By Spiro Zavos
August 26th 2009 @ 1:28am
Related coverage
SARU, Springboks were lucky to avoid real justice
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.
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...
(170)
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.
reds fan said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
So tiresome… all I can say is that if the Wallabies had run out wearing protest armbands I would be very embarrassed for them. And I would hope the ARU swiftly pulled them into line.
All these accusations of bias that get thrown around say alot more about the accuser than the accused I think.
fox said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
yeah, I mean if Bakkies had died from the shock of being suspended it would be ok to wear the armbands. Reality is, nobody including Bakkies was that surprised – it was a suspendable offense, as is his drawing breath!
reds fan said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment
HAHA. The hyperbole is quite comical. Keep it going lads.
fox said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
I’m loving it!
Michael Lee said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
how about Gits elbow into Du Preez or Elsoms barge into McCaw from the kickoff, were those not suspendable?
Both of them could have sustained serious injury yet its a penalyt and life goes on.
Lets get serious there is absolutely no consistency.
fox said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
They were not tested. Like Richie MacCaw at the kick-off, your argument has no legs. Fact is, neither of the players you hold out for comparison actually compare to Botha in the slightest. Bakkies has a long and colorful history of foul play. You want that sort of player in your side then you must live with the consequences.
Daniel said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:46pm | Report comment
well ur a reds fan so embarrassement should come naturally hey…
dont worry this saterday coming we guna make the aussies wear some band(aid)s …i can tel u that though…
Ziggy said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Spiro, I fear you are confusing law and justice. The outcry, protests etc all stem from the vast majority view that justice was not done to the player. The original citing was suspect whether or not the player was injured. Instead of applying the rule fairly, the appeal process reinforced the injustice and so it escalated from there. The basic cause was the injustice of the original punishment. Compounded yet again by the complete let off of Giteau’s brainstorm etc. Clearly the problem is the inconsistent application of the laws. If the law is not applied correctly then there can be no justice.
While the IRB has squirmed in it’s process to make a decision in this case, I can tell you that they could be appealed and will lose on technicalities because their own processes were not followed. That, too, would not be justice because the SARB and players had to be punished appropriately for their dissension. You may find comments on your perceived bias tiresome but I suggest you do some soul searching as the new SA rugby culture is not the one you always seem to be attacking.
Lem said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
“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.”
The day you are impartial, Mr Stavos, hell will freeze over.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
You must really feel intimidated by the springboks for you to hate them so much, you must have nightmares about them on a regular bases cause to no surprise you are again everything anti bok. Its just shows that we must just be that good for you to try everything in your power to put a negative spin on the boks conduct.
As for Peter De Villiers Having “Good” english, just exactly how did you become a writer if you can judge his english as “Good”, you must have Bu*& *&^&ted your way in just like you do in your Blogs. Its people like you that make it so much better when we win cause i know inside you its like a dagger to the hart and the only way you can get some sort of sleep at night is to down those who you find the most treatening.
Tell me something have you and Campo been meeting up for tea lately, cause you both seemed to be very vocal on the springbok playing style but after saturday’s game you both seem to of let the issue of “boring Rugby” rest.
Funny that, eye patches anyone.
Craig said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Spiro,
I agree that the protest was perhaps a little childish. I feel that the side should have taken to the next test in Joburg professionally, beaten the Lions 3-0, then in the post match press conference attacked the IRB for a harsh penalty on Botha.
The point is, the ban on Botha was harsh. I know you will disagree with me, as you continue to go on and on at nausea as how Botha is a thug.
I do have a few questions though. You base your labelling on Bothas act being illegal on the fact that a player must enter a ruck while bound to another player. This matter is a very grey area. Please do me a favour and watch a game of rugby and count the number of times a player enters a ruck by himself. If this is the ruling, while then the refs are doing a terrible job and I could safely say that all forwards should have been slapped with a one week ban if that is the punishment.
In addition, it seems ludicrous that if a player was standing by a ruck, he has to wait for one of his mates before he enters it. Seems a bit silly.
But perhaps the most important thing; Jones was in the ruck on his own was he not? If you watch the replay you will see him loitering in the ruck on his own. It is thus safe to say that he himself entered the ruck illegally as he was not bound to one of his players when he entered. The penalty thus should have been awarded to SA prior to Bakkies entering the ruck in Spiro world.
Ian said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Spiro, you bias against the Boks is as incontestable as the inappropriateness of the Boks wearing white armbands to protest Botha’s banning. I don’t know how you got this chip on your shoulder, but it’s a massive one and you seem to be the only one who is unaware of it. Unfortunately, such obvious bias inevitably leads to sloppy journalism.
