Springboks fined for Botha armband protest
By AP, 25 Aug 2009 AP is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Bakkies Botha, IRB, Rugby Union, south african rugby, Springboks
South Africa’s rugby team has been found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and fined for protesting Bakkies Botha’s suspension by wearing armbands during the third Lions test.
The punishment, which included a STG1,000 ($A1,970) fine for team captain John Smit and STG10,000 ($A19,680) for the South African Rugby Union, was announced on Monday by the International Rugby Board.
The charges stem from the Springboks decision to wear armbands in the third Test against the British and Irish Lions on July 4 marked with the words “Justice 4 Bakkies” to protest the two-week suspension for lock forward Botha.
Botha was cited for a challenge on Lions prop Adam Jones which left the Welshman with a dislocated shoulder during the Springboks’ 28-25 victory at Pretoria in the second Test.
© AP 2012Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- Bakkies Botha, IRB, Rugby Union, south african rugby, Springboks
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
The fines are more of a joke than the childish protest itself.
I guess the IRB didn’t want to be accussed of racism…………….
Ben J said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
QC
How can wearing armbands constitute a “utter disgrace”? A “disgrace” would have been to ignore a flawed citing process, a process that is heavily anti South African, where Mike Miller himself thinks it’s justifiable to charge the Boks and not leave it to the proper match official.
Ben J said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
QC, you are outdoing yourself here. Racism? Bakkies Botha is white, Mike Miller is white, the Welsh prop is white, 90% of the crowd was white. Where does racism come into it you stirrer of note? No, it was something far worse than racism, it’s called incompetence.
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:27pm | Report comment
Go back through a few posts Ben J and have a look how many times your compatriots play the poor us and racism cards, racism doesn’t necessarily constitute black and white chap. Seems the world is always picking on South Africa Hence a form of racism towards South Africans.
Keep up the defense of the abhorent act that was the protest because its making an otherwise quiet night entertaining.
Ben J said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
I would’nt call it racism Queen’s Council, there are many terms you could rather use such as discrimination, bias, victimizing, xenophobia and others. The IRB is anti South African in a deep and entrenched way, almost like it’s part of their DNA. They need a Truth and Reconciliation commission to clear them of their sins and they can start by admitting they hate it when the Saffers question their processes. No one else does so who else to do it than the bad boys of rugby? We need cash? Hey presto it’s England for 2015. No matter that the SA government gave a financial guarentee, something the English were unable to provide. Want to open up a non existent Asian market? Japan it must be. No, the IRB is a largely NH fatcat organization who has a paternalistic attitude towards South Africa ( a former British colony) and have no shame in putting in the boot when it suits them.
pothale said | August 25th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
At least it opens the door for every other nation to bemoan the injustices perpetrated on them – cheap at the price.
Abs – Justice for ABs not being No 1
Aus – Justice for running rugby
Eng – Justice for ruining rugby
Wal – Justice for blond highlights and permatans
Irl – Justice for ROG’s tackling skills
Ita – Justice for makeshift scrum halves
Sco – Justice for anything
Hayden said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Nice one!
Who Needs Melon said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Yep. Love it!
Arm bands should become de rigueur – you could put advertising on them, say hello to your kids, tell your mate on the opposition side where to meet after the match, ask for a pay rise, tell your wife you think you left the iron on or that you’re leaving her, etc.
Some specific examples:
Lote:”It isn’t true”
Wendell: “It’s only talc”
Henjak:”Wanna fight”
Burger: “Thine eye offend thee”
McCaw: “No YOU’RE off side”
All Reds: “We’re STILL rebuilding”
Corvus said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
They should given them all a one week suspension. Then ironically Bakkies would have been one of the few members of the squad eligible to play. He could then wear a “Justice4Boks” armband.
The Wallabies would still probably struggle to win.
Dingbat said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
Good on the Boks for protesting, otherwise the rugby authorities might think the citing process and consistency in applying the rules is hunky dory. Couldn’t be more random and illogical. Good to see a bit of individualism once in a while. McEnroe was a helluva lot more fun to watch than Lendl. Nothing more sterile than a bunch of comforming yes men.
