen the Hartley one, it’s a disgraceful act of thuggery and fully deserved the six month ban he got and perhaps should have got more. If people on this site saw that incident, I’m sure the same people imploring Burger being banned for life, they would have the same opinion if they saw the Hartley one.
“Hartley will probably go on to represent England soon, and none of you have said boo about that. I think it’s a bit hypocritical.”
He already has represented England quite a few times and it’s not hypocritical if they haven’t seen it. I’ve only seen the incident twice and I live in England The clip is not up on youtube, so I very much doubt many people on here have seen it.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
Double standard
Darryl – that’s a good comment on Quinlan. I didn’t even know that he was suspended for gouging (I just knew he was suspended). How is it possible for that to fly under the radar (where the victim was actually injured) while Schalk’s case (where Luke got up and went on with the game) gets blown up out of proportion? Also, why is it OK to defend Quinlan’s character but not Schalk’s?
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
“How is it possible for that to fly under the radar”
Well, that’s the Southern Hemisphere press for you. It was publicised heavily in the Northern Hemisphere and was heavily condemned, by the press and fans alike.
pothale said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
Etienne – how is it possible for Quinlan’s ban to fly under the radar? where have you been living since the beginning of the tour? Quinlan’s ban was writ large in headlines across all media before the tour set off, partly because it happened in a high-profile match.
I would agree with the comparison between his and Burger’s offence. The difference is that his coach and all the Lions coaches never sought to downplay the incident or to make light of it. They waited for officialdom to make its decisions, and when they did, dropped him from the tour and brought in Croft. No messing.
The Burger problem is not Burger – instead it has been blown entirely out of proportion by PdV response. If he had simply said that gouging has no part in the game – and nothing else that smacked of defending Burger – and waited for the result from the citing commissioner this would have been much better. It’s a very poor management of communications – by him, and those around him. He is completely responsible for this incident blowing up in his face with the SARU then forcing him to sign up to a statement condoning gouging.
PdV as the rightly victorious coach should never have put himself in this position – and what’s worse – he didn’t need to.
He went out on his white charger, defending the indefensible. The smart thing to do was distance himself from Burger’s actions, wait for the citing commissioner, and take the heat out of the situation, and move the focus on to the victory. He has whinged that Lions management haven’t congratulated them on their victory – they did actually – but as the victors PdV needs to realise that it would be more gracious to wait until the series was over, rather than casting the third test into the realm of ‘ultimate dead rubber’, and haranguing your guests to say thank you and well done before the Test series is over. This is the guy who makes no apologies for withdrawing all his test players from the provincials despite a commitment in advance by SARU to do so. As an aside, PdV has not congratulated the Lions on remaining undefeated on their tour prior to the tests. Nor should he – until the series is over.
Black Kettles in Green Houses shouldn’t throw Pots at Stones – as PdV might say himself.
Colin N said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:42pm | Report comment
Another thing about Quinlan: He actually showed remorse for his actions and appologised to Leo Cullen after the match, despite losing to their closest rivals in the Heineken Cup semi-finals. Burger didn’t seem to do this.
I still fervently believe Quinlan should have got longer, but it’s perhaps the reason why Cullen and his teammates didn’t condemn his actions as much.
Etienne said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:45pm | Report comment
Hi Colin
Agreed, this whole thing would quiet down much more quickly if Schalk actaully came forward and apologized. I’m not sure why he hasn’t done that, if not in public then at least to Luke in person. Maybe he’s been a bit overwhelmed by the rabid media response, but I still think he needs to do it.
Darryl SA said | July 1st 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Colin N:
If that’s the case, then why have a go at Burger and South Africans in general as if we’re the only ones who commit such deeds. That’s the hypocrisy that has insensed me and led me to respond on the threads this week. It’s just outrageous to read some of the comments against Burger, and South Africans in general, when people from all countries have done similar (and I would argue, in Quinlans case – worse!) deeds.
“You could say double standards had he commented on the Burger case, which I don’t think he has.”