If you didn’t understand the legal jargon in the decision handed down, it would have been much safer not to say anything, but your bias would not allow you to remain silent. Even the book your wrote prior to the 2007 WC (which I read) had a clear bias against the Boks, and a clear bias toward the AB’s.
Perhaps you would not receive comments (or e-mails) like this if you got your act together.
And just in case you’re wondering, I’m an Aussie.
Danny said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
How childish of the Boks and some of their supporters, emboldened by victory, to wheel out the old “everyone hates us” line, including Spiro if you believe some on this thread. That they are deservedly on top of the rugby world right now isn’t good enough, it seems this also earns them the right to take justice into their own hands. Whatever anyone thinks of the merits or otherwise of Bakkies ban, wearing the armbands was an offence in itself, as has now been demonstrated by the fines (underwhelming as they are).
I heartly congratulate the current world cup holders, 3N front runners and world #1 side – now if you could perhaps start behaving with the grace and dignity that beholds your status and act out a role model I could proudly display to my 10 year old son to encourage him to play the game I so deeply love that would be appreciated.
Because right now your behaviour is an embarrassment.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:53am | Report comment
No one is taking justice into their own hands where merely lifting our opinion, same as the boks did to the IRB. They whore the armbands as a sighn of solidarity. The inconsistancy in the Disiplinary process is just wrong and not even you can deny that. Sometimes you just have to stand for what you beleive in and not just bend over to beurucratic systems. But if this is what you want to teach your son thats fine if you want him to grow up in a world where no one asks questions and just accepts what they are told thats your choice.
Long live the IRB, may they never be challenged and may they rule surpreme!
Kommander said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
What a silly response to a sensible comment – the armband was a sulking schoolyard way of acting whereas we live in world where the expectation is to go about things in a mature and diplomatic fashion.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
O yes because the ” mature and diplomatic fasion” has proven to bare many fruits when it comes to dealing with the IRB.
So if a response does not match your opinion it is written of as silly. And supporting your country in a sport is about the combination if nationalism and the love of the game, that is the essence of international rugby, not just for the love of the game. And i dont see how whearing the armbands is an act of cowardes but maybe im just blinded and biased.
For the the springboks and their supporters to act with”dignity and grace” the same has to also be asked of those supporting oposing teams when it comes to comments made after a game is lost. (comments that will take to long to into now).
And i am proud of the springboks behaviour, especially that of the field, their record of the field is so much cleaner then that of the wallabies and All Blacks. ” Cocain, car smashing, fighting at traning and regurly hitting the piss ring a bell. I think you have your values misplaced.
Kommander said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
You’re taking the psss right Prince Willem? Either way this is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long long time. Very good.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:41am | Report comment
I am merely taking my Q’s from you great Kommander
QC said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Willem its about time you grew up much like the Springboks should and their management.
They got off lightly so stop your whining and poor me rubbish.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Common if you gonna give an opinion you have to back it with more then just personal insults.
QC said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
Seriously Willem get a grip mate they got off lightly and the world is moving on. I look forward to the next incident of foul play from a Springbok and see what supporters like yourself accuse the world of next.
JP has got a great clothesline on him just ask Jimmy Cowan.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
Again you merely make a one line statement folowed by a bunch of insults. and i am not acusing the world of anything i am merely saying that the system is flawed. and yes that was a nasty close line but what does that have to do with the subject matter.
Kommander said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:54am | Report comment
Well said Danny – most of the previous responses are full of emotion and bias about bias!
If SA rugby supporters are not embarrassed about the behaviour of their team then that quite simply says more about them being blinded by nationalism over what ideally should be a love of rugby.
Quite simply, wearing the armbands was an act of cowardice and immaturity. Those involved have been found out and publicly humiliated – and the penalty is largely irrelevant.
Surely SA rugby does not wish to be regarded as the parriah of the sport once again? To rise above this indeed requires the grace and dignity you suggest. Will we see this over the next few days or will the laager mentality be used an excuse once again?
Michael Lee said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
The boks definitely deserve to be punished. but come on a banning from the world cup?????
But the wallabies are definately not taking their last 5 defeats with any grace or dignity, they are blaming everything in sight except their own ineptness in dealing with the tempo and pressure of the game.
What game were those Australian commentators watching.
Kearnsey wanted to give man of the match to Kaplan.
I LOVE THIS GAME
RickG said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
You Saffas aren’t exactly showering yourselves in glory here. It’s so easy to go with the ‘everyone hates us because we’re successful’ line (reminds me of childish antics in the schoolyard).
I bet you clowns thought Peter van Zyl’s actions a few years ago were entirely acceptable.
johno, your ridiculous statement:
“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”
says it all really. Biting, gouging, spitting and cheap shots – it’s all part of the noble and manly springbok way!