Greg Russell said | August 25th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
I strongly endorse the reactions of QC and Corvus (and I like the line “The Wallabies would still probably struggle to win”). I guess one pathetic lack of leadership (by SARU for allowing this “protest”) deserves another (by the IRB for handing out no real punishment – they have basically opened the door to all refereeing and judiciary decisions being publicly protested). The best one can say is that this whole tawdry affair is hopefully now over.
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Greg don’t for a second think thy would be so lenient on any other country where the race card isn’t valid if you know what I mean?
Gee maybe the bunch of ponys who inflicted the etreme bans on the school kids for bringing the game into disrepute here in Auckland should have been employed to sort this Bok saga out. We could possibly have been looking at 10-15 month suspensions for the Boks lol,
Seriouslty though it was an utter disgrace from South Africa and they should have been dealt with severely, if anything it just once again proves the IRB are lacking big furrys
I
Ziggy said | August 25th 2009 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
Imagine that! Refereeing decisions being publicly protested? Q. When, God forbid, has that been allowed? A. Just about every article or fans’ comment after every match. Fine them all I say. Tawdry affair? My goodness, soon we will be having quotes from the Bold and the Beautiful.
It was a stupid way to protest but please let us be at least be a bit more mature about the whole background.
And QC has tried to raise the racial component as well. Where will all of this end.
As for the Wobblies playing Bakkies alone and struggling to win. No way – but then he would probably be yellow carded in the first minute for hitting some Wobblie elbow with his head.
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Ziggy it seems every time SA is questioned by opposition fans it’s not long before someone pulls out the race card and the poor us we are picked on and deserve special treatment clause because of Apartheid. So I was just getting in before one of your own did save everyone some time.
And I see your still playing the we get treated worse than others.
Fact Bakkes is a player who pushes the laws to the extremes and is well known for it of course he’s going to get more attention especially with his record.
Ben J said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
What is a stupid way to protest? Would you rather have a player strike? The only stupid thing here is the IRB.
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
Typical and expected response from a South African fan,
There are Channels for voicing your concern however SA always plays the poor me card Ben J and it’s getting as boring as reading your defense of the idiocy that was the armband protest.
David said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
To me, this affair has reflected far worse on the IRB than it has on the Springboks. The Botha ban was patently ridiculous not only in the context of the incident itself but in the context of other action taken against other players before and since (such as against Matt Giteau for his foul on Du Preez). In the context of professional sport where the reputational and financial stakes for players and teams are high, the professionalism exhibited by those who regulate the game needs to be at an equivalent standard to that of the players. That it is patently not.
The question then is whether the way in which the Springboks showed their discontent was justifiable. That question can only be answered in context. Firstly, what have the Springboks done to date to raise these issues and have them addressed. The Springboks have repeatedly (and notably during the RWC) raised the issue of arbitrariness with the IRB. Second, what other options were available? My understanding is that there were none. As happened in the past, the IRB took what most commentators (including the Welsh team) thought was a bad decision and then stuck with it. To my mind, the Springbok’s protest was intelligent, gentlemanly and low key.
It did not bring disrepute on the game. No one watching that game would think anything worse of rugby as a sport. The players played the game 100%. What it did do is bring disrepute on the game’s administrators; the IRB. The IRB unfortunately does not see the difference between disrepute to the game and disrepute to the IRB.
The arbitrariness in disciplinary matters is only part of the problem though. The IRB still suffers from a UK-centric outlook. The strike in France last year which the French rugby board supported are evidence of the tension that exists in Europe and the “colonies” are all still treated as such. Rules are arbitrarily changed to suit the UK teams as was once again evidenced by recent changes to the highly successful experimental laws. There was little discussion with Southern hemisphere teams on this point. The award of the 2011 World Cup bid despite a far stronger, more financially secure and technically competent bid from South Africa, and the accusations of corruption that have been made surrounding the award of the 2011 RWC, are further evidence of this. The IRB, in my opinion, needs to be completely restructured to reflect the professionalism of the modern game and the wider, non-UK interests in the game. The old boys club members need to go.
