By Spiro Zavos
July 8th 2009 @ 1:33am
Botha got justice, now the IRB must punish the SARU
British Lions' Mike Phillips, right, clears the ball as South Africa's Bakkies Botha, left, looks on during their international rugby union match at King's Park, Durban, South Africa, Saturday, June 20, 2009. AP Images
The decision of the Springboks to wear ‘Justice4Bakkies’ armbands was unprecedented, bizarre, Orwellian, and misguided. The IRB have finally decided to do something about the decision which it (correctly) states is a clear disregard of its disciplinary process and a matter that brings the game into disrepute.
I call the decision Orwellian because Bakkies Botha has been a serial offender on the rugby field who has too often got away with his thuggery.
To claim that it is unjust that he receives a two-week suspension for dislocating the shoulder of an opponent with an illegal charge distorts truth in a manner that Big Brother in 1984 would be proud of.
When I wrote about this for the Sydney Morning Herald, I received dozens of emails from irate South Africans, most of them living in Australia, taking the same line as the Springboks – that a grave injustice had been inflicted on Botha and that the Springboks were right to make their protest the way they did.
The argument most of them made was that it is common practice for players to clear out rucks with shoulder charges. The British and Irish Lions, the Rugby Club, and sundry other rugby people and institutions, they claimed also, all said there was nothing untoward about Botha’s action.
One correspondent even told me that Botha is a gentle man off the field.
I replied that so was Richard Loe but “try telling that to Paul Carozza’s nose.” Try telling the dislocated shoulder of Adam Jones, which required surgery to fix up, that off the field Botha is fine chap.
The fact of the matter is that you are not allowed to shoulder charge opposing players standing as pillars beside the ruck/maul, and if you charge into a ruck/maul you have to be bound with another player.
It is true that these laws are often not policed as thoroughly as they should be and players get away with these charges, as Botha has for years.
But what made this particular play actionable was the fact that an opponent was badly injured.
The injury raises the claim of reckless play, and reckless play which causes a significant injury invariably gets punished (or should be) with a suspension.
Think about this in terms of going through a red light.
Most times people go through red lights safely and nothing happens to them. But if you run into another car or a pedestrian while running a red light, you are in trouble.
In rugby terms, Botha ran a red light and hit someone. Hence he correctly got into trouble with a suspension.
For the Springboks to call his two-week suspension an injustice and to wear armbands calling for ‘Justice4Bakkies’ is misguided. It is also arrogant. It suggests that the Springboks believe that they are above the laws and processes of the game.
One South African supporter made the point that Botha isn’t the only hit man in international rugby. He cited Paul O’Connell, Simon Shaw, Phil Vickery, Justin Harrison, Brad Thorn, Stephen Moore and James Horwill. He did not mention Butch James, who should join any hitman list, too.
I wouldn’t go to bat for Justin Harrison, but the other players on the list, while being guilty from time to time of thuggish play (Simon Shaw should have got more than two weeks suspension for his crass kneeing of Fourie du Preez), do not constantly indulge in foul play the way Botha and Schalk Burger do.
In the Herald I wrote this: “Burger and Botha play the part of the hit men of the Springboks pack, the enforcers. They launch themselves, illegally like missiles into rucks and mauls. They constantly provoke opponents off the ball. They are persistent offenders in the rucks and mauls. Burger going off his feet to kill the ball and Botha coming in from the side and invariably lying on the opponents’ side of the ruck. They tackle around the head constantly.”
With this sort of history, it boggles the mind to think that the Springboks even entertained the idea of protesting the justice of the two-week suspension of Botha.
The hypocrisy in the call for justice is that it totally disregarded the real injustice done to Luke Fitzgerald with the risible eight-week suspension handed out to Burger for recklessly attacking his eyes.
In my view, and I’m sure that of others looking at the incident without bias, Burger was intentional as well as reckless in his attack on the eyes of Fitzgerald.
His fingers seemed to be gouging for a long time, and he did some damage to the eyes of Fitzgerald. As I posted earlier, Burger should have received a six-month suspension, at least.
No player or union is bigger than the game.
The IRB needs to send a strong message by way of a significant punishment to the South African rugby community that unrestrained and illegal might is not right.
Super 14 Tipping now live on The Roar. Join now.
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...
(107)
Knives Out said | July 8th 2009 @ 1:58am | Report comment
I recall the Springboks wearing Mr. Mandela’s prisoner number on their sleeve, and now we have the Springboks wearing a pro-Botha armband. There is a certain irony to that.
The whole issue revolves around the Springbok ego. Mr. Zavos made this statement in his column, ‘the arrogance and obsessive belief in the divine right of the Springboks to get their way on and off the field’ which I thought was quite an accurate analysis of the Springbok psychology. I have always juxtaposed the SA rugby attitude with the American notion of manifest destiny.
This Lions tour was an opportunity for SA rugby to prove its’ doubters wrong. Instead we have a series victory overshadowed by some worryingly ordinary performances, low attendance figures, an offensive head coach, a leading player involved in a serious incident of foul play and now a shockingly juvenile display of team support. It is now wonder that the Lions have been said to have won the hearts and minds of the rugby public.
Greg Smith said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:24am | Report comment
As eternal international pariah’s, South Africans merely feel they’re bending under heavy persecution in an unjust world.
Punish the Boks and they’ll be hailed as martyrs. If the IRB want to add ammo to the South African cause, they should punish South Africa as Spiro suggests.
Because I’m thinking South Africa might throw the 3N to put their own coach in the firing line, I hope the IRB will save this persecution device for closer to the 2011 RWC.
I recall South Africa’s 2007 RWC was kickstarted by the IRB clumsily manhandling them with a number of citings.
Spot the pattern ?
pothale said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:12am | Report comment
One query. I thought the armband read: Justice 4 All.
The 4 was a reference to Bakkies shirt number.
One could choose to take this ‘call to arms’ literally (no pun intended) and seek justice for the Burger punishment, the Shaw punishment as well as the Botha one. The IRB could choose to revisit the rulings in all three cases.
Wonder what the outcome might be?
jools-usa said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:47am | Report comment
A yellow is not enough for blatant hits, a la Boitha, Shaw, where not one teammate is anywhere near
to bind on?
Should be Red card – imagine what teammates think then as 14 guys struggle.
Use the Assist Ref for the witness.
Jools-USA
Photon said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:25am | Report comment
Spiro, all the great rugby sides have a enforcer, thug or whatever else you guys wanna call him. Furthermore this nitpicking where you say so and so (almost always a new zealander or a aussie) is only occasionally dirty is just bull caus at the end of the day either you’re an enforcer or you aren’t and Justin Harrison was right up there. But obviously you love why caus him caus he’s Australasian. The description you give of bakkies hs perfect, intimidation is the name of the game, if you had ever played in a tight five you’d know that. Pummel just one member of the opposition make em understand lying on the wrong side equals pain and watch the possession flow all afternoon. Bakkies is the sort of lock every pack wishes they had and at the same time they hate playing against. The opposition fans hate him and the bok fans love him. As for this weekend we deserve to be fined and I accept that, I just wish people would look past their biases and give credit where it’s due. Ah well maybe once he retires they will
Kevin, Meath said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:39am | Report comment
I wrote in a comment about an earlier article that I thought wearing the armbands was pathetic, the Iranian team wore them in protest about people being shot in the street, I remember the Welsh team a couple of years ago wearing them because the 2nd rows baby son had died and to highlight his charity, fair enough. To wear one where the player gets a very short ban for a challange that may or may not be illegal, a player who is not exactly a saint , swings and roundabouts springs to mind. If the Bokkes are so keen on justice I assume they will also ask for Burgers ban to be extended after all the min set by the IRB is 12weeks.