Michael Lee said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
seriously I can’t imagine anyone DELIBERATELY gouging someone. The cameras are going to find you out
johno said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:07am | Report comment
So, what then would you label it as? Competing for the ball? The man never even looked at the ball, he looked straight at Du Preez and even put some shoulder into it, which clearly shows intent to injure! And by the time the ball hit the ground both players were on their backs on the floor. There was clearly never any intention to play the ball, only an intention to illegally do grevious bodily harm when a player could not defend or avoid the contact. I’m sorry but in my book, that’s the actions of a coward!
Burger never had a view of what he was binding on to and was accordingly found guilty of RECKLESS behaviour, the disciplinary commitee conceded that intent to cause harm could not be proven.
LeftArmSpinner said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
The beauty of the roar and the roarers is that we can call it as we see it. I saw it as a clear case of bringing the game into disrepute. It cam from the inate feeling of superiority present in many Boks teams and arrogance across the board. grow up and play within the rules.
I suspect that PdV is not in true control and the SARU is ignoring their responsibilities to the code.
enough is enough. lets play some rugby…………..
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
There is a big difference between misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute. The Springboks were found guilty of the latter not the former.
Laurens K said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Leftie, tell me, does John Smit sound arrogant at any pre/post match interview?
Where does this SA is arrogant bull come from?
Knives Out said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
The players and fans. That’s my perception. I’m not having a dig, btw.
Laurens K said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
I think we are all confusing passionate and arrogant a bit here.
I love seeing all the kids dressed in black shouting and screaming at the camera when the AB’s play in NZ, this shows passion, not arrogance
Knives Out said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
I don’t think there is any confusion whatsoever. I recall Jake White laughing at Bill Young, noting he wouldn’t make a Stellenbosch grade team. I recall him laughing at the Irish team saying that he would only consider the 2nd rows as worthy of a Springbok squad place. I recall Jaques Fourie laughably suggesting that he is the best 13 in the world. I recall PdV laughing at the Lions prior to the tour. If you go on any SA rugby website and read the comments of the fans the arrogance is absolutely overwhelming. It always has been.
Laurens K said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
Let’s agree then to disagree.
I am a Saffa living abroad, so I do have more perspective on this topic than what you might think.
I was in England during the first two Lions test matches this year, and realized over there how big rugby actually is in SA. I have not been to AUS/NZ yet, so can’t comment on the influence this game has on the public down under.
In SA people go mad, rugby weekends are amazing where there are braais (bbq) all over the place, pubs jam packed, and people having a great time (when we win off course).
It’s great that SA have actually been able to convert this huge passion and support into dominance on the rugby field again in the last couple of years.
I agree that both these coaches have said some silly things, but feel that Jaques Fourie’s statement was more about self-belief and motivation, and also indirectly aimed at the SA coaching staff who has preferred a less good player, Jacobs
Dingbat said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Does anyone think there is consistency in approach when it comes to citings? Forget which team you support. Take the blinkers off for a moment.
As for craigb accusing Saffa’s of whinging, see if you recognise this: “well, to be frank, the game just isn’t a spectacle any more. people pay a lot of money for a ticket, and we owe it to the fans to run the ball goddammit. ball in hand rugby is what it’s all about. we should change the rules. no kicking allowed. or at least no kicking allowed by the Boks. and the Boks only get 1 point for a drop goal. and that Victor fellow should be cited for long hair and banned for 12 years. and no this has nothing whatsoever to do with my team losing 2 in a row against the Boks. and no it has nothing to do with the added pressure i’m feeling after my failure at the 2007 world cup. besides, Spiro agrees with me, so there.”
Tony from Northbridge said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
Peter de Villiers English is good? Spiro, you can’t be serious!
Jonathan Trollip said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
I have long had an admiration for Spior Zavos’ rugby musings (and other sports, see his great aritcle a few momths ago on his cricket match against/with Keith Miller).
But Spiro your selective South African bias is becoming a little tedious and I encourage you to play the game (ball) and not the team (man) and please lets have more articles with your incisive and stimulating views on the playing of the game itself (eg your recent artcile on the Springbok style and lineout domination which enecourages a kicking game until an astute coach (Henry or Deans) works out an effective way to counter it.) The Springboks were out of line and childish to protest against the BB ban. Enough said. End of story.
Someboby I was discussing this with wondered whether Spiros has a vested interest in writing tabloid type articles on The Roar to generate emotion based feedback on the basis of an undisclosed pecuniary interest in the number of feedback comments. But as Spiros is unquestionably a man of unimpeachable integrity I am sure this is not the case.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I have to say i agree with your last paragraph i mean he suckered me into commenting about five times on this article. I geus he has figured out that insulting the springboks brings in a barrage of devensive/hate comments from us springbok supporters as well as support from a few other springbok haters.