David said | August 25th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
I actually meant to refer to the award of the 2015 World Cup rather than the 2011 World Cup but in relation to the 2011 World Cup, there is also the Putting Rugby First report which is worth a read. That suggests that the IRB is undemocratic and unrepresentative (amongst other things).
pothale said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
“Rules are arbitrarily changed to suit the UK teams as was once again evidenced by recent changes to the highly successful experimental laws. There was little discussion with Southern hemisphere teams on this point.”
What rules were arbitrarily changed to suit the UK teams? And why only the UK teams, since other countries had differing views on which Experimental Laws should be adopted and which ones not?
And which experimental laws were ‘highly successful’?
Knives Out said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
Don’t fall for such banal trolling, Pothale. This clued-up contributor forgets that SA was anti-ELV. What a beauty. I’m glad you highlighted that piece, I’d swam straight past it.
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
So boys what ELVs did the NH teams trial?
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
Would the Bulls have won so convincinly with the old rules?
pothale said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:18am | Report comment
No, QC. There would have been a decent game of rugby instead of the one-sided affair which graced our screens. Wonderful for Bulls fans, no doubt, but a switch-off for this viewer. A bit like watching NZ last year.
Knives Out said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:46pm | Report comment
Boys?!
The NH unions trialled exactly the same ELVs as the SH unions minus the short arm rule. However, the French A league did trial the short arm rule, as did the Cambridge University league and a Scottish league. I should warn you that before you start the inevitable boring trolling that you like to engage in, Hemjay, that the SH unions rejected the hands in the ruck rule, and therefore the ELVs had been undermined even before they had been trialled at a professional level. I should also like to inform you that SA were anti-ELV, and that Scotland were pro-ELV, so before you start the boring SH v NH tirade that you come equipped to debate accurately.
QC said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
Knives quit the paranoia mate,
Sorry would you have preferred I say so great masculine men which rules did you trial?
I cannot believe your bolshy attitude to this site that noone is right apart from you and your friend Pothale and who the #@* is this Hemjay that you accuse me of being?
Your arrogance supercedes everything you write sunshine and its about time you pulled your head in. This is an opinion column so how about you stop trying to tear everyone down to bolster your own ego. I have noticed a few people having issues with they way you enforce your views on the roar and how you and your shadow Pothale are seemingly skipping along the yellow brick road hand in hand.
It’s time you took a deep breath Knives not everyone is out to get the North.
My questions were genuine because I wasn’t too sure off the top of my head which rules the Northern teams had trialled. Unlike you I have a life and don’t spend all day trolling rugby sites and watching hours and hours of replays.
So before trying to be a hero take that almighty chip off your shoulder!
pothale said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:54pm | Report comment
All of them – for varying periods of time.
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:44am | Report comment
The SH teams all campaigned hard before the London conference for the ELV’s as played in SANZAR to be adopted. The SH teams had to adopt to the way the NH had been playing the game. But you are missing the point which is that the IRB is structurally flawed. It is not so much which laws were applied but how they came to be applied that counts. The fact is that the rules the NH teams favoured won the day because of how the IRB is structured.
The IRB is a boys club that is unrepresentative of the rugby playing public, that is undemocratic in the way decisions are made and applied and that is corrupt to the core. It developed in the colonial context and retains those roots. It has not kept pace with changes in the nature of the game. The issue about how the rules were decided upon is just one example of these issues.
pothale said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment
It would be wonderful if this were true, David. But all the SH teams did not campaign hard for all the ELVs as played in SANZAR to be adopted. There were aspects of the ELVs that all Unions were unhappy with.
“The SH teams had to adopt to the way the NH had been playing the game.” This is not accurate either. Get your facts right.