Nelson said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:45am | Report comment
“It is true that these laws are often not policed as thoroughly as they should be and players get away with these charges, as Botha has for years.”
understatement of the decade. when was the last time you actually saw someone bind at a ruck? it never happens and hasn’t for almost 10 years now.
the issue here is the complete and utter lawlessness of the breakdown in rugby which still hasn’t been resolved and the lawmakers continue to avoid the issue.
in addition to the vagueness around holding onto possesion, whether a defensive player can contest with hands etc at there is signficant ambiguity round the rules of engagement at the ruck, unlike the line of scrimmage in american fotball, for exmaple which is heavily policed.
by all means botha offended but it happens in every single ruck in every single match you will see.
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 5:16am | Report comment
“In my view, and I’m sure that of others looking at the incident without bias, Burger was intentional as well as reckless in his attack on the eyes of Fitzgerald.”
Haha, Spiro, that comment is just so funny. For some reason it brings to mind a schoolyard joke to do with “shooting your neighbours cat and asking for the pellet back.” You are the last person on this forum that could claim to be “without bias” when it comes to matters concerning South Africa. At least others on this forum wear their colours for all to see. Don’t be so shy. Just wear yours out in the open where we all can see them without pretending to be an objective source. You are anything but.
Anyway, nice teeing up for the Tri Nations. Good move. The more you harp on about this, the more everybody will be watching SA like hawks so your angelic Wallabies can fall on the wrong side of the tackle, use hands in the ruck, enter the ruck from the side and nobody will notice cos they’ll all be watching Bakkies and Burger to see if they so much as muss the hair of any Australian player. It’s sad cos I used to really enjoy your articles when I first started reading them on Rugby Heaven, but your bias has just become more and more obvious, and the only crime in that is that at the same time you claim not to be. Pffft.
RickG said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Your surname wouldn’t be Cullininan would it Dazza? Pffft indeed.
van der Merwe said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
I fail to see any “justice” in a suspension for a clean out/attempted counter ruck. Especially considering that we see something like this in virtually every match.
reds fan said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
Hahaha. There isn’t a person alive who isn’t without bias. It doesn’t mean their observations are always incorrect. To believe so would lead us down that path of post-modern relativism where no one is ever right and no one is ever wrong.
Some South Africans need to muscle up in an honourable way and acknowledge just what it is that their team has become.
cosmos forever said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Whether the ban was correct or not, whether people do it every game or not, whether players in the past have gotten away with it, whether the rules of the game should be changed; a national team wearing arm bands to protest the ruling of a judiciary is not only contemptible but ridiculous in the circumstances that he only got two weeks.
What are they going to do when a ref decision costs them a game – not turn up the next week?
Sooks.
Hammer said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
And here’s me thinking you’re meant to stop at red lights – not continue through and only get a fine if you hit someone …
if it’s illegal then they all should be penalised and punished on the field .. the practice should be policed properly – not hit and miss as it has been in this instance … or perhaps Botha’s a victim of not only his reputation but also sloppy refs in the S14 as it may be that in the north it is policed more … from the June tests I can think of Heaslip in the same test and Thomson in the 1st test against France getting pinged for the same offence … both by NH refs ….
…. but I love this bit “They are persistent offenders in the rucks and mauls. Burger going off his feet to kill the ball and Botha coming in from the side and invariably lying on the opponents’ side of the ruck.” …. didn’t you watch the Wallabies at all last year and this – Sharpe and Moore are serial offenders at this practice – it was Moore that singlehandedly kept NZ in the game at halftime in Hong Kong …. thank god the sanctions law got binned
Mr Sports said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:12am | Report comment
Hi Spiro
Another interesting read here but on this occassion i strongly disagree with you.
That Botha plays a robust brand of rugby is undeniable but the ‘offence’ that he got pinged for was marginal at best. Everybody knows that whatever the rulebook says that sort of behaviour is common at the breakdown. If Adam Jones doesn’t come away with a dislocated shoulder we probably don’t even hear about it.
I also don’t think it is fair to suggest, as you did in your SMH article, that somehow Botha’s offence should be consdiered simultaneously with Schalk Burger’s. Your rationale for that seemed to be that they both play a borderline game so anything one of them does in a game should aggregate anything the other does?
Burger clearly has a problem. There is no defence to eye gouging and he should be banned for much longer than 8 weeks. However to say that Botha deserves two weeks becuase he did something in the same game in which Burger engaged in eye gouging is unfair.
Also for clarity’s sake let me point out that i am not simply another South African whinging about injustice. I am a Waratah’s supporter who lives in Canberra and i still feel that Botha was hard done by.
All that ebing said, i thoroughly enjoy reading all teh discussion on this webiste and hope it continues
Mr Sports
JamesB said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Botha was rather unlucky to receive 2 weeks for an offence that can only fall under the classification of a “grey area” at ruck time, though clearly the Boks have handled this in the wrong manner instead of following this through the correct process available to them. The coaching staff must have sanctioned the wearing of arm bands which only makes this worse, and the IRB must show some teeth on this issue or risk looking weak. I suspect the SARFU will cop a fine and receive a thick ear!
I saw an interesting piece of footage – AB’s v England 2004, which showing Simon Shaw receiving a yellow card for using his knees on an opponent at a ruck. Maybe the referee had also seen that same incident.
Brett McKay said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
There seems to be a lot of overlooking the main issue here. Forget whether the penalty was technically correct or not, and forget whether Botha should or shouldn’t be suspended. The facts are that Botha WAS suspended, and the South African team lodged a protest in the most public and innappropriate way, ignoring the correct channels and avenue for appeal. It’s akin to blatantly ignoring the referee’s decision on the field and just carrying on regardless. If the IRB buckles on this the way the ICC often do, there may as well be no citings or judical process.
Terry Kidd said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Hey Darryl SA what is your opinion of the Burger incident? Was it intentional or not in your opinion? I saw it and I believe it was entirely intentional. There is no way that was an accident. I played rugby for many many years in the forwards and I could count on one hand, maybe only 2 fingers, where a finger of mine possibly contacted an opponents eye …. and that would have been one finger, for a split second, and was entirely accidental. Sorry but there is absolutely no way that I can see that multiple fingers, hooked into eye sockets, for a prolonged period is in any way accidental. Burger should have been wiped out for at least 6 months.
Bakkies may be a hard man but he is also a cheap shot merchant. It is amazing how many times he manages to cream someone when they are unaware. Is that heroic? Not likely. Would I like him on my team? No mate, Bakkies is not the type of player I would enjoy playing with.
Cats said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
are you scared he might hurt you little boy?
katzilla said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
I don’t mind Botha or his way of playing the game. And i also think it was a borderline call, and im happy for it to go either way, if not for a man being injured i’d take Bothas side rather then the fence. Which means I agree with Spiro’s red light analogy.
But the wearing of the armbands and the harping on about it is petulant at best.
He got ruled against, take it on the chin and get on with it.
Thorn dumped Smit into the ground last year and got 2 weeks, no one cried, no arm band wearing as if small children were dying of starvation. Nope, just carried on without being a team of cry babies towards another 3N title.
Harden up SA.
Vincent said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:01am | Report comment
At a really basic level when I’m playing park rugby, I have yet to see anyone penalised for that sort of clearing the ruck. I have watched it so many times at the Super 14 level and Test level that I myself have appllied the ‘charge into ruck with shoulder to clear’ without binding to anyone whatsoever and have never been penalised. Truth be told when I first saw the incident, I was puzzled what the offence was? But give me the written law and apply it accordingly then it comes to light. My point is that the law is rarely applied to the letter on this point of clearing the ruck and we see it al the time although not with the outcome of dislocated shoulders as in Bakkies case.
