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
SARU was fined 10,000 pounds, John Smit 1,000 pounds, and the other Springboks were fined 200 pounds – all slaps on the wrist for highly-paid professional players – for bringing rugby into disrepute by wearing protest armbands in a Test against the British and Irish Lions.
The protest, ‘Justice 4 Bakkies’ (4, after Botha’s jersey number), was against a ruling by an IRB panel that gave the Springbok second-rower two weeks suspension for an illegal charge that dislocated the shoulder of the Lions prop, Adam Jones.
The IRB had argued to the committee hearing – Sir John Hansen (a former NZ high Court judge), John Eales, and Guillermo Tragant – the case that each Springboks player and the coaching staff should be fined 10,000 pounds, SARU up to 250,000 pounds, and that the players and the team’s management be suspended from the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament (with the sanction to be suspended depending on good behaviour).
After the committee entered its findings and sanctions, which many rugby people will feel are too light, the IRB said it would consider an appeal. The committee has specifically asked the IRB not to do this.
The committee is also adamant that if it had not rejected a code of conduct charge on a legal technicality, it would have been inclined to go along with the level of punishment suggested by the IRB.
The committee conceded that there had been a significant breach of the code of conduct, but legal technicalities forced its hand on the nature of its findings and, therefore, its punishments.
The full document of the committee’s finding (over 20 pages dense legal reasoning, in the main) can be found on the IRB website. I passed contracts with about a 52 mark ages ago, so I found this technical stuff virtually incomprehensible.
But the import of it is that SARU, the Springboks, and the team’s management, were saved by legal technicalities which, as I say, I can’t explain.
There are nuggets of information in the findings, though, that indicate that SARU was obstructive and hostile to the entire process.
The committee mentions right at the beginning that SARU was represented by “no fewer than five players.” There is a certain sting in the ‘no fewer’ phrase, and also the comment that the written material extended to “two over-filled Easlight folders.”
There is the complaint, too, that SARU tried to make the matter an investigation of the laws relating to Botha’s suspension and whether it had been consistently and appropriately applied. This line of argument, the committee insisted, avoided the real issue, which was the breach of IRB regulations involved with the protest.
Peter de Villiers, the Springboks coach, tried to have his evidence taken in Afrikaans, even though his English is good. The interpreter provided by SARU was “inadequate,” and SARU’s senior counsel had to do the translating.
SARU made the argument that the committee had no jurisdiction to hear the charges.
This argument was rejected.
SARU was criticised for giving their blessing to the protest without taking into account the consequences flowing from it. Smit conceded that if he had been told of these consequences, he would not have encouraged his team to make their protest in the way they did.
There was much argument about the composition of the IRB committee that made the ruling against Botha and which rejected his appeal. The committee found SARU’s argument’s unconvincing on this matter.
The committee was adamant that, because technicalities prevented it from making findings along the lines suggested by the IRB, that does not prevent it from making this strong statement: “On our view of the matter the individuals have committed acts of misconduct. The playing arena is no place for protest, even if it is limited, as claimed here, with a law of the game and its interpretaiton. However, in our view the matter goes much further. We consider the evidence suggesting that thiswas merely a protest against the law of the game is disingenuous in the extreme.”
When all the legal paraphernalia is stripped away from this comment, SARU, the Springboks and the team’s management stand exposed as acting as recklessly as Botha did when he charged into that fateful maul, and that the committee considered this behaviour serious misconduct.
The committee also suggested a certain hypocrisy on the part of SARU and the Springboks: “Outside of the hearing itself, and noticeably even then not by all witnesses, there has been no formal apology, acknowledgement, contrition or clarification from either the players or the SARU themselves.”
The final comment of the committee speaks for itself: “We are conscious that the IRB may well have power to lay charges under the Regulations we have referred to earlier. We would hope such a course is not followed … We have also made it abundantly clear that, but for legal difficulties … the named individuals would have faced serious sanctions …”
In summary, SARU, the Springboks and the team management were as quilty as sin. They got a lucky legal technicality break and avoided real justice being handed out to them.