The ELVs that were eventually adopted into the Laws of the Game, has meant all club teams having to deal with a revised set of Laws for the Game for the upcoming seasons in NH and SH. The NH test teams will be at a disadvantage to the SH teams when they play the November tests, since SANZAR national teams will have already played the 3N under the revised Laws of the Game.
Rolling maul was reinstated after not being played for a season. NH clubs will experience this for the first time in September. The lineout law was not implemented thus the existing Law will change how people play this aspect of the game.
The no pass back into the 22 was introduced, so all teams will be used to playing this.
So I restate the questions to you based on your comment:
What rules were arbitrarily changed to suit the UK teams? And why only the UK teams, since other countries had differing views on which Experimental Laws should be adopted and which ones not? These other countries include Ireland, South Africa, France, and New Zealand.
And which experimental laws were ‘highly successful’? I await a response on this with interest.
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
Are you saying that the IRB is administering rugby properly or do you agree with the larger point and are just being pedantic?
Knives Out said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Calm down and drink a lemonade, Hemjay. We all know the drill now.
pothale said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:06am | Report comment
David – you’re shifting the goalposts. You wrote:
“The arbitrariness in disciplinary matters is only part of the problem though. The IRB still suffers from a UK-centric outlook. The strike in France last year which the French rugby board supported are evidence of the tension that exists in Europe and the “colonies” are all still treated as such. Rules are arbitrarily changed to suit the UK teams as was once again evidenced by recent changes to the highly successful experimental laws. There was little discussion with Southern hemisphere teams on this point.”
The point you’re making is that IRB is not administering rugby properly. To support your statement you raise the point about arbitrary decisions on disciplinary matters. But you say this is only part of the problem – being UK centric is the other.
I’m not being pedantic. I’m questioning you about a central part of your theory and the examples you give which are misinformed and inaccurate. The fact that you haven’t responded to the specifics, would reinforce this view. You make generalised assertions which are, in my view, inaccurate. The IRB’s structure is based on union membership. They took votes based on recommendations from the committee which met on the rules. It was clearly flagged in advance that countries other than the UK ones of England, Wales and Scotland, were not happy with some of the ELVs being trialled. They included France, SA, Ireland and New Zealand. Those ELVs did not get adopted. It’s called democracy. And it was backed by a representative sample from world rugby.
Also since the IRB put the ELVs into trial in the first place, and you claim it is UK-centric and NH dominates everything, how come they even let them trial the ELVs in the first place? Why didn’t they just dump them if you believe they are so flawed and biased in favour of NH teams/UK-centric? Why did they adopt any of them if the IRB didn’t like them?
You wanna make assertions or accusations about the IRB – feel free. But don’t be surprised if people take issue with the ‘facts’ you use to support your argument.
Christiaan said | August 25th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Oregan Hoskins was a lawyer before becoming president of SARU and during the hearing he pointed out that the IRB did not follow their own procedures when laying the charge (the tacit implication is of course that it is another instance of targeting the Boks) and therefore the committee did not have the jurisdiction to make a judgement on the issue. These are the “legal technicalities” that the independent committee refer to in their recommendation.
The just of these legal technicalities, for those who are uninformed, is that Mike Miller (the executive chief official of the IRB) personally requested the disciplinary procedure after the match. The IRB’s own regulations, however, stipulate that the ECO can only request such action if a recommendation had been made by a designated disciplinary official for the relevant match.
If one reads between the lines, the light fines was the indepent committee’s way of trying to save IRB-face. The only problem is that Miller searched for a charge that one could bring and he might have tabled the wrong one initially. Hence the charge became increasingly convoluted, so that the original charge was for misconduct, but the fine is for bringing the game into disrepute. Might we see an appeal from SARU on another technicality? The farce continues! (Is this more exciting than what happens on the field these days? *nudge-nudge*).
————————->
For interest sake, this is not the first time that John Smit instigated an arm-band protest. He also did it when the Boks had contractual disputes with SARU. I cannot remember the exact dates or details. I just remember that back then I thought that I prefer the arm-band protest to the player strikes we sometimes see in other sports.