Spencer said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
I think Darryl and other south africans are missing the point. whether Bakkies is guilty or not isn’t the main point of contention. I see two issues; 1. Bakkies reputation caught up with him. 2. The protest mechanism used by John Smit & co. isn’t acceptable in rugby. Soon we will have players challenging & man-handling referees on the field.
I know South Africa well, and it is about time South Africans & their organizations developed some maturity in dealing with international affairs.
The Phantom said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
Just to change direction slightly – It is my understanding that the IRB are keen to cleanse the game by eliminating the sort of play that will make mothers think twice about allowing their children to play rugby.
While I fully understand this the IRB have issued an edict banning rucking from the game, which in my opinion has dramatically slowed the game down and resulted in the need for the creation of the ELV’s in an attempt to encourage more attacking play.
If they want to clean up the game to broaden the appeal around the world then ban Berger, Parese et all for a minimum of six months and stop people killing the ball at the break down.
Rolling Maul said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:24am | Report comment
Talk about opening a hornets nest… Spiro… don’t go upsetting saffers.. they are above reproach! The armband wasn’t so surprising from SA.. more laughable and attention seeking. Armbands have a place in sport for justifiable reasons, someone mentioned politics, deaths or respect.. but because someone got suspended… we are so persecuted.. the injustice.. the horror. IRB – tell em to pull their heads in.
Jameswm said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:32am | Report comment
Spiro I just can’t agree with you on the illegality of Botha’s actions.
Firstly – it was NOT a shoulder charge. His arms were up and his body was square -on, not side-on. The only thing he did “wrong” was not bind before entering a ruck, and I’ve never seen this even penalised, let alone sanctioned further.
On that issue of binding before entering a ruck – sure, this might be written in the rule book but it almost never happens in reality at any level. The Lions players did exactly what Botha did in the following test and there was no penalty, nor any comment. It’s called counter-rucking.
Sure, it’s unfortunate that someone was injured. And I’m not denying the other acts of thuggery Botha has committed. But you have to judge each individual episode on its merits, and the suspension was a complete joke, and done by someone who IMHO must have had an agenda.
Burger’s actions had nothing to do with Botha’s and I agree he should have got longer. But if I were Botha’s team-mate I’d feel aggrieved too.
Mr Sports – how do you survive being a Waratah supporter living in Canberra?
MikeN said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Spiro
Firstly I am not a supporter of SA rugby and agree with just about everything you say about SA rugby and Botha.
My only issue is that the ‘clean out’ is an area where there seems to be a lot of leeway given in most cases and deciding that one ‘clean out’ is worthy of suspension while other equally dangerous efforts go unsanctioned is inconsistent and unjust. I saw a number of similar ‘clean outs’ by the ABs against France in the second test, and the fact nobody was injured was lucky, and nobody was cited for them. The fact that Jones got injured is really bad, but it should not have been a factor in the review of the incident.
I believe the ‘clean out’ should be better defined and policed. I am appalled at what is done in the name of ‘cleaning out’. Jones shouldn’t have been injured because that type of ‘clean out’ should not be allowed. But it should not be allowed in any match.
So while I think that Botha is a thug he should not have been suspended in this case. His history should not have been a factor in this case either.
I think that SA rugby should be hammered for the armbands. Not every decision, on or off the field, goes the way it should but you need to respect the decision of the person in authority or anarchy rules. If they wanted justice for Botha, then they should also want justice for Burger, and that would mean a significantly increased penalty for Burger.
Justin said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:43am | Report comment
For me some people on here are looking at the result (ie the injury to Jones) rather than the process (the actual cleanout). You cant do that. Injuries occur in body contact sports both in legal actions and illegal.
Botha should never have been cited but perhaps its Karma. The whole SA protest merely makes the Boks the laughing stock of the week.
Marty said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Spiro,
Spot on again.
Botha is the cheapest player in world rugby. He deserves the 2 weeks due to his track record. Look at when he “cleared out” (human missle) sterling mortlock by blindsiding him with a forearm to his head sending him from the field concussed. Botha’s track record is terrible. Sure it’s great to have one of these players on your side, to intimidate the other team but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he is a cheap shot merchant and deserves everything he gets. “Good bloke though”….yeah all the people he’s blindsided agree…
South Africa need to pull their heads in, and just play footy.
Jerry said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Marty – I agree Botha is a recidivist niggle merchant (though not generally a thug), but that doesn’t justify a suspension for something that is for all intents and purposes legal.
SouthernWaratah said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:57am | Report comment
I’m mot sure it’s just a rugby thing but a South African thing in general. During the cricket season just gone I got sick and tired of SA commentators suggesting another record run chance was on the cards, 5-230 chasing 400 and the commentators were assured they were still in the game and about to chase down another record, oops all out for 300. They chase down one score on the flattest deck in the history of cricket and suddenly they are the Invincible’s of ‘48
This sort of thuggery has been going on for a long time with The SA rugby team, does anyone remember Kefu being taken out in a tri nations game before the 2003 RWC? He missed the entire tournament and the offender got a minimal few week suspension which was served while there was no international rugby on.
I’m of the belief that offenders should be made serve their suspension from fixed international games. 6 match suspension from a 6 match fixed international calendar. Make Burger serve his suspension over Tri-Nations this year to give him something to really think about.
Kyle said | July 8th 2009 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
I agree with Spiro. These Africaans (Botha/Burger) do seem to play with malice. Let’s not forget that Smit almost fractured a French player’s larynx not so long ago (a potentially lethal effect).
That Botha is a ‘gentleman’…what a hoot. He almost rearranged Phil Waugh’s face in the S14 match and blew him a kiss when penalized.
Talking about other ‘gentleman Jims’,we should always remember the real malice with intent enacted by the farmer thug Colin Meads ending Ken Catchpole’s rugby career.
stuff happens said | July 8th 2009 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
If Bakkies was an Australian he’d be the second forward picked after George Smith.
Photon is right, great teams have an enforcer.
The Melon was the last we had in Oz and the sight of Jerry Collins holding Horwill down with one arm in the BaaBaas match doesn’t give me too much hope for the future.
The arm/headband thing by the ‘Boks was childish. They won’t do it again.
fox said | July 8th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Spiro I do support your cause here, but let’s not stop at Bakkies. If we were truly going to extrapolate the laws to the letter, we wouldn’t let Botha play rugby at all. He’s that bad. So too is Richie “the Walking Penalty” McCaw and at time, George Smith, but neither are ugly offenders, just a repeat ones, particularly the former.
And for those (Hammer) who point the finger at Moore and Sharpe, well you’d better go back and watch some tape because last I checked neither of these guys have ever taken a man out off the ball, eye gouged, punched while on the ground or in any way played the brute thug. They play at the margins of the rules like everyone else. Botha simply plays to his own rules. An enforcer? Yes I suppose. But that doesn’t make it excusable. I am sure if Nathan Sharpe started punching on at the base orf rucks, eye gouging, shoulder charging off the ball etc. the reaction from Sth Africa would approach bedlum! South African rugby is a joke, viewed from monacles from the high veldt and commented on as such. South Africans are to rugby what the Indians are to cricket. Utterly unbearable, intolerable and intolerant at the same time, who invoke the seige mentality at any opportunity. Grow up!
The case against Botha on this occassion was weak, but it would take complete naivety for anyone, even the most diehard Bok fan, to say he doesn’t deserve a yellow card or even a suspension from time to time. The guy is a thug and a poor advertisement for the game. However, I was severly disappointed at Burger. I had always held him in high regard and will continue to do so, but that’s his last chance.
Worlds Biggest said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
The Boks appear to be developing a siege mentality if the arm bands are any indicator. Boks v the rest of the World. Bakkies is a thug and wouldn’t be one of the more popular players in World Rugby. In saying that I wouldn’t mind having him in my team as an enforcer !. Martin Johnson was a bit of a thug as is Simon Shaw yet you would have those guys in your team any day of the week. The only enforcer the Wallabies have is Elsom and he would be borderline in that category.