Enjoy 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? (178)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (171)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales and France the early stars of the Six Nations (48)
- Barnes to lead Waratahs in first hitout
- Harris and Lucas in Reds No.10 audition
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (3)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (5)
- David Pocock: a skipper my Force teammates will fight for (17)
- Four changes to France Six Nations side (5)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (11)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (3)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (11)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (180)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (7)
- 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)
pothale said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:12am | Report comment
Hmmm
The B & I Lions prop’s name is not Adam Scott.
And I disagree with the view that de Villiers’ English is good enough for a legal argument. He has difficulty enough making himself clear to journalists. I’d say he was perfectly entitled to ask for his submission to made in Afrikaans. Don’t know why the interpreter wasn’t good enough though. One presumes an interpreter’s job would be far more professional than de Villiers. Or his senior counsel for that matter.
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:25am | Report comment
I think you missed a trick there, Spiro. You seem to have based your article on the press release by the IRB instead of actually reading the judgement. Not once are the words “technicality” or “technicalities” used in the judgement. They are only used in the IRB press release. And yet you say “the committee is also adamant that if it had not rejected a code of conduct charge on a legal technicality …” So it would appear that you wrote your article on the basis of a press release from a party which is accused of bias in the affair!
What the committee actually said was that the regulations obliged them to take a “legalistic” approach. That is not at all the same thing as a “technicality”. A legalistic approach is appropriate when a committee consisting of two judges is presiding over legal arguments relating to rules of process for disciplinary proceedings which arguments are presented by lawyers!
The trick you missed is that the judgement is actually a thinly veiled hint to the IRB not to take this further because the facts are actually very embarrassing for the IRB. The facts being that the CEO of the IRB appointed himself as the Designated Disciplinary Officer to decide whether the Springboks’ criticism of the IRB amount to misconduct.
Just so we’re clear on how this plays out: The Springboks are accused of misconduct for criticising the IRB for what they view as bias in the treatment of Springbok players and the IRB CEO responds by appointing himself to decide if it was a case of misconduct. Not only is the irony obvious but a very basic principle of justice was offended – namely that justice should be done and should be seen to be done. The CEO of the IRB was fatally conflicted in this case and justice could never have been done with him presiding over matters. As the committee said, “In this case, for the reasons given, we are satisfied that the CEO is not empowered by the Regulations to simply make himself the DDO.”
The committee also didn’t want to see all manner of armbands being used to protest all manner of disputes, so rather than kick the IRB’s case out entirely, they found them guilty of bringing the game into disrepute realising that if they were too harsh, SARU and the players would appeal. In that scenario, the facts of the Botha ban (and the rugby public’s reaction to the incident) combined with the IRB CEO’s actions in appointing himself as player, judge and jury would put the IRB in an extremely difficult position.
Daniel said | August 27th 2009 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
the IRB is a shamble and thats the bottom line!
They ban Bakkies Botha for cleaning out a ruck but about 2 minutes later the Lions players did the same thing, but they weren’t banned nor were they cited nor were they sent off, they weren’t even penalised!!!…so whats happening.
SA vs AUS tri nations 2009 (Newlands):
Matt Giteau’s tackle (or whatever that was) on Fourie Du Preez.He wasn’t banned nor cited and that’s about as blatant as they come.
Now they want to ban South Africa from the RWC 2011.How pathetic is that? South Africa played in four World Cups and we won two of them. Are they trying to get rid of us? Have we become so great that they couldnt imagine another World Cup with us in it? Look at this list below
SARU:
RWC Champions 2007
Won the British and Irish Lions series
Super 14 Champions
Sevens Rugby Champions
No.1 on the IRB Rankings
Freedom Cup (Series win over All Blacks)
Nelson Mandela Cup (Pending…SA leads the series 1-0 over AUS…should seal the deal on Saterday)
Tri-Nations (Pending…shouldnt be a problem)
Impressive to say the least!