That’s not the point, as to whether he personally has said anything. If the case was as widely publicized there in the UK, then others have to have read O’Connels excusing of Quinlands deed. Including his fellow countrymen, like O’Driscoll. Then why such a vehemant response to De Villiers defending of Burger. Now I grant you De Villiers doesn’t always say things as clearly as he should, but remember that English is not his first language. But regardless of my own feelings about De Villiers, which are not entirely favourable, I would never expect that he’s actually condoning eye gouging. But the press run with that, and react to it dissecting his statements with surgical precision, and hanging on every syllable. Yet not more than a few months ago, their own Lions captain effectively said the same thing: “If it looked bad, I am sure there was nothing in it.” That’s effectively what De Villiers was saying. Yet he gets crucified for this. Surely the Lions media were not all ignorant of the O’Connell comment.
It’s all just too convenient, and very hypocritical. Thank you for your reasonable response. My own responses have largely been based on the (what I consider to be) exaggerated response from Lions fans on these threads to the Burger incident. There is no South African I know of that condones or would encourage his son, or brother to play rugby beyond the rules, as per eye gouging. Incidents do happen but to constantly paint all South Africans with the same broad brush is just tiring. I will admit that South African rugby suffered a particularly bad period under Straueli – ala the Red Mist day at Twickenham, the coaches that have succeeded Straeuli (particularly Jake White) have largely cleaned up that act, and cannot be accused of foul play anymore than any other country. Reading some of the exchanges between others on this site has been very enlightening in that regard. Personally I feel this Burger incident has been blown completely out of proportion, and to me it feels just too convenient. As if it’s a convenient excuse to hang onto to excuse other frailties. But that’s not really my place to comment.
For what it’s worth, I had great respect for this Lions team prior to their arrival, and felt that McGeechan had selected the perfect mix to combat the Springboks strengths. I was disappointed we bubble wrapped our Springboks in the pre test matches. I’ve been disappointed to read some of the Lions players responses re the Burger incident as if it explained the series loss, but this Lions team took some doing to beat. I never thought the Springboks would thrash the Lions as some Lions fans have suggested was our expectation, and I think seeing the Lions efficiency in the pre test matches made me more worried than ever about whether we had what it took to beat the Lions. This Lions squad can be proud of how they played, inasmuch as I will be proud of the series victory.
I will admit however that I am still hoping we win emphatically on Saturday just to squash any naysayers.
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
Is this the same Schalk Burger who grabbed the testicles of George Smith or am I confused?
Darryl SA said | July 2nd 2009 @ 2:23am | Report comment
KO: Yep, but only in your parallel universe where he also has horns and a tail.
In this universe that’s just more of your unfounded accusations facaded as fact.
*yawn*
Jerry said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:10am | Report comment
Darryl – in one of last years Wallabies/SA matches George Smith quite clearly and audibly accused Burger of grabbing his nuts – there was never any citing arising from this, but there is some basis for the accusation.
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:15am | Report comment
Oh dear, the ol’ Springbok ‘more sinned against than sinner’ theory raises it’s hideous head. Ugly at best and negligent at worst.
Obviously I’m not the only person who recalls this base incident, Daryll:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2008/08/26/maneaters-fail-at-rugby/
Viscount Crouchback said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:18am | Report comment
I think Burger is a classic example of how a violent society can turn a man slightly insane. In that sense, he represents all South Africans. They are all bonkers because their society is bonkers. They remind me of the Russians or Iranians – utterly paranoid and deranged and wholly incapable of taking an objective outlook on events.
Darryl SA said | July 2nd 2009 @ 3:46am | Report comment
KO: Thanks for the URL, I’ve always considered The Roar to be very fair and objective when covering South African issues. Why just today Spiro posted another zinger suggesting Schalk be banned for 6 months. Funny enough Schalks best defense in that article you pointed me to comes from the man sinned against (to use one of your cliched and overused idioms) … where George Smith says: “That’s not your go, Schalk – you’re a better player than that.” No George, according to KO he’s not. Please get that straight. Difference is George knows Schalk personally and you only read about him in the papers.
Viscount: If I’ve told you once I’ve told you a million times to stop exaggerating.