Hammer said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Fox – my comment was solely in response to the line … “They are persistent offenders in the rucks and mauls. Burger going off his feet to kill the ball and Botha coming in from the side and invariably lying on the opponents’ side of the ruck.” …. in that regard Sharpe and Moore are serial offenders at this practice … that’s all – no comment whatsoever in respect to foul play on their behalf …
Sam Taulelei said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Nothing further to add to the main points, but all this attention on the cleaning out of players at rucks will place the referees under more scrutiny during the Tri Nations. If an All Black and Wallaby escapes censure, penalty and citing for committing the same act then it will give SA further ammunition to justify their misinformed and mishandled protest. I’m certain the IRB through Paddy O’Brien will be instructing the referees to crack down on unbound players cleaning out the breakdown. During the first half of that 3rd test, Jamie Heaslip was unbound, entered the ruck from the side and took out a Springbok. He was penalised, no player was injured and the game continued. I can understand why the South Africans feel slighted and marginalised and this issue will not go away in a hurry.
Richard Whitfield said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Thanks for taking a stand on the Botha issue. It has amazed me how Bok forwards (Botha in particular) have managed to get away with their brutal shoulder charges in the guise of “cleaning out” at the breakdown.
Go to YouTube and search “Bakkies Botha” and you will see that this particular “talent” is what defines Bakkies Botha in many peoples eyes. The Adam Jones incident is presented and it is very noticeable that Botha lines Jone’s head and shoulders up and launches himself with great force, shoulder first into Jones. There is no attempt to use his arms or to keep on his feet. I am sure that it is no coinicidence that with Jones off, not long after half time, they had to go to uncontested scrums, which benefitted the Boks.
Other clips on YouTube show Botha hit Phil Vickery in the same way in a Boks v England game. The tactic was used repeatedly in the 2007 World Cup. There is also footage of the cheap hit on Stirling Mortlock in last year’s TriNations. Schalk Burger is seen legally wrestling Stirling Mortlock away from the breakdown. Mortlock is securely held and defenceless as Botha shoulder charges into Mortlock’s head, concussing him so that he left the field and missed the next game as well.
Botha is almost 2 m tall, 120 kg of solid bone and muscle and he launches himself with great force, shoulder first and with no attempt to use his arms at players who usually have no means of defence and may not know they are about to be hit. It is a wonder he hasnt killed someone. This practice must be considered “dangerous play” and taken out of the game.
J vd Westhuizen said | July 8th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Spiro you are missing the point, we want justice for all. Any player going into a ruck from now on not binding must be red carded, same as running a red light and you get caught you will get a fine. Doesnt matter if you killed someone running the light
Mungehead said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
Botha got justice in the sense that he got to appeal his ban. The appeal was denied but them’s the breaks. Unfortunately for the SARU, rulings can’t be seen to be disrespected and so now the IRB has no choice but to to punish them, a result which nobody actually wants! Ouch.
Of course Botha supporters may have a point, but It makes no difference. When looking at the rules and the enforcement of the rules, maybe the emperor really does in fact wear no clothes. Personally I think it was a cheap shot and he deserved what he got, but even if it only appears that way we have to close our eyes to that and punish Botha regardless or the game will descend into complete thuggery. Players who injure other players in any circumstances where it’s not a complete accident need to be punished, or they WILL do it deliberately.
Having said that, the argument that Botha is already a thug and should be kicked out of the game is ludicrous – the woods are full of them.
Brad said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
In a way there is injustice for Bakkies. The IRB have allowed him to do as he pleases in the past thus setting a legal precedent. All of a sudden they punish him, that is injustice. If you allow your kid to watch an age restricted show everyday and then all of a sudden punish him for watching the show without warning = injustice. I think unions should start citing referees, at least the lions could get justice for Bryce Lawrence fixing the series. Now there is an armband protest if ever there was one.
Richard Whitfield said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Hey Brad on that basis, if you get away with murder you should be free to go on committing murder with impunity??
Brad said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Yes, if you are james Bond
Richard Whitfield said | July 8th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
I see Bakkies Botha more as the Terminator than James Bond!!!
Greg Russell said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Thanks Spiro for an excellent analysis, although I feel you have been a bit soft on SARU … it should really not be permissable to bring the game into disrepute like this. I certainly understand that many South Africans feel they have a legitimate cause to complain here, but there are proper channels for doing this.
Chances of South Africa now getting the 2015 or 2019 World Cup after insulting the IRB like this? Nil. (Probably they were nil before this, but now they certainly are.)
I especially like Spiro’s red-light analogy, although perhaps drink driving would be even better. Many people do it and get away with it because there is no incident. But this does not mean that those who cause an accident while driving under the influence should not be punished heavily.
A joke doing the rounds in NZ is that the All Blacks are going to take to the field with white armbands bearing an image of Wayne Barnes (for those who don’t know, he was the referee in Cardiff in 2007).
Hammer said | July 8th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
With all the crap that’s being going over the last week – the below story is like a beath of fresh air … someone focusing on playing the game he loves and not letting anything cloud his focus … (love that bit about his response to the Auckland interest)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/2575789/Loyal-young-rugby-star-set-to-stay-home
Neil said | July 8th 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
you guys have missed the point entirely.
the point all south africans are trying to make is this attitude of awww bakkies play nice or we’ll ban you is just totally lame and bad for the sport.
the more people try and take the raw physical nature out of rugby, the more likely it is that we will end up playing in boardrooms wearing tutu’s.
the armband protest, pretty lame. banning a player for clearing out a ruck, far far worse. as John Smit says, we are beginning to tread a slippery slope where we are starting to forget what rugby actually is, and why it’s such a cool sport.
i for one hope and pray now that the IRB start banning and citing players for obstruction and dummy running. Then we’ll see how these Australians feel about having the way they push the boundaries of legality challenged by the idiots running the game.
Jerry said | July 8th 2009 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Neil – I actually don’t think the ban is anything to do with “Getting Bakkies”, I think the IRB has decided to try and phase out the missile type ‘clearing out’ and Bakkies just happened to be the first person to injure someone doing it following that IRB decision.
JVD – justice for all? Does that include Schalk? Cause I reckon justice for him would mean another few months on the sidelines.
JohnB said | July 8th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
The relevant law says “Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul”. Use of the word “charge” makes this similar to the “shoulder charge” law (“A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without without trying to grasp that player”) and so explains what “charge” is intended to mean – running in with the point of the shoulder without having the arms up to bind.
A shoulder charge on a man running with the ball is illegal, brings a penalty, and often enough a card and a suspension, and the only arguments you hear are whether or not it was a shoulder charge – not whether a shoulder charge should be treated in that way. For some reason, shoulder charges into opposing players committed to a breakdown get treated differently – despite the laws not making any such distinction, and there being a strong chance of injury to the players on the receiving end, who are often is unable to defend themselves or see what’s coming. Botha may well be a little unlucky in that, blatant offence though it was on his part, similar acts are regularly overlooked and have been for a long time. I thought it was a good thing to see a genuinely dangerous piece of play penalised (at last) and I hope that referees are instructed to enforce this law in future.
Neil said | July 8th 2009 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
Jerry – why though? why should that be illegal now all of a sudden. It’s hard to bind onto a player you just knocked 2 meter’s backwards. Why has rucking been banned? Why are you all so determined to remove the fine lines of pushing the boundaries of physicality in rugby?
The cynic in me says it’s because some players, read australian, just seem to be unable to cope with the physicality of other bigger physical teams.
Hugh said | July 8th 2009 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
Neil,
Since when has Australia had great influence in rule changes and/or interpretation of rules?
We’ve seen with the ELVs being more or less rejected across the board, that when the North stick together, there’s very little the South can do, either as individual unions or collectively.