The IRB should give us a title calling us the “Undisputed Rugby Champions of the World” and thats not being arrogant by no means.No wonder why Kraken Opus have decided to make the first Rugby Union Opus based on Springbok Rugby.
And now they want to BAN us from the World Cup….wow wow wow.
Talk about bringing the game into disrepute!
Edward said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:14am | Report comment
I wonder if you all know that the old Boks (1995 Boks) Paid the IRB fines of all the players and the SARFU fine. What a show of support for the team
Dingbat said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:28am | Report comment
“There is the complaint, too, that SARU tried to make the matter an investigation of the laws relating to Botha’s suspension and whether it had been consistently and appropriately applied. This line of argument, the committee insisted, avoided the real issue, which was the breach of IRB regulations involved with the protest.”
Of course that’s what the committee said. To say otherwise and to, oh horror of horrors, concede that the citing process is a farce would be self-critical, and who likes to do that? If the Bok protest improves the approach to citing and the consistency around suspensions then it would have been for the better of rugby. There is a strong historical protest culture in South Africa when the authorities (who Spiro seems to think are godlike untouchables who may not be questioned) start getting sloppy. Good on the Boks!
van der Merwe said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
Spiro didn’t seem to think that they were “untouchable” when they discarded that dog’s breakfast of a rule set of which he was so fond.
Dingbat said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:32am | Report comment
…and Spiro’s abhorrence of all things Bok shines through again…= the one-eyed pirate has no credibility
craigb said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:56am | Report comment
There is a strong historical protest culture in South Africa… Its called whinging when you dont get your own way!
Temba said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Craigb have you been reading this website in the last month?
Whinging has been a non stop event.
I am going pull out my violin and shed a tear for poor Spiro, the victim in all of this. His righteous crusade to rid the world from the evil Springboks got dealt a massive blow. The heartache and pain this man has gone through is now been downed by the very law he hold so dearly.
Keep hating lads it makes each win so much more enjoyable!
Look forward to your article on Monday Spiro.
It’s very clear that you hate the boks and there daft following. The hate was increased by these mails you speak of and is adding personal agendas to your articles. Perhaps you should take your name off the roar journo list and join us plebs in the blue side.
MM said | August 29th 2009 @ 12:11am | Report comment
You’re a genius!
How’d you get to that conclusion based on factual evidence? Everybody else in the world is exempt from this habit?
That is what you are implying. Back it up…
Ziggy said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:21am | Report comment
Spiro’s bias is again patently evident. I did not agree with the armband protest but let us get some perspective and common sense into the situation. What is bringing the game into disrepute is the inconsistent application of the laws at all levels. This is only rugby so I won’t get too overblown – but Spiro and his cohorts seem to be arguing that the laws must be upheld no matter what. No they do not.History is littered with examples where unjust application of laws led to severe consequences for the ruling governments. Any person with integrity would have hammered the nature of the protest but conceded the clear error of the original citing and the corrupt appeal process. That is where the real problem lies. Get rid of these biased, incompetent individuals who precipitate these situations in the first place. The officials who did the citing and heard that appeal should be kicked out of rugby – fast.
Spiro Zavos said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
It is Adam Jones, not Adam Scott, who got his shoulder dislocated by Bakkies Botha’s illegal charge. I did read the full transcript and confessed that the intricate legal argument was difficult to follow. But the tone of the finding and some of the comments which I quoted make it clear that the committee was not impressed with what SARU, the Springboks and the team management had done, and the way their case was presented.
This nonsense accusation about hating South Africa and the Springboks is very tiresome. If you read the full transcript of the finding (as I have done) you will find it expressed very clearly and often the committee’s distaste for what was done, and their objection to the fact that none of the offending parties has apologised publicly, even though John Smit has acknowledged that if he’d known what the fallout was going to be, he’d not have done it.
