Schalk Burger should receive six months, at least
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 1 Jul 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Bakkies Botha, british and irish lions, Bryce Lawrence, Byron Kelleher, International Rugby, Luke Fitzgerald, NZRU, Peter de Villiers, Rugby Union, Schalk Burger, Sergio Parisse, Tana Umaga, The British and Irish Lions, The Springboks, Victor Matfield
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- British and Irish Lions news
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.
Recommend this story.
July 1st 2009 @ 9:09am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 9:09am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 9:23am
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…..
July 1st 2009 @ 9:36am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 9:44am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 9:49am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 10:17am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 10:34am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 10:37am
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.
July 1st 2009 @ 11:07am
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.