Jerry said | July 8th 2009 @ 7:40pm | Report comment
Neil – I’m not, the IRB is.
To be fair to them, the sort of high speed entering of the tackle & ruck area is a recent phenomenon, it’s only become widespread in the last 5 or so years really and I’m not sure it’s a positive thing. Why is it required? How often does the sort of counter rucking that Botha did actually lead to a turnover? Very very rarely. What’s the point of it?
Brad said | July 8th 2009 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
wasn’t Al Capone sent to jail for tax fraud? that conviction does not make him any less a criminal and a guilty murdering mob boss. The letter of the law was carried out to convict a criminal. Bakkies is Al Capone in this instance, a serial offender that the citing commisioner had to nab somehow. The letter and not the spirit of the law was used for conviction, however Justice in the end has been served. Bakkies may be a nice guy off the filed but he represents all that is wrong with Rugby and especially SA rugby
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
Just for the record for those mentioning me as missing the point, I did mention it on a different thread, but I personally disagree with the armband protest. As somebody in this thread said, he (Botha) had the appeal as recourse. Anything further should have been handled via official channels, and not publicly with an armband protest. Bad decision by John and whoever approved of it, and bad PR for the Boks leading into the 3N.
But my beef was simply with Spiro’s claim of lack of bias, which is laughable. As reds fan said (though I think his grammar let him down
) “There isn’t a person alive who isn’t without bias.” Since we all have a loyalty to some team on this forum, we all have bias. You’d have to be, say, a librarian from Switzerland or something to not have bias on this forum.
Nird99 said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:33pm | Report comment
JohnB, very well said. Finally someone on this thread providing some level headedness and sense into the discussion.
Brad, loved the analogy.
Darryl SA, I agree, we all have a bias. I once had a shirt that said “I support two teams. Australia and whoever is playing NZ”. I think that shows my bias quite well!!
I’ll admit that I dont like Bakkies and thought he deserved the ban. I will also admit that I have been a fan of Burgers play for a number of years now and also support his ban. I am also a fan of Richie McCaws game, and when Lote (an aussie player who I support) spear tackled him a couple of seasons agao i supported a ban there as well. I dont think DIRTY play has any place what soever in RU. let it be as physical as hell, be unrelentless and punishing in that physicality but leave the dirty play behind. What I am trying to highlight is that yes we all have a bias, but we should be able to look past these and be united in improving the standard of the game we love.
My thought is that the arm bands brought a political element to play that does not need to be seen ON a rugby field. Bakkies was banned for 2 weeks, rightly or wrongly and he and the team needed to accept the punishment and get on with playing good rugby. Should the Lions have worn armbands in protest for the leniency of shalk’s sudpension???
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
Nird99, totally agree. And yes, dirty play does not belong on the field, and our support for that should transcend our bias, and should be punished as it has been done. I also support Burgers ban, and I support Botha’s ban, and would have supported a longer ban for Burger had the judiciary decided on that, for the simple reason that we have to adhere to *some* judicial authority just like we do in society, or else we will become a law unto ourselves, like the Wild West once was.
Hugh Jarse said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
OK, I didn’t see the incident and I have only read about half of the posts here.
I am a Wallabies supporter and I have always said that I would rather the All Blacks beat us by 50 than the Springboks beat us by 1.
Their teams are not only made up of serial offenders, but their entire administration and crowd support continually show what out-and-out thugs they aspire to be.
At every opportunity they attempt to intimidate their opponent, the match officials, SANZAR, the OS media, etc, etc, etc…
I wish they would go kick heads in the Northern Hemisphere as they have threatened and let us get on with rugby without them.
And stay out!
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:15pm | Report comment
Haha, nice one Hugh Jarse. Nice name btw.
And glad you were able to get your bias off your chest. Hope you feel better now. Can’t point a finger at you I guess, since we in SA also have some stereotypes about Aussie rugby and their supporters, and you pretty much just epitomized all of them.
Criebo said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Can see rugby in Australia is a very boring sport, thats why you so interesting about what happen in SA’s
Hugh Jarse said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
gday Darryl
no problem being stereotyped. That’s how things go around.
And good on you for sticking up for your team/players. I wasn’t trying to imply that I was unbiased. Obviously I am.
And to balance things out a bit, can I say that in general, the SA referees have been the pick of the bunch in the super 12/14 so far. Apart from a certain NZ chap with a drinking problem, the Aussie refs have been consistently the worse.
BTW, biased or not, I stand by my claim that the South African rugby community have a driving focus to intimidate their opponents. Too often this manifests itself in an illegal, violent action.
Mind you, this has also been the case in some SA v SA matches that I’ve seen. Who was it that got some time after taking Robbie Fleck out with a flying head butt disguised as a cleanout? Was it Andrews? Can’t remember.
Hugh Jarse said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:36pm | Report comment
Actually, I think it was Venter that took Fleck out.
Spencer said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:40pm | Report comment
Fleck deserved it…Cretin!
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
Hugh Jarse, yeah it was AJ Venter. I remember that cos he was a Sharks player then and I bemoaned the fact that his stupidity cost my Sharks. In fact he was lucky cos he didn’t make proper contact with Fleck, cos if he had he might have done serious harm.
I do agree that in SA (i.e. even SA vs SA) there’s a certain pride to playing it hard. When I was in school my coach used to encourage us to tackle a player as hard as possible, with little anecdotes like “the bigger they are, the harder they fall” … and we took pleasure in exacting a good hard tackle on an opponent, but we were never encouraged to play dirty. Good sportsmanship was still encouraged above all else. I’m just saying this as a sense of my own perspective on SA rugby, not going to get into a slanging match with anybody about SA being all thugs etc. Figured some here might just like to get a little insider perspective from a Saffer. That said it pains me when I see moves like the AJ Venter hit on Fleck, or when a Bulls player tackles a WP player and as he gets up shoves his face into the ground. That kinda stuff is unnecessary.
Interestingly, I was watching here on our SuperSport (they’re like your Fox Sports there) channel last night and they were showing some old footage of Natal (Sharks) vs N. Transvaal in 1990 and Natal vs Transvaal in 1992 – Currie Cup finals, and I was blown away by the open and expansive running rugby that Stransky, Muir, Joubert, Tony Watson etc were playing – and also that of the N. Transvaal and Transvaal players. Somewhere between then and now we seem to have actually gone backwards. I was in the states through the latter part of the 90’s so I don’t know what happened then, but I know that in early 2000 Straueli brought a style and tone to the Boks that I would rather hide under a rug. Jake White largely cleaned that up and introduced the coaching of Eddie Jones to bring more creativity to our backline. With White’s (and Eddie’s) departure however things seem to have regressed and I’m wondering where we lost the plot since those early 90’s.
Hugh Jarse said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:15pm | Report comment
Darryl, I certainly do appreciate your view on the SA situation.
We too were coached from an early age that a good, clean tackle could put your opponent off their game. I’m sure that this is the case globally. And Australia is by no means clean of players stepping across the line. I remember seeing Dan Crowly, in the middle of a NSW v QLD brawl, lie down next to one of the NSW centres [I think] and repeatedly punch him in the face. It happens everywhere. Norm Maxwell king hitting Brendon Cannon off the ball for instance.
Without wanting to get into a slanging match, it just seems to me that the overall mentality of SA rugby is more inclined to go down this path.
That said, I’ve never been to South Africa. I’ve never played against South Africans.
Maybe, I’m shooting blanks.
OldManEmu said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Spiro has simply made the point that SA Rugby has broght the game into disrepute by publicly questioning and bringing into question the integrity of the judiciary process. Bit hard to see how that is a controversial observation, SA fan, bias or not.