Anyway, thanks guys it’s been fun. But now I’m just wasting time here. I’ll be back after the next test, when there will no doubt be more wild accusations, excuses and exaggerations by the usual suspects that will need to be countered. After all I have no choice – what’s that saying, “Evil prospers when good men do nothing.”
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:02am | Report comment
It’s Shakespeare, Darryl. He’s quite big in England, perhaps you should check him out on Wikipedia sometime.
Yes, George probably does know Burger better than I do, but now he’s a recedevist and fully deserving of a lengthy ban.
How fitting, and ironic that you would end with this beaut:
“Evil prospers when good men do nothing.”
Which is why Burger and his ilk deserve the public demonisation they receive. What a negligent and peculiar attitude you wield.
Greg Smith said | July 2nd 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
Just read that Schalk Burger apparently had Luke & a number of the Lions ask him about his sister in the tunnel ?
A sick wind up, if ever I’ve heard one. (She was raped a while back)
No justification… but poor form from the Lions ?
USRugbyFan said | July 2nd 2009 @ 5:38am | Report comment
Colin N: I’m not defending Burger at all, it was undoubtedly wrong and stupid. I’m merely responding to the attitude of certain posters who seem to be frothing at the mouth for him to be taken out back and shot, as if he’s the only rugby player who has ever done this sort of thing. The Hartley/Rugby World example I used to try and illustrate how perhaps the British press is being a bit biased in it’s criticism of Burger and by extent the Springboks, when British players themselves aren’t innocent at all.
Knives Out said | July 2nd 2009 @ 6:55am | Report comment
I fail to see the bias, USRugbyFan, unless you can find examples of the British press & fans condoning the actions of Hartley and Quinlan. All you have done is found an article that praised a maturing attitude from a young man who had received a 6 month ban for committing a despicable act. Hardly earth shattering unless of course the article in question actually suggested that his ban was too severe or that gouging was not, and is not, a problem. Hartley received his just desserts and hasn’t acted in a manner since so to suggest that ‘British players themselves aren’t innocent at all’ has no parallel whatsoever to Burger. Burger has now committed two of the worst rugby sins in the period of a year: testicle grabbing and gouging.
Jerry said | July 2nd 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
OME – Still waiting re: the above – “watch that Phil Waugh clip and explain to me how that is any different than a punch to the back of the head other than the fact that he used his forearm.”
Charles in Adelaide said | July 2nd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
I emailed the South African rugby people to let them know how disgusted I was by Burger’s behaviour and his punishment. In fact, having settled in to watch the match late at night I immediately turned it off. I am so sick and tired of blatant, premeditated foul play by the South Africans.
Interestingly, I couldn’t find an email address on the IRB website so I was unable to share my thoughts with them. Doesn’t say much about which century the IRB thinks it’s operating in!
I’d love to see Burger sued for assault, but he’d probably get a lenient court in South Africa. I also think players who want to act that way should be rubbed out of the game. Botha is another case in point.
It’s time the punishment matched the crime.
Meanwhile, Lote Tuqiri – whatever his current form – looks like he’s had his contract cancelled for some relatively minor social indiscretion. OK, so he’s a repeat offender and probably should be dropped from the Wallabies’ squad if he’s broken team protocols once more, but Burger gets eight weeks and Tuqiri’s kicked out of the game? Gimme a break!
David Benuik reports on The Roar that it’s “understood” Tuqiri hasn’t broken the law. If Burger did his eye-guging in a public place, he’d be up for assault quick-smart. So how about some consistency?
OldManEmu said | July 2nd 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Oh Gday Jerry, lovely to see you back on the boards.
Jerry said | July 2nd 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
Erm – never left, but was still wondering how you’re gonna argue that what Waugh did doesn’t fit within your definition, but I mean of course it CAN’T be thuggery if he’s wearing a yellow jersey.
Campbell Watts said | July 2nd 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
OME
You’ve got to admit your bias!
Every example people have given listing Wallaby thuggery – you’ve gone “oh no, THATS no thuggish”, then you’ve procedded to call lesser acts by non-wallabies thuggery.