Let’s face it, Botha was found quilty and suspended. He appealed. The appeal was disallowed. The next step SARU should have taken was to set in train a review of the laws involved and its case for them to be changed or interpreted differently. Instead they claimed that Botha did not get ‘justice’ and allowed their national team to wear armbands in a Test proclaiming that. This was a direct attack on the integrity of the IRB, and was seen as such.
This is clearly unacceptable behaviour. I called it ‘arrogant’ and got hundred of personally vicious emails from Springboks supporters which suggests that the matter had been pushed beyond the reasonable and acceptable in South Africa.
The committee said that the various offences warranted a huge fine for all concerned and the Springboks being suspended (with this sanction in term being suspended depending on good behaviour) from the 2011 Rugby World Cup. South African rugby was saved by some of the regulations being less specific than they ought to have been, setting up some murky legal arguments.
I think any impartial reading of the finding would indicate that SARU and the Springboks were lucky not to get the justice they deserved from the committee, which is what I wrote.
johno said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Spiro, Matt Giteau blatantly and cowardly took out a player in the air, and is of a similar if not worse nature than the eye couging incident, yet your silence is deafening, which could gave resulted in serious injury.
Nothing was done to the chap. The type of challenge specifically breached two rules with no gray areas as in the Botha incident.
And now you want to convince us of your total and complete objectivity in these matters. There is a clear bias in all of your oppinions which always paint South Africans in the worst possible light.
Secondly, they weren’t lucky to get away with it, there were no murky legal arguments, laws are laws. If you don’t respect your own laws you become a despotic tyrant and then Zimbabwe happens! The irony of the matter is that the SARU still hasn’t received justice from the commitee, because they seem to be aware of the regulations, yet they ignore their scope.
As for the personal and vicious emails, well mate don’t you think you kinda brought it on yourself?
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
“The committee said that the various offences warranted a huge fine for all concerned and the Springboks being suspended (with this sanction in term being suspended depending on good behaviour) from the 2011 Rugby World Cup.”
That is absolute nonsense!! The committee specifically said that they would NOT have imposed the penalty the IRB sought. Here is what the committee actually said! “We would have been disinclined to impose fines of the level requested by the IRB.” The IRB had requested a suspended sentence of suspension from the RWC.
“South African rugby was saved by some of the regulations being less specific than they ought to have been.”
Again, this is completely the opposite of what the committee said. They said the regulations were very specific. There were no murky legal arguments. The issue was very specific regulations which required a “legalistic approach”. And what those regulations did not allow was for the CEO of the IRB to appoint himself player, judge and jury.
Darryl SA said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:32am | Report comment
Seriously Spiro, do you honestly believe that punishment befitting the crime would have been a suspension (with the sanction etc) from the 2011 Rugby World Cup? It was wrong, naive, silly, arrogant perhaps yes, they should have been fined and they were. It did not warrant suspension which you seem to be annoyed about. It wasn’t match fixing, or any other form of underhanded behaviour. It’s this kind of imbalance from you that leads to the accusations of bias.
Why no article about Giteau (and more recently Elsom) not being cited? Again, bias. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. You are after all Australian, and this is ostensibly an Australian website, so maybe you’re just trying to pander to the predominant audience. Upon reflection, I guess there’s nothing wrong with that. It is your site after all.
Daniel said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
i think the IRB must be disbanded!
They are bringing the game into disrepute by changing the laws of the game.Does this happen in soccer?
No certainly NOT.It’s becoming pathetic IMO.