As for BB -he is a true hardman of the game, and also a thug in the sense that he tries to hurt his opponents. I do not have a problem with this at all but it is swings and roundabouts – if he were to some up against someone who was prepared to take him on it would be fair game – and well the Judicial process took him on and he lost.
And I do think it is relevant that BB is a good bloke off the field. There are plenty of Rugby players who are arseholes off the field and good blokes on the field and I know what is more important in the scheme of things. The players were misguided in their actions bt their intentiosn were probably good – they cold have been smarter about it – a la 2003 RWC Scotland tribute to Marty Leslie before the Quarter Final.
Simmo said | July 8th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Traffic Officer Spiro
Why don’t you ask the IRB to introduce a speed limit to enter a ruck?
Then you can sit on the side of the field with a radar gun and fine the players.
Not often you get to read such factually poor and bias writing. I had a good chuckle though.
Thanks
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:18pm | Report comment
OldManEmu: Ironically Spiro also questions the integrity of the judiciary process by proclaiming publicly (this is a public website at least) that “In my view, and I’m sure that of others looking at the incident without bias, Burger was intentional as well as reckless in his attack on the eyes of Fitzgerald.”
Spiro proclaims this long after the judiciary said otherwise i.e. that Burger wasn’t reckless. And since Spiro is without bias, clearly the judiciary process isn’t.
Pot, kettle, etc.
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:19pm | Report comment
Correction to post above:
Spiro proclaims this long after the judiciary said otherwise i.e. that Burger wasn’t intentional.
Greg Smith said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:08am | Report comment
re: “I think the IRB has decided to try and phase out the missile type ‘clearing out’ and Bakkies just happened to be the first person to injure someone doing it following that IRB decision.”
No.
2007, RWC – the IRB get an early heads up (courtesy of Oz & Nz) regarding Schalk Burger and WHAMMO ! Citing ! Again, South Africa was told, the IRB are trying to phase out this and are sending an early message.
The IRB then wishes to give Japan the RWC… again … not South Africa’s fault, the IRB are just trying to expand.
Spot the pattern … EACH on South Africa’s hand !
You’re right Greg Russell, South Africa will NEVER get the 2015 or 2019 RWC’s ! I actually thought that maybe, just maybe – South Africa were informed that they have ZERO chance of hosting these Cups & then decided to MOCK the IRB.
We’re not bringing them into disrepute… we’re highlighting their disrepute !
bob said | July 9th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
There is a big and important difference between strong, physical, confrontational play, and thuggery. The SA team seem to revel in thuggery and not know the difference. They seem to be encouraged to be louts and bullies, and several could have been carded in that last test, when the off the ball incidence were rife.
Spiro and every right minded person is absolutley right to make a stand on this issue, and the SA union need massive and lasting sanction to stop petulant on field protests from occuring when one of them is dealt with. The game is far bigger and more important than a single country or union, and is hard and dangerous enough without licensed thuggery. The SA have a history of setting their faces against the world, and we all know how it ended… this has to be the same. If they want to make a stand against the rugby world, the rugby world must make a stand back. I know who my money’s on. Well done spiro for the article.
Richard Whitfield said | July 9th 2009 @ 9:08am | Report comment
So, what do you want to see in a game of rugby. Big blokes trying to gain an advantage for their team by injuring and intimidating opponents. For example, remember the days when NZ used to kick off with a high shallow kick, the whole pack would smash the guy who caught it, drive over the top of him, stomping and rucking him and spit him out the back–good stuff? Actually, I would rather see a team try like Fourie’s in the second Lions test. The forwards advanced on the line drawing in the defence then the ball was released to the backline where they drew and passed with precision to Fourie on the wing who with little space powered through a tackle and squeezed in at the corner post as the cover defence hit him. Or the Heyman’s try for France vs NZ. Remember Rupeni for Fiji against France and Scotland in 2003. Give me running rugby any day.
Hemjay said | July 9th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
I don’t believe any rugby fan in their right mind believes that Botha deserved to be banned for two weeks, although the Lions fans may think differently.
Botha has a reputation for being a dirty player and I can only assume his rep has finally caught up with him.
As to what the IRB do to South Africa well thats anybodys guess but you can best assured guess that it will be some meaningless fine that the Boks will easily be able to pay. The IRB is short on big furrys and they will not want to get on the wrong side of one of the best teams in the world. Lets get real here they will be accussed of bais, racisim maybe making an example of the South Africans you name it the Mad Hatter and his tea party guests will have something outrageous to say about any punishment that comes their way.
The Justice debacle seriously jeopardises South African rugbys already smeared name and they have brought the game into disrepute and they need to be held accountable. Somone knew what was going on and allowed this dispicable act to go ahead and their head(s) need to roll.
I would suggest a ban imposed on the Captain first and foremost as he has the final decision and could’ve got the guys to remove the bands in the tunnel before taking the field. Secondly the entire coaching staff should be banned also.
Thirdly a fine of a minimum of $25,000 dollars per player including the reserves and Matfields will be raised to 50 for wearing his ridiculous statement on that oafish head of his.
Hey why not go the whole hog and stand the entire team down for three weeks. Not a reality I know but hey the Springboks actions were unprecedented so why not use a similarily unprecedented measure to ensure such an act of defiance and outright stupidity never occurs again.
We cannot let South Africa become to world rugby as India has become to world cricket.
Sam Taulelei said | July 9th 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Richard while this is veering off topic
Running rugby can’t occur unless space is created. In an ideal situation the forward pack will cross the advantage line and present quick ball on the ground (rucking) so that the backline can see the ball emerging and reposition their alignment and time their run onto the ball.
Intimidation of opponents is part of playing a contact sport and presents itself in many forms – size (eg. Steve Cutler, Wade Dooley), power (Jonah Lomu, Tom Lawton), speed (Bryan Habana and Rupeni Caucau) skill (Michael Jones, Victor Matfield), tackling ability (Jerry Collins, Apollo Perellini). You can’t gain an advantage over your opponent without exercising some form of intimidation, whether that is physical or mental.
You’re drawing a long bow to suggest that in that incident Bakkes Botha deliberately set out to injure his opponent. I still maintain that if Adam Jones wasn’t injured nothing would have been mentioned of the act. Eye gouging however is a completely different story and not only causes injury but also maims for life and has no place in sport.
Marty said | July 9th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Jerry,
Since when is flying into rucks, on your way down, shoulder charging/ headbutting your opponents off the ball with no arms legal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBKpcM9l7M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ0_L9EjdCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2CimTyxgro “(though not generally a thug)”….yeah……right.
Richard Whitfield said | July 9th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Sam, I think the whole point is that most people take it for granted that Bakkies Botha did deliberately try to injure Adam Jones, simply because he has injured players in this way a number of times before. Have a look at his “cheap hit” on Mortlock by searching “Bakkies Botha” on YouTube.
Sam Taulelei said | July 9th 2009 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Richard I understand that this is what is assumed of Botha’s act because of what he’s done in the past, but I don’t like dealing with assumptions if I can help it. Anyway we’re getting off topic.
Vincent said | July 9th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
you’d be suprised Marty..it is not legal but it’s often let go…using a shoulder & no arms as you get into the ruck is something even George Smith does…I’ve tested its legality several times this season and its often not blown unless blatantly obvious..i.e superman into the ruck…but if you come in at pace, use you shoulder to clear up the ruck…its just ot blown…thats why i mention that at first when I watched it with mates we were not too sure what the problem was..I’ll definetly not be trying it this weekend.
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
This is a funny article, clearly Spiro has not studied law… Let me see if I have this right?
So because Burger stuffed up someone else must pay? Nice work on this one especially… Shows class
So we must now be careful of being physical because you can get away with it but if someone gets injured your out.