Laurens K said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
Spiros is the journalist version of Bakkies Botha.
In the team to upset and unsettle, and then the opposion (us readers) plays the man, not the ball
Greg Russell said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
You guys really know how to circle the wagons into a laager, don’t you. I don’t really want to engage with you on this issue, because I cannot see the point.
However, because I wrote Spiro an email yesterday suggesting that a person of his stature needed to write an article like this, it is only right that I publicly express my solidarity with him.
Incidentally, John Hansen is the guy who headed the ICC’s hearing into “Bollyline” at the beginning of 2008. It seems to me that he’s delivered a decision of the same (lack of) quality here.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:52pm | Report comment
Wait public show of solidarity, raising an opinion on desitions made buy figure heads, I think my man you are due for a hearing and need to be fined.
Hoy said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:06pm | Report comment
At the risk of getting more barbs, South Africans seem to get a little bitter about anything critical of their team. This is normally a generally very jovial forum for sports lovers, but when something negative is written about anything South African, jeez, watch the bees come out to sting people.
Makes me a bit frustrated.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
You say that like its a bad thing
Hoy said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
It is a bad thing if you can’t take criticism that is true without barbing up and biting, and accusing people of bias and injustice etc. Has it occured to you that the South African team may have been wrong to do what they did.
Your talk above, Willem, about teaching your children also bends the other way. Perhaps such public displays of protestation and accusations of bias against your team is also the wrong thing to do, and a show of petty petulance.
The team and SARU has been found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. Regardless of the initial charge to Bakkies, do you think they didn’t do that by publicly insinuating the games governing body were bias against them, and out to get them?
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
can you Honestly say that the above article is clean of bias and does not reek of dislike towards the springboks. I can do the right thing and wright a diplomatic comment but the fact is i would be saying lets just bend over backwards and accept what ever is coming our way, and about teaching ones kids it does go both ways as depending on the situasion. I dont know what your nationality is but if there was a writer that constintly blows out negative articles about your team and its supporters like its going out of fasion it would most definataly bring a reaction if not from you then from others.
Hoy said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
I was not talking about the writing of this article, I was talking about the truthfulness of the situation in regards to IRB sanctions.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
yes well us “bitter” people you are refering to are talking about the article.
BennO said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:51pm | Report comment
Willem it’s an opinion piece mate. Accusations of bias are irrelevant and rather pointless considering the author isn’t trying to hide their opinion but is actually providing it.
The article is based on an opinion that the springboks acted improperly by wearing the armbands and then acted improperly during the IRB proceedings. To sit there and accuse the author of bias when they are expressing an opinion and outlining the basis for their opinion is rather silly.
Temba said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
HAHAHA yes BennO, Spiro has an opinion right, he makes it clear in every rugby article he writes. “I don’t like the springboks”
No worries got it, he wears his armband if he wants to.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
exactly right it is an opinion peice but that does not mean we cant lift our opinion and point out that his opinion is infact biased. I geus buy us pointing to this fact we highlight that he ignores the otherside of the fence so to speak when it comes to forming his opinion which in turn he uses to write his blog.
BennO said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
What I mean is that opinion is bias. To say your opinion is biased is like saying your…well actually I can’t think of an appropriate analogy, but it’s the same thing essentially.
But to accuse someone of ignoring the other side of the fence, I don’t know, isn’t that the easy option? Perhaps they’ve considered the other side of the fence and think that this one is more important. I mean, I thought the boks have acted pretty immaturely this year (with the Burger incident and PDV’s “defence” of it, followed by the Botha stuff), and it seems pretty indefensible. Especially because there are other avenues available to the boks to deal with Botha’s suspesion and arm bands in solidarity could only have been used as an “up yours” to the powers that be. They were never going to achieve anything positive. The IRB weren’t going to sit up and say, “wait on, those arm bands have changed our minds.”
In all of this, that’s the side of the fence that I think is most important. I haven’t ignored the other point of view. But my opinion is a bias towards that. Anyway, re-reading that I think I’m rabbiting on about semantics. Probably fairly petty of me really.
But I do think it just seems an easy option to jump up and down and scream “you’re biased!!” that doesn’t address the basis of the original opinion and that’s what has made me comment to you.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
I dont think its petty mate its what this site is for, its for saying what you think in a healthy envorenment where no one gets hurt And yes it might be the easy option but if it is a person that regurly does it with everything the springboks are infolved with then suraly the credibility of his biased opinion on the subject matter should be questioned.
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 6:01pm | Report comment
Benno, there is a difference between taking the facts and interpreting them (which is an opinion) and making up facts.