After we won the World Cup, they changed the laws…
So we won the Super 14(with those laws) but then they changed it back…
we won the British and Irish Lions with those laws…
and now we winning the tri-nations and i’m pretty sure that most of the people dont even know by what laws we are playing now…
pathetic indeed.
and isnt it just AMAZING how all three of the “Independent Council” are from the Southern Hemisphere
and two of them are our fiercest rivals
Australia – Eales
New Zealand – Hansen
The last time New Zealand won a World Cup, South Africa wasn’t playing. (how convenient)
Well maybe they would like to win the World Cup again so they have decided to ban us.
Such a shame for the game that they would even consider that.
And Eales think he’s the best player because he won 2 World Cups, i think i’ll have to introduce him to Mr. Os Du Randt (who also won 2 World Cups…so thanks you!)
i suggest that we South Africans wear our armbands saying JUSTICE 4 SARU to every Currie Cup game and every IRB game we play to show our discontent at this ineffective ruling body.
AndyS said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:49pm | Report comment
You mean apart from the meeting FIFA has every year to review and revise the laws, the last one being only last month?
Putting that aside though, nice rantage! While I also think that a ban over this incident would be overkill, the whole team under the auspices of SARU did publically protest a ruling by the governing body. Maybe if they don’t like the penalties imposed, the IRB should just offer SARU the option of politely withdrawing from IRB representation and all IRB sanctioned events? If they are not happy playing with everyone else, maybe they’d rather just play with themselves again…
Daniel said | August 27th 2009 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
ok so what laws did they change?
did they change the laws about a penalty offence?
did they change the laws about a free-kick offence?
they have to have meetings.What must they do, they FIFA. They got a world cup comming up soon…
u sound like u english andy…shame
AndyS said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
No, but neither did rugby – long arms before the ELV trials remain long arms now. The laws trialled by the bulk of the NH didn’t even include that, so it is hardly a massive change. In real terms, the changes incorporated from the ELVs were fairly minor and I suspect it is more the application of those and existing laws by the referees that is having the most influence on how the game is being played. And who knows, when Union has been professional for a hundred years or so maybe it won’t need to play with the laws much either…once it comes to terms with professionals playing a game still designed for (and administered by ex-) amateurs.
But you are right, it would indeed be a shame if I were English (a sentiment no doubt shared by both halves of that equation!)
Daniel said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
lol ok you got out of that one Andy…
And it’s true there’s too much variation in the application of the laws and it was evident in the
British and Irish Lions tour to South Africa.
You have to admit that there are double standards and more often than not South Africa gets the
short end of the stick.So you can imagine how upset we are.
Funny that you dont hear of any bad news off the field from our Springboks.
Look at the Aussies and the All Blacks and the French and the English (there’s an entire club cought
up in a drug scandal)
And then one guy takes the fall.And everything blows over.
I mean isnt that bringing the game in disrepute.
SARU (South African rugby union) allowed a club to be banned (by their province) for 15years because of
violent incidents. So why would SARU condone this behaviour from national players.
Darryl SA said | August 27th 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
Daniel, I’m not sure you’re helping the cause mate.
The way I understand it (somebody correct me if I’m wrong), the SH dominated Independent Council you speak of were more lenient on us than the IRB wanted them to be.
I personally don’t think there’s any IRB conspiracy against SA. I just think that some citing commissioners are far more pedantic than others. So there does need to be more consistency. How you achieve that, I don’t know. However the findings of the judiciary must be respected. They are usually made up of patrons of law who are simply applying what they are instructed to. This is where the Springboks erred. Bakkies had an appeal and that too was unsuccessful. Beyond that any complaints should have been taken up via official channels and not aired so publicly. I’m sure not all judiciary’s get it right. It rubs both ways. Many non-SA’ans feel the Burger eye-gouging judiciary got it wrong, but we didn’t see the B&I Lions wearing armbands in protest there.
But at the end of the day, it was armbands not match-fixing or cheating, and a fine was the appropriate punishment. A World Cup ban would have been completely over the top.