ALL the examples people have listed have no place in the game and were pretty damn low acts, so pull ya head out of the sand and face facts – aussie players are just as capable of thuggery as the next bloke.
CV said | July 2nd 2009 @ 8:38pm | Report comment
Interesting to see how SARFU are handling this business – their website has an ‘infringements’ video highlighting a number of incidents on their players in a rather pointless exercise that smacks of the worst kind of propaganda…the honourable thing would be to put out a proper statement rather than trying to deflect from Burgers behaviour in such a cynical way…As a past Player of the Year you’d have thought the hard man would have a bit more about him and put his hands up.
…as for PDVs rather wonky views…the man’s deluded and needs to go to save face….
Ian Noble said | July 2nd 2009 @ 11:57pm | Report comment
Greg
How convenient another smoke screen, as Burger if I recall ran onto the pitch well in advance of the Boks (wasn’t it his 50th cap) and if I recall the Lions were already on the pitch it doesn’t seem to make sense. Whilst sorry to hear about Burger’s sister, particularly as I have four daughters, I don’t recall any media coverage in the UK about the incident and it would not surprise me if all the Lions were not aware of the it, as it happened 12 months ago.
pothale said | July 3rd 2009 @ 1:08am | Report comment
FYI, Knives. You commented that a quote came from Shakespeare.
“Evil prospers when good men do nothing” is actually attributed to John Philpott Curran, an Irish orator of some reknown. It’s also sometimes attributed to another Irish orator and politician, Edmund Burke who said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Whether this should be applied to Burger et al is another story.
Knives Out said | July 3rd 2009 @ 1:40am | Report comment
Thanks for the heads up, Pothale, but I was referring to the King Lear quote (More sinned against than sinner). Interesting nonetheless. I am a fan of Pub Quizzes so I shall keep Mr. Burke in mind.
pothale said | July 3rd 2009 @ 2:33am | Report comment
Ah – I wasn’t sure what it referred to. My mistake.
Ben J said | July 3rd 2009 @ 7:56pm | Report comment
The news last night was that Schalk Burger was cleared by the judicial officer of eye goughing. I think an apology is in order mr Zavos…
Rob BB said | July 3rd 2009 @ 8:49pm | Report comment
In the same way as DarrylSA tried eloquently to bring some reason to this debate, I also tried to express my sheer disappointment and frustration that Burger’s ugly incident was being extended to demonise all South African rugby by Spiro Zavos and many others.
But then I did some thinking, and I realised that there never will be any balanced, rational thinking in these matters.
I have been living in Ireland for the last 10 years, and it’s given me an understanding of how these things work. Here are a few examples:
1) How do the Irish view the last Lions tour of New Zealand, and All Black rugby in general these days? Is there respect for the wonderful All Black rugby tradition, and of the convincing 3-0 Lions whitewash? No, unfortunately not. o’Driscoll’s speartackle and All Black rugby are still synonomous over here.
2) A lot of Gaelic sports fans in Ireland (which comprise this country’s two most popular sports, with rugby only 4th on the list) think of the Australians as a bunch of thugs, because of the violence in the International Rules series culminating at Croke Park in 2006. My flatmate, a doctor, vowed never to set foot in Australia as a result.
3) How do the Irish view the English rugby team? Well there’s bitterness that Martin Johnson made President Mary McAleese walk off the red carpet when he lined his team on the wrong side at the grand slam decider in 2003. And of course, there’s the wee not-so-current matters of the 14 gaelic supporters murdered at Croke Park in 1920 by the Black and Tans, and the 600 years of British subjugation.
Is any of this rational, and relevant to rugby in 2009? Does it do justice to the countries involved?
I am proud of how South Africa has transformed since 1994, I see better social integration every year when I go back, I see the great black rugby talent coming through at all levels. I know what it means to the country to have won the 2 world cups and how it helped bring the nation together.
I ‘ve experienced a fantastic Lions series of 2 great teams playing their hearts out to the final whistle.
But because of an indefensible act by one person. and the stupid subsequent comments by his coach, Spiro Zavos and the many others of you out there will succeed in convincing large parts of the world reeling in bitter disappointment at defeat in a close series, that South Africans are all a bunch of thugs and eye-gougers.