Spiro’s article goes beyond just interpreting the facts. It contains blatant factual errors. In many cases, he said that the committee said exactly the opposite of what they actually said. For example, Spiro’s basic line is that the committee would have banned the ‘boks from the 2011 RWC but for a legal “technicality”. The truth is that the committee said that the CEO of the IRB was not entitled to simply appoint himself as the disciplinary office and that even if the ‘boks had been found guilty of misconduct, the committee thought the IRB’s requested punishments were excessive.
I’m happy to withdraw any accusation I might have made of bias against Spiro. I don’t think I made one frankly, but how do we then excuse these blatant factual errors? I suggested that Spiro may have only listened to the IRB’s side of the story (by reading their press release) but whatever the case is, this article is very sloppy journalism.
Temba said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
Hoy I hear you, we do tent to jump up and defend way to fast, there could be various reasons for this and I do agree. I said that I don’t agree with what the boks did in this instance.
What gets me is that many here moan about the inconstancy of the IRB, so in this way the Boks agreed with you they just choose the wrong way to express it.
My gripe is that every single article mr Zavos writes turns into a saffa bashing of some sort. And you think you getting frustrated? I have been reading the roar for 3 years now and it wasn’t always so.
So lately his tune has changed and his bias has become very clear, as a roar supporter I would like its main journalist to be exactly that a journalist. He should not be using a public forum to paste his hate in the name of journalism.
This is not just the view of a bunch of angry saffers.
If Spiro got his way and the boks got fined a million dollars and banned from the RWC it would not have been fair taking into consideration that Spiro has on many occasions voiced his dislike on the IRB management and systems.
Hoy said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
Fair call. Good one Temba.
Temba said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Suggesting that the IRB judicial system is working consistently and fair is BS. Making them out as the good guys is a big mistake.
History is littered with heroes that stood up in public and pointed out the wrongs that other lacked the balls to do.
Again I don’t agree with what they did but they said what we all were thinking bakkie or no bakkie. Many coaches and refs including the guy that got taken out by botha all say that it was fair contest. Many believe that Gittue should have been called after the tackle on Du Preez. It’s obvious that the IRB has no idea what they are doing.
My problem is not Botha or even the stupid move by the boks to wear armbands, it’s the IRB stuff-ups and people like Spiro who use their public voices to blabber out their own personal gripes… If you think about it, there is not much deference between what Spiro is doing and what the boks did. Perhaps we should fine him 200 000 Pounds and keep him away from the keyboard for two years?
ohtani's jacket said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
The Boks brought the game into disrepute?
Modern sport must be pretty dull if armbands bring the game into disrepute. The entire thing reminds me of the “blackest day in cricket” when Pakistan staged a sit-in. Rubbish. Colin Meads played against the Boks with a broken arm. Who gives a sh-t about armbands?
Laurens K said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:43pm | Report comment
You are spot on mate.
I have really not understood how people have been so brainwashed by laws and rules and regulations that we have sooo many grown men bitching about arm bands.
At least rugby is not boring off the field (sarcasm towards to Aussie media off course)
johno said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:25am | Report comment
Hello, Exactly!
Jannie Engelbrecht scored a try with a broken collarbone against the Bulls in a cup final in ‘66
Temba said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
OJ Spiro does, he is shouting “hang the boks from the city walls with entrails hanging out and crows pick at their eyesballs!!!”
Jerry G said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
What the Boks did was petulant and childish (yeah, it was a rough call on Bakkies, but considering Schalk got the equivalent of a slap on the wrist in the same week, they should have just copped it), but anything more than a fine would have been an over-reaction by the IRB. As it is, it’s a pretty light fine all things considered, but then it wasn’t that big a deal of an offence.
Campbell Watts said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
On ya Spiro!
It was petulant, immature behaviour on the Bok player’s part.
That management OK’d it shows a disregard for the game itself and nothing but incredible arrogance about the Bok’s place in world rugby.
If my team had carried on like this I would have felt embarrassed for them.
Hmm… make you hark back to the good old days – international rugby, sans South Africa
Darryl SA said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:04pm | Report comment
Good point Campbell! The only time the AB’s have been able to win a World Cup. The conspiracy is becoming clear to me now.
Ben J said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
I think we realy need to see things in context here. Wearing armbands as the Boks did for the reasons they did it was a bit unfortunate. To call it a disgrace and to call for their suspension is a kneejerk reaction to a matter that is more about emotions and the IRB’s ego than anything else. Rugby in this day and age cannot afford to have the world’s best team and current world champions banned for an action that was at most petulant. The IRB have been embarressed but not to the point where they should call for an entire nation to be punished.
Michael Lee said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
WELL SAID 100%
To me it smacks of deflection a la Wallabies results, Giteaus elbow and Elsoms barge into McCaw.
Jerry G said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Agree, Ben – anyone seriously talking about any sort of suspension is over-reacting.