Daniel said | August 27th 2009 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
Now that’s exactly why SARU allows the SANZAR and IRB to push them around, because they have a bunch
of guys like you Darryl. Im not trying to be rude hey but you must stop being such a push-over.
Dont you know how rocky the SANZAR relationship is? and somehow you believe these things cant possibly
be linked hey…wake up man
SARU needs to stand up and be counted and throw their weight around!!!
We are not just some small time rugby playing nation.We have the oldest domestic cup in the world and
2 World Cups under our belts and a host of other things that sets us apart from being treated as any other
rugby playing nations.
We are a nation that dictates how the games should be played.Look at the past game between AUS and NZ,
moaned and groaned about SA’s kicking game but they had to revert to the SA game plan.
In that match there was more kicking than any game played in SA, and that after Henry and Deans said we
would like to entertain and play expansive games…oh please
Look at what Ferrari did in the F1…they refused to allow the FIA just to make decisions and expect them to
comply. so if private organisations can do that then why cant a nation?
The IRB is embarressed about their rulings and laws and thats why they want to punish South Africa, because
we showed them where their shortcomings are…
We were just doing what all the others are thinking!
pothale said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:18pm | Report comment
“We have the oldest domestic cup in the world and 2 World Cups under our belts and a host of other things that sets us apart from being treated as any other rugby playing nations.
We are a nation that dictates how the games should be played.”
So you think SA should be set apart and treated differently to other rugby playing nations?
pothale said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Agreed. Same for the ones on the Burger citing too. They were totally incompetent. And the ones watching the Australia match with the card for the flying high tackle. Outrageuous.
pothale said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
eh that last response was to Ziggy, not Spiro.
Temba said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Awh Spiro… Sorry they didn’t ban the boks from rugby mate, this must have been serious bad news for you.
Don’t you have an article to write about the boring rugby on the weekend? O I forgot the Springboks didn’t play.
I can’t be sure but I have red many articles on this page about how incompetent the IRB is. I still don’t believe that the SB should of worn armbands but to dish out a million dollars of fines and ban the number one and current world champions from the 2011 RWC is ridiculous. I am sure it will make one eyed bok haters like Spiro happy but the fact is its not fair
The IRB has been screwing things up for ages now, everyone knows it. This bunch of clowns can’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
Banning Botha for two matches was wrong, wearing armbands was wrong, the fines are minimal but makes a statement. Case closed. Only sour grape hate filled bloggers like Spiro will want them to be banned. Note I say blogger as research, insight and an un-bias mind is needed to be a journalist.
I am loving his pain the last couple of weeks as it’s a bad year for bok haters.
fox said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Fair? FAIR? Please don not bandy such words around without properly understanding their definition! I do contest your argument that it’s a bad year to be a Boks hater. It’s actually a great year for Boks hating (and no, I am not talking about the winning – I do respect the results). The team has given us so much more material to work with this year!
fred said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
THE BOK WERE FOUND GUILTY AND FINED,clearly not enough but posters are probably more upset about the standard of rugby in saturdays test
the spin coming out is pathetic
johno said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Ag shame Spiro, was that a dissapointment to you?
You’ve obviously not even bothered to read the finding and once again made a huge ass of yourself by clearly basing your argument on a press release from a party that is directly involved in the affair. Your bias is now starting to lead to sloppy journalism!
The point is the IRB makes a mockery of it’s own laws and applies it inconsistently even now. In it’s finding in relation to regulation 18.1, the following is said “We read Regulation 18 as a stand alone Regulation. Clearly, for the reasons given earlier, the breach of the Code of Conduct cannot be sustained, because the necessary procedures were not correctly followed.”
Then they impose the following “In those circumstances we consider it appropriate to impose a fine of £10,000 sterling.”
The breach of regulation 11 is handled along similar lines… in other words, we find no jurisdiction, hey but here’s a fine in any case.
All of us cry foul every weekend when we perceive a ref to be biased, yet you are in essence condoning exactly that behaviour in this instance.