And it saddens me. But it’s some consolation that the English, New Zealanders, and Australians, are held in similar regard on this little green island.
Ian Noble said | July 4th 2009 @ 3:26am | Report comment
Rob
I believe the debate re Burger has moved on. It has become a wider debate about dangerous play in rugby and the need for the IRB to stamp it out. I don’t believe that crass post match comments by PdeV have helped but the IRB have been forced to look at the Burger incident and review their directives. As O’Driscoll implied in his comments the actions of top rugby has an impact outside the immediate arena and could have an adverse effect on the growth of the game.
My Irish friends tell me that rugby in the last few years has grown enormously in Ireland, reinforced by the recent grand slam. One of them suggested that it was pushing Gaelic sports hard because of it’s international dimension and in parts of the country was out performing football, perhaps too much blarney from them or the back stuff!!
pothale said | July 4th 2009 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Rob BB
Interesting to hear your take on matters re Irish view of things. Except it’s a little bit myopic. You hear what you want to hear. For the most part, people have forgotten about the AB tackle on O’Driscoll, and when it’s raised, it tends to get a large sigh and ‘oh please, not that again. People have moved on. AB rugby probabky has a distant respect, probably because they are undoubtedly the No 1 team in the world – SA’s recent victories notwithstanding. But New Zealand is waaaaay down there somewhere, and the 6 Nations are of much greater interest understandably.
Some Gaelic sports fans think the aussie rules team were a bunch of thugs for their actions in the series in 2006. And they’d be right. Last year, the series held in Australia was a far better affair with both countries setting out to ensure in advance that fair play permeated the test matches. They did and the series was a success. People generally have a lot fo time for the Wallabies – they’ve integrated themselves into the Irish rugby scene – witness Leinster this year with management and Elsom – and they are held in high regard – particularly because of the historial connection between the two countries.
The England rugby team are the team people want to beat – that’s the same with everyone. albeit in recent years – with 4 wins out of 5, the pressure’s off somewhat. France are now the team to beat – and I suspect Wales have become the new boo-boys in Irish rugby. Let’s face it, who are the best fans to go for a drink with afterwards? The English – by a mile.
Mary McAleese? Rehashed consistently by the media whenever the Irl v Eng game comes round – and no-one else cares.
Croke Park shootings 80 years ago?? Gimme a break. It got rehashed for the first game at Croke Park, and then got promptly dropped afterwards as a piece of historical anecdote – particularly after the exemplary behaviour of both sets of fans at the match – and of course the tanning we gave them!!
Couldn’t resist that.
Bottom line? if you’ve been here for 10 years, go talk with a few more people about what they really think as opposed to the inevitable exaggerated hype and xenophobic bile you often get on forums like these that bears little reality with what everyday people think everyday.
I love visiting South Africa, love the people, the place, the culture. Does Burger or PdV actions change any of this? Not in the slightest.
Rob BB said | July 7th 2009 @ 2:48am | Report comment
Fair comment Pothale & Ian Noble. I was getting a bit carried away.
I have become a fervent Irish rugby supporter over the years, 2nd only to the boks, and was as stressed & ecstatic as anyone else in green in Cardiff at the grandslam decider a few months back. Fans on both sides were as passionate as I’ve ever seen but exemplary in sportmanship after.
I think the vast majority of real rugby fans around the world are knowlegeable and broadminded. I think journalists often lower the bar, because scandal sells.
Congrats to the Lions on a well-deserved win on Sat. I think they were unlucky not to win the series, on balance and given the stats (I think the reverse was true in ‘97! ;o)
Sláinte
Knives Out said | July 7th 2009 @ 2:52am | Report comment
‘Let’s face it, who are the best fans to go for a drink with afterwards?’
Win or lose we’re on the booze, and if it’s a draw then we drink some more!
pothale said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Slainte tu fein, Rob BB. Go raibh maith agat.
Exactly, KO.
gavin said | July 20th 2009 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
instead of always moaning about a thug “deal” with him