Love that one too, so let’s stop tackling players al together…
Seeing as the law is now open to perception let change a heap of other things depending on who makes the call. GREAT
This would again be a deferent story had it been a kiwi or Aussie. I remember a spear tackle by Brad Thorn on John Smit taking him out for 6 weeks….
So let’s open the door a bit further seeing as we can now play with the laws as we want:
New ideas for coaches: Fake injuries, nice, McCaw clears out a ruck, get one of the players to fake an injury bang, he is out for a couple of weeks… Why be physical at all?
Na Burger got what he deserved and maybe should of got more, but Bakkies got done and it was unfair. The law should be applied to everyone or no one. This is why the boks protest and they did it not only for Bakkies and the Springboks but for every rugby player in the world.
Rather a bitch about bakkies and the dirty saffa’s, shut up and be thankful that someone has the balls to stand up to the idiots running the show at the IRB. Maybe I should spear tackle Spiro for saying what he wants, hell lets start shooting people for protesting and enjoying their right to free speech?
This is either a windup or the most bias winge I have ever read and should not be seen as journalism.
Vincent said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
tsk tsk tembo…you are getting way too emotional about the whole thing, Spiros was an opinion as we all have…..
Jameswm said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
JohnB
There is an incorrect premise to your entire point, which is that it wasn’t a shoulder charge. His arms were up and he was square on, not side on.
All he did wrong was not bind before entering a ruck, which as everyone here says is a rule more often ignored than followed.
Yeah he did it hard, but rugby is a collision sport.
As I’ve said before, you can’t take the way Botha plays the game, or what he “deserves”, into account when considering this charge. That would be very dangerous territory.
Brad said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
LETS REVIEW. THE DIRTIEST PLAYER OF THE PROFFESIONAL ERA ENTERED INTO A RUCK AND INTENTIONALLY INJURED A PLAYER. THE LETTER OF THE LAW WAS APPLIED AND HE WAS GIVEN A 2 WEEK SUSPENSION. THE APPEAL PROCESS UPHELD THE LETTER OF THE LAW. THE INJURED PLAYER WILL BE OUT FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS THE DIRTY PLAYER OUT FOR 2 WEEKS.
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Don’t worry Vince I am far from upset, just pointing out the stupidity in the argument. I have always enjoyed JOURNOLISM that covers more than ones own set of views. Spiro has all the right in the world to express his views but not as a journalist or a good one at least. Its rather amateurish considering how off the mark the comments on laws are… rest easy though I wont be spear tackling anyone, it was said to make a point. No anger in this corner, more jaw opening amazement. It is a contact sport but with Spiro laws it will not be rugby.
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
Brad I bet you had a bitch about Burger only getting 8 weeks?
So the Law you speak of is not perfect right?
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Let’s go back to basics for those who can’t think outside the box. Forget for a second a player got injured and forget that it was Bakkies Botha. The law should be followed without prejudice right or it wont be a law?
Perhaps in this sense it’s good that the Springboks spoke out, they could have a point about the flaws in the IRB system, see case eye goudge burger.
Would it seem unfair if George Smith got 2 weeks for doing the same without someone getting injured?
After all the law does not state it only applies when someone gets injured?
Just a thought…
Jerry said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
Marty – as Vincent said, it’s not legal but it’s been allowed by every ref in every test for the last 5 or 6 years.
Bakkies is dirty, but generally not ugly dirty. He tackles late and off the ball, holds players back, pushes, niggles and breaks the law all the time. But he generally doesn’t do so in a thuggish manner (and I don’t think the Jones incident was thuggish either).
Jerry said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Temba – “I remember a spear tackle by Brad Thorn on John Smit taking him out for 6 weeks”
Please, it was hardly a spear. He didn’t go past horizontal and was dumped on his (rather large) arse and back. Yeah it was after the whistle and yeah it was careless and yeah it should have been a yellow card (though not a suspension), but it was hardly a spear. Smit injured his groin for gods sake, which was probably injured being picked up rather than being dumped.
Jerry said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Jameswm – “There is an incorrect premise to your entire point, which is that it wasn’t a shoulder charge. His arms were up”
No, his left arm was up. His right was tucked under and it was his right shoulder that hit Jones. You can see it here at about the minute mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5FV7GDD–w
Jerry said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
And Temba – the most bias whinge would be the “Justice for Bakkies” armbands realistically. I mean, they only want justice for him, right? They’re not arguing the lenient sentence for Burger.
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
After the whistle, careless and injury, according to some on here that merits a suspension.
Thanks for proving my point Jerry.
As for your last point with the clip and Bakkies right shoulder, that could be seen as careless and according to you does not merit a suspension?
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Jerry if it were my choice I would not of made them wear the bands but I see the sense in fighting the IRB on some of their laws and policies. I am glad someone stood up and put the IRB’s flaws on display.
JohnB said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:32pm | Report comment
Jameswm – my main point related to what the laws actually say and are actually trying to do, since it is not uncommon for people, while having an idea of what they’re about, to not really know. The relevant laws are set out in my previous post (give or take the odd typo). As an example of the sort of common misconception that people have about them, you’ll see that they don’t in fact require you to bind on to someone before entering the ruck.
What the laws do say, in effect, is that just as you’re supposed to go into a tackle with arms up, you’re supposed to go into a ruck with arms up, so that you are immediately binding as you enter the ruck. The intent is to not allow the point of the shoulder to be used as a weapon, going into either the tackle or the breakdown. My real point is that these laws should be consistently applied and what Botha actually did or didn’t do doesn’t really alter that.
As I say, whether Botha offended and if so what penalty he deserves aren’t my main points. They are matters people can disagree depending on what you’ve seen and how you interpret that. As it happens, my view of what happened (from seeing it on news reports a couple of times – so maybe there’s an angle showing something different) was pretty much the diametric opposite of yours, so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that aspect of it.
I’m not sure if you’re attributing what you talk about in your last paragraph to me, so in case you are I’ll just say that I don’t disagree with you that when you’re considering whether someone is guilty of an offence, you shouldn’t consider whether they have “form”. Of course, if you do conclude that an offence was committed, you can then consider the past when deciding penalty.
Given that Botha offended (and I accept that you disagree with that) whether 2 weeks is justified is hard to say. The authorities have made it tricky for themselves because, even though this is (in my view) genuinely dangerous play, blind eyes have been turned and the law has not been consistently applied. There is then always going to be some element of the scapegoat about the first player caught when it is applied (hence my “little unlucky” comment before). If the laws were applied consistently that problem would soon go away.
Brad said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Temba
“The law should be followed without prejudice right or it wont be a law?” the answer my friend is a no. When you stand before the diciplinary comitee your prevoious indescretions are noted and taken into consideration. Something needed to be done to stop bakkies from eventually killing someone. Yes people have been known to die on the rugby field.
Jameswm said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
John – no that last paragraph was not for your benefit, but I have to say you cannot take someone’s prior “dirty” play, or form, into account, even when assessing the penalty, unless they have been charged and found guilty for it. you can’t base a decision or suspension on reputation.
And I am no huge fan of Botha, though we in Australia need to appreciate the physical side of rugby more than we do. A lot of our players (eg Sharpe, Baxter) could learn a lot from him.
Temba said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Please Brad you make it sound if Bakkies is the only physical player in the world, you would be surprised to know Bakkies had one yellow card last year during S14, 3N and northern tours. Id like to see what his career yellow count is and measure it to some other players. Just to get some perspective.
I think the Botha thing is being exaggerated same way people calling McCaw a cheat.
JohnB said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:51pm | Report comment
Jameswm, it’s a 2 stage process (or should be) – stage 1 are you guilty of this offence? Past events don’t come into that. If you’ve been found guilty, stage 2 arrives and yes you can base the decision on penalty on past form.
retired rucker said | July 9th 2009 @ 5:58pm | Report comment
my impression is the Saffas have a persecution complex, Imagine the howls of derrission from the SA if George Smith had been wiped for 2 weeks against the Saffas and the wallabies had made a armband protest, I mean please its such a joke and emarrassing if I was SA I’d be shying away from my ausy and kiwi mates knowing the absolute shelacking I’d be recieving.
