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.

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????

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.

……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 ….

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

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.

http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2032651.html#irb+confirms+misconduct+charge+against+saru

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.

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.

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

I think the Botha thing is being exaggerated same way people calling McCaw a cheat.

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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).

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…

So the Law you speak of is not perfect right?