————————–>
Lastly something unrelated. I think the Bledisloe game was a case of two teams who had to play not-to-lose and we have to judge the rugby played against that background. However, the outcome of that game shifted the dynamic and I think we can look forward to more attacking rugby in the remainder of the tournament. My money is on Australia to break the mold, because they have the least to lose at this stage.
In some ways the 3nations is like a mexican standoff. It makes me think of the “aggressiveness tests” they used to have when trying out for para-bats in Bloemfontein during the bad old days of military conscription. Three guys with boxing gloves are told to hit each other. There is simply no way to hit someone without getting hit by the other guy and it usually takes a few painful minutes before two guys work out some kind of unspoken alliance inbetween the punches.
Ben J said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Very interesting Christiaan. The IRB is clearly not a big fan of South Africa, there are many examples of IRB heavy handedness against South Africa and unfortunately it seems that a Kiwi or Australian official is usualy around when it happens (or not). Case in point is Giteau’s charge on du Preez when the Kiwi official were in the gents. Pure farce.
Anyway, I can only console myself that South Africa is ranked number one in Rugby, Test cricket and One day cricket. Marvellous.
Knives Out said | August 25th 2009 @ 9:28pm | Report comment
mmm… there are also far more moments of appalling behaviour from SA than any other top tier rugby nation. To that extent, any anti-SA sentiment is broadly justified. Two events does not give any credence to the ‘more sinned against than sinner’ theory. In any case, all countries have been victims of poor refereeing, for example: Simon Shaw’s red card for kneeing Keith Robinson – the video ref had been watching the game and had illegally named Shaw as the culprit, Umaga v BoD on the Lions tour, Ali Williams stamping on Lewsey’s head etc…
Ben J said | August 25th 2009 @ 10:59pm | Report comment
I think it’s fair to say that since Jake White came into the picture the Boks have cleaned up their act to a large extent. The Boks 2001- 2004 were in a shambles regarding discipline no argument there but it is one thing to have a few incidents go against you and another to feel that there is a concerted effort to thwart you at every possible oppurtunity. To hear on the news that some IRB officials wanted to kick the Boks out of the 2011 World Cup is a disgrace to the game and those officials should be scrutinised. I am sure the sponsors, fans and New Zealand tourism bodies would have loved it if the reighning world champions were banned from playing in 2011. Fact is that the IRB has consistently showed an anti South African bias and should be taken to task for it. Hence you have a united front in South Africa (players and adminastrators) regarding the protest. An 11k Pounds fine just shows that the committee did not believe in the process themselves hence the slap on the wrists.
Knives Out said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
I’m not having a dig, Ben, I’m just making an observation based on what I have seen over the past deacde. You’re right, White did clean up the SA discipline but then look what happened during last year’s 3N game against Australia and Burger’s gouge (I’m not starting that debate again). SA has always been in the public eye for negative acts. I certainly don’t think there is a concerted effort to ‘thwart’ them.
Photon said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:03pm | Report comment
Ben J just ignore Knives, he’s just in a foul mood caus the Wobblies and cosequently his prediction for Tri – Nations winners tanked this weekend
. So Knives, how much cash did you lose over the weekend, after the Wallaby capitulation, or you also subscribimg to “The Wobblies are gonna come through brigade”
Knives Out said | August 25th 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
No. I have said since I saw Australia play away in Europe that their ain’t much going on, Photon. BUT.. and this is a big but, I thought the three consecutive games at home would be enough. Plus, SA and NZ were favourites and there wasn’t much value to be had. As it stands I didn’t bet on Australia at the weekend, and I certainly don’t think they are going to come through. Without Barnes and Sharpe and Mortlock they could end up being nilled which certainly wouldn’t reduce me to tears, put it that way. That said, maybe Ben Alexander is right and Australia will make a Lazarus-esque comeback… Maybe not though.