I just can’t believe that not one man stood up to the group and said he wasn’t going to participate, sheep!
Actually this is sledging fodder for the TN’s, the Kiwis and Aussies can come up with some real niggle with this and I bet milk apenalty or yellow card in the games. I like it, good move springboks, give your opponents a HEAD start! I’d call BAAAAAA BAAAA in the line out for starters or
Photon said | July 9th 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Look, as I said earlier I don’t agree with what the Boks did on Saturday and they should be punished.
But if any of you think that you’re ever gonna get Richie, or George , Henrich or Phil off a tackler without chraging into them you’ve either never played rugby or just deluded. There are three clips up there of Bakkies supposed dirty play. The English guy is cleaned for playing the ball illegally, Phil Waugh almost certainly did something to incurr Bakkies’ wrath as he is inspite of whatever you unbaised Australiasians(What a Laugh, as if such a person exists) say one of the dirtier players you find on a rugby field. As for Mortlock, well I have no excuse there, Bakkies was wrong. But that only serves to illustrate my point, three incidents and only one is actually an indescretion. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again with guys like Bakkies the way it goes is the home fans love him and the opposition despises him, yet both coaches know that given the opportunity he’d be the first guy they’d pick. Why, caus the key to quick possession is a big scary tight five, for the intimidation factor alone will garner you a constant flow of good quality possession all afternoon. Every great rugby side has had Bakkies Botha,Martin Johnson, Justin Harrison etc and will continue to have them caus there’s nothing as valuable as quick ball in rugby, nothing
Ben J said | July 9th 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
MikeN, and just how do you think the IRB is going to “hammer” the SARFU? Fine? Ban? Does a precedent exist where a national body (and a very important one at that) were punished because their players protested against a IRB action?
Richard Whitfield said | July 9th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Temba, firstly, Spiro is acting as a columnist not a journalist–he is giving his opinions not reporting the story.
I recommend that you re-read Spiro’s article. You state “After all the law does not state it only applies when someone gets injured?”. Spiro goes to some lengths to explain how the consequences of breaking the law determine how the breach is handled. Laws depend on interpretation. During a game the referee has to interpret the laws constantly and it is often the consequence of someone breaking a law that determines whether the ref penalises the breach, calls advantage or allows play to continue.
The IRB as the governing body has a duty of care towards the players to investigate serious injuries, deal with the incident, and if necessary, change either the rules themselves, or the way they are applied to protect players. The IRB is also the final “court of appeal”. Bakkies appealed and lost. Any protest following the IRB’s final decision could be seen as disputing the IRBs authority. If the IRB does not respond it sets a precedent that could lead to disputes never being resolved.
It will be interesting to see how the IRB react but I will be more interested in whether there is any follow through to curb dangerous play at the breakdown.
And by the way, Jerry is right, if you look at the replay there is no way Bakkies uses his arms for anything but to balance himself for a full on shoulder charge to the head and shoulders of Jones.
Jerry said | July 9th 2009 @ 8:22pm | Report comment
Temba – no, I don’t think Bakkies or Thorn should have been suspended for those actions. While both were illegal (the reason I pointed out him using the shoulder and not binding was to highlight that Botha’s actions were illegal) neither of which would reasonably be considered red card offences which is actually the test for whether something merits a suspension. Thorn merited a yellow card at the time, Botha merited a penalty at most in my opinion.
pothale said | July 11th 2009 @ 12:11am | Report comment
The logic seems to be if SA believe they’re entitled to play hard rugby, and other people differ, thems the breaks. Tough.
Equally so, if SA subsequently get cards and suspended for a few weeks as a result, thems the breaks too.
Tough on Botha. SA should suck it up and stop whinging.
They can keep playing hard rugby and take the punishments when they arise.
captain nemo said | July 15th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
This is the official media release put out by the iRB which spiro was referring to
http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2032651.html#irb+confirms+misconduct+charge+against+saru
rugby fan said | July 15th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
“The players are happy to stand against a ruling like this and I’ve had calls from a few referees saying we must stand against it. We’ve been supported by the Lions’ management and players and also by players around the world. A ruling like this has the potential to set a precedent to ruin this great game of ours. It’s ludicrous.”
-John Smit
rugby fan said | July 15th 2009 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Rule 10.4 (j) States:
Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player IN the ruck or maul.
IF you look at this video evidence of Botha’s clean out, you will see in the slow motion replay at the end that botha is still bound to jones even when he stands up- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CM-_JlG64
The rule does not say simply that you cannot charge into the ruck…read it.
Botha take about 2-3 steps from behind the ruck, he binds onto jones when he enters the ruck, he’s on his feet, he comes through the gate and his head is even abouve his hips….Take a look at Paul O’Connell who enters from the side and drops straight to his feet and manages to infringe the ball too….hmmm, funny, that.
Andre said | August 21st 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
To add to what you are saying, normally in court ,once a precedent has been set as to how a law is interpreted over an extended period of time it becomes the norm. We are looking at a glaring case of ‘cherry picking’ where suddenly for convenience the law is inerpreted differently.
The IRB is a farce and the rot that is setting in all over the sport with blood scandal, testicle squeezing, missing drug tests…these are all symptomatic of poor IRB leadership….Firm leadership will be consistency to start with even if it is inconvenient. The IRB seems to be bent on setting an example with SA, because it is convenient…just as it is convenient at other times to sweep issues under the carpet…the lattter is what incences and causes division…
No good referring to SARU brining the IRB into disrepute….it (IRB) has done a perfectly good job of that all by itself.
pothale said | September 1st 2009 @ 11:43pm | Report comment
rugby fan.
Isn’t it amazing that two people can look at the same piece of footage and come to a different conclsuion. I looked at the clip you provided, and I see Botha take a little skip and then charge into the ruck straight into Jones. His left arm does not bind onto anything, that is clearly visible from the first shot. In the slow-mo sequence at the end, Botha is trying to grab hold of something to show he has bound on, but he fails to. He is not bound to anybody. His right arm is flailing in a circle trying to find a body to cling onto, but doesn’t.
So as per the above rule, he should not have charged. IRB was right.
Case closed. Put away the armbands.
adam said | August 14th 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
The IRB needs to send a strong message by way of a significant punishment to the South African rugby community that unrestrained and illegal might is not right.
i dont agree spiro because other teams do the same thing and arnt punished like the matt gitua incident or the shoulder
charge on brad barret by the tahs scrunhalf and he was concussed and had to leave the field on a stretcher but he was never punished
Andre said | August 21st 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Hey Spiro,
……Lets hear your take on Giteau’s ‘tackle on Du-preeZ last Sat…He is a REAL thug….He should not even be in the line up this coming Saturday against NZ. If the IRB was consistent and the Boks where out of line. with the armbands…Then Giteau would not be part of the next fixture with the ABs.
This is such one sided colloqiual BS….you know the old…my beer from this side of the pond is great and all other beer is totally ….
Cats said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Hey Andre, amazing how the discussion ended with your note! IRB are definately not consistent with handing out suspensions but then again one only need to look and see who were on the panel (a Kiwi, and Oz and a Englishman) – Need i say more. I believe you cannot just accept certain things at face value, SA Rugby had addressed their unhappiness with the IRB who blatantly ignored them, the next recourse was to make a stand. i say if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything – so make your stand.
Gitau’s knee into du Preez’ back a few weeks ago didnt get as much as a finger…. so where is the justice? Had the tables been turned i wonder what viewpoint the Ozzies and the Kiwis would have then????