It was stupid, but did it cause any harm? No – it was the equivalent of a batsman showing dissent to an umpire for a poor decision (though the Boks had a fair bit of time to consider their reaction unlike a batsman who reacts at the time). Financial penalties are all that is justified, though I’d have to say the actual penalties involved amount to little more than a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket when you consider the incomes of SARU and the players.
Gerrard said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
All this is about the wallabies getting thrashed everyweek. Jealousy makes you nasty alright. This is where all the hatred is coming from. Yep the boks erred with the arm bands and thats it dudes, leave it be now. You just making the boks more angry with this rubbish and might be sorry on Saturday lol.
Cheers and goodluck with the woodenspoon
QC said | August 26th 2009 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
How many Tri-nations have the Boks won Gerrad?
Sheldon said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
As it stands:
NZ 9
AUS 2
SA 2
Jerry G said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Geez Gerrard, I know winners are grinners but I’d have thought you’d be a bit more understanding of the Wallabies predicament – I mean how many wooden spoons have the Boks had throughout the years?
Sheldon said | August 26th 2009 @ 6:19pm | Report comment
It was released this morning here in South Africa that the players and SARU would not be picking up the tab from the IRB. The South African Rugby Legends Association will be paying it for them. A string of unfortunate events that started with the diabolicle citing of Bakkies Botha. The decision and the IRB were made a complete joke when the injured player, Adam Jones, said that Bakkies Botha had done nothing wrong or illegal when he sustained the dislocated shoulder. Yet the IRB went ahead with the suspension.
I think that the IRB are being treated like they should be. As a joke. Let’s hope the IRB takes these string of events as a sign to do some house cleaning. Thing’s are clearly not working.
stillmissit said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Stupid that Bakkies was penalised in the first place for something that looked legal to me. Even more stupid that he got suspended for THAT!
Then the stupidity really gets going when the team wears arm bands. The whole thing seems like something from Monty Python.
Eagle said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Have the IRB management lied in a press release? This is a very serious question.
If the panel has stated that they have taken a legalistic approach ie. applied the law as it is written, and then the IRB puts out a press release saying that the panel claimed “legal technicalisties” was the basis of their decision, then frankly the IRB management has lied to the international media.
And their lie has been printed and consequently reported as the truth. This is extremely damning of the IRB’s credentials as an officiating body. It is damning of its own respect for its own legal process. It is damning of its integrity.
It proves exactly the point that the Springboks made, namely the IRB cannot be trusted with justice.
Ian Noble said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:51pm | Report comment
Spiro
What the Boks did was pathetic and childish and frankly demeaned their status as World Champions, but to make more out of the incident blows it out of all proportion when there are bigger issues to be dealt with by the IRB. The recent “blood gate” incident and the feigning of injuries to gain advantage are more important issues to be addressed, as they have a bigger and more significant impact on the game now and in the future.
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:03pm | Report comment
I’m not sure one can go so far as to say that the IRB lied in their press release, but they certainly put their own spin on what the committee said. Unfortunately many journalists, apparently Spiro included, have relied on the IRB release instead of finding someone to explain the judgement to them. I think it is important to set Spiro straight on some of the things he said. I’ve quoted Spiro first under each point below.
1) “A legal technicality …” – The word “technicality” is not used anywhere in the judgement in any form. The misconduct charges failed because the IRB Regulations were breached by the IRB itself. How? Well the CEO of the IRB appointed himself as the Designated Disciplinary Officer to look into the misconduct charges. Spiro’s article is consistent with the IRB press release but not consistent with the judgement.
2) “The committee … would have been inclined to go along with the level of punishment suggested by the IRB.”, “The committee said that the various offences warranted a huge fine for all concerned and the Springboks being suspended.” – This is absolutely untrue. The committee said exactly the opposite: “We would have been disinclined to impose fines of the level requested by the IRB.” Once again, Spiro’s article is in line with the IRB press release but not the judgement.
3) “South African rugby was saved by some of the regulations being less specific than they ought to have been.” – The committee in fact said that regulations were very specific and that the IRB had not followed them. They said, “The reality is that the IRB … determined to insist that it had an authority which we are satisfied is not forthcoming under the Regulations.” “[W]e would consider it inappropriate in such circumstances to amend the charges. In any event such amendment would cause injustice in the context of this hearing as the SARU and named individuals would face vastly different charges, with different relevant considerations that they were clearly not in a position to meet.”
4) “There is the complaint, too, that SARU tried to make the matter an investigation of the laws relating to Botha’s suspension.” – There is no such “complaint”. It is in the normal course of defining the issues that the committee decided that the matter should not be about the suspension itself but the protest thereto. If this were a “complaint” by the committee, then there are a number of “complaints” made against the IRB too every time their arguments are rejected!
5) “SARU made the argument that the committee had no jurisdiction to hear the charges. This argument was rejected.” – This is completely untrue. The committee said exactly the opposite: “It follows from this that the charges relating to breaches of Regulation 17.21.1, Regulation 20.21 and Regulation 20.16 against the SARU and the named individuals must fail for want of jurisdiction.” Note that the IRB’s charges failed because the IRB had no jurisdiction, i.e. the committee found in favour of SARU and the Springbok players. In this case, the IRB press release does not seem to make the point Spiro makes.
The truth of the matter is that if you read the judgement, there is as much criticism for the IRB as there is for the Springboks. That is what an impartial reading of the JUDGEMENT will tell you. Spiro’s article is riddled with factual errors, some of which the IRB press release makes too but that is the nature of a press release and not the nature of journalism.
Ben J said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Now THAT is a proper analysis. It is quite amazing how a press release can inadvertently (or not) distort the truth.
Ben J said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
It will be quite positive from Spiro (a man who’s articles I enjoy) if he can respond to this explanation from David. In the age of soundbites and press releases it is very easy for a team or individuals to be vilified without proper recourse or explanation. It seems from David’s assertion that the committee was as uncomfortable with the IRB’s handling of the process as they were with the protest. That in itself is a damning indictment on the IRB’s CEO who seemed to have driven the Bok’s persecution because of (posibly) egotistical emotions.
JustinB said | August 27th 2009 @ 9:29pm | Report comment
Some good points there David.
I agree with a few of the other comments here that Spiro’s apparent dislike of SA rugby has pretty much ruined his writing as far as I’m concerned. I always looked forward to Spiro’s articles but I’ve no real interest in reading the thoughts or opinions of someone with an axe to grind.
I think Spiros is the new Southern Hemisphere Stephen Jones, the only difference that he dislikes just one country, as opposed to SJ who can’t stand an entire hemisphere. Each to his own, but I think Spiros risks being pigeon-holed as anti-South African (and I can’t figure out why he is).
And yes, I am Australian so no I’m not buggering off to some other Jarpie forum or whatever.
Knives Out said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
I don’t entirely disagree, Laurens. But you don’t hear such comments coming from any other nations.
adam said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
SARU was fined 10,000 pounds, John Smit 1,000 pounds, and the other Springboks were fined 200
1 000 pounds like 10 thousand rand spiro that is no small fine even for someone who earns alot
the boks got stung
adam said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:24pm | Report comment
against the British and Irish Lions.
Saru was slapped with a R130 000 fine, while captain John Smit will have to pay R13 000. Each Springbok player was also fined R2600.
Allan believes the IRB’s ruling is unfair and lamented the union for their inconsistent citing.
‘We are here to safeguard rugby’s values and believe the IRB are targeting the Springboks,’ Allan told Volksblad. ‘The Springboks are the best team in the world because they stick together and the IRB do not like it.
‘Bakkies is punished, but Wallabies flyhalf Matt Giteau, who took Fourie du Preez out [in the Tri-Nations match at Newlands], is not.’
Jerry G said | August 27th 2009 @ 4:04am | Report comment
Good lord, does this “Everyone is out to get us” permeate all levels of South African rugby? Get a f’ing grip, fellas.
Dingbat said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Div is making more sense than Spiro:
http://www.sport24.co.za/Content/Rugby/TriNations/355/cc7c5299b657455f812ee59665669323/26-08-2009-02-26/Turnovers_concern_Div_most
bob said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
Rugby is bigger and more important than the SA team, and the players and coaches showed themselvres to be petulant, spoiled brats. They have got away lightly from the IRB, but have shown their true colours. It was a stupid, childish, and embarassing protest to make. And a reminder… rugby survived well and healthily without SA for many years, and it can do it again. I would suggest the SA rugby volk do not test the rugby worlds patience too often… they need to grow up.
Ben J said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
Ooh Bob, I am sure SARFU and the Boks are quaking in their boots because paternalistic “Bob” say they are childsh. Who exactly did they embarress Bob? You? Fact of the matter is they made a mistake but at least they stood up for something they believe in. The reaction to this saga is more over the top than the protest itself with people like you who are so precious.
Rugby without Souith Africa was not healthy at all, it was a amateur sport run by amateurs. Now it is a pro sport and South Africa had a big hand in the creation of the modern game. If you do not like it go and make a few flour bombs and see you in Perth.
bob said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:56pm | Report comment
Ah Ben J… there you go, childish and petulant… a player gets sent off so you wear an arm band to protest it, then take no responsibility for your actions, then lambast everyone who challenges your actions… pathetic. And if you think rugby can’t manage without SA, you need to get out more mate. “Fact of the matter is they made a mistake but at least they stood up for something they believe in.” As I seem to recall, that happened once before in SA didn’t it???? A third world country with delusions of grandeur mate… that’s all. Now grow up and learn to behave like adults or all you’ll ever be is the laughing stock you currently are. The IRB should lose the yeallow and red card, and introduce the naughty chair for fututre tests involving SA… that’s about their level.
Dingbat said | August 27th 2009 @ 1:52am | Report comment
Calm down Bob, you’re almost as testy as Graham Henry these days, wanting to change the rules to suit the AB’s and all. No need to feel so threatened. No need for the authorities to feel so threatened about a tiny winy little armband protest. In the SA context that’s hardly even a protest matey. That’s the kindergarten of protests. SA is indeed a wonderful mix of first and third world. That’s what makes it such a challenging and exciting place to live. Certainly a lot more interesting, warts and all, than Aus and NZ with an overwhelmingly white, middle-class, dull, culturally challenged and one dimensional “sport rules, ok” attitude.
johno said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:50am | Report comment
Well Bob, let’s see now and be completely mature about this.
You and I and the rest of the good folk above work for company A, we all kick the bathroom door, since it has no handle, but Mr Jones the manager only fines me.
I then appeal this, citing the many incidents of like behaviour by colleagues, Mr Jones then agrees that this fine is inappropriate, but refuses to withdraw it. Next week you kick the door down and, low and behold, nothing happens to you.
Please explain to me where I should take my complaint, since Mr. Jones is clearly not intrested in justice 4 all.
Willem said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
This third world nations doesn’t seem to be to bad at holding it own against your marvelous and wonderfull 1st world country. Must say alot about the people hey, could you imagine what can be achieved if they finally become a fully developed nation, scary isn’t it.
Michael Lee said | August 27th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
the laughing stock in 1st place mind you and World champions, despite being 3rd world though the wallabies are fighting it out with the poms for tops in the whinging stakes.
its so entertaining and then the entertaining game, and then the whinging, its like a good movie, it never ends.
Gerrard said | August 27th 2009 @ 1:20am | Report comment
Getting touchy now chaps lol. I said get on with another topic already you whingers.
ohtani's jacket said | August 27th 2009 @ 1:31am | Report comment
Rugby survived without South Africa for many years because everywhere South Africa toured there were protests about something of real significance, not this Donna Martin Graduates crap.
Isn’t there a game on this weekend? One that could possibly decide the outcome of the Tri-Nations. Y’know, that tournament that’s been going on despite the game being brought to its knees.
Eagle said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:31am | Report comment
The IRB goes to the media and attacks in public the decision of its own independent committee. Why is this a lesser evil than the springboks protesting a decision of a citing committee?
The IRB is apparently concerned that the panel applied the law as it is. Yet in the Botha case what was appealed is a situation that the law as it is was never applied in practise for years against any player, but then suddenly in the Botha case it was applied.
Why is the IRB above the law? Why can the IRB CEO act incorrectly and then go to the media and blow of steam with incorrect claims that minimises the findings of the comittee as legal technicality so that someone like Spiro can pick it up and start calling the Springboks lucky?
And what about the punishment should match the crime? How the heck can wearing an armband to show dissent even remotely be considered something that could place a nations participation in a world cup in jeopardy? Clearly something is rotten to the core here.
Ziggy said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:34am | Report comment
Bias. Bias. Bias. That explains his article and poor journalism.
retired rucker said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:38am | Report comment
Well Spiro , I think you got well and truely carded on this one, I can’t faullt David’s reasoned arguments. Anyway we know the IRB is an ass and it is composed of all our unions so in a way we are all asses!
I also was amazed Gits and Elsom weren’t cited at least, there actions where embarrasing. It is clear there is some serious lack of consistencey coming out of ASS head quaters!
Go the wallabies, do you reckon brownie will go for his third yellow on his home ground?Tats a trifecta to tellthe grand kids about?
Darryl SA said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:06am | Report comment
Ah yes, when I first read the news article on another website about the IRB committee findings, I said to myself “I bet Spiro is going to have a solid rant about this one”. And sure enough, here it is.
This is old news now – most South Africans disagreed with their protest anyway. But let’s face it – the IRB would never have banned (yes I know the threat was actually about suspension of sentence on condition of no further misconduct yadda yadda yadda – but the intent of saying that was to wiggle a suggestive finger in SARU’s face threatening banning from the World Cup) the Boks from the World Cup because they would have weakened ‘the product’, and alienated a fairly healthy percentage of their rugby union customers.
Nice try for details Spiro but alas I do agree with many that you reserve a special degree of vitriol for SA. Fair dinkum. Doesn’t really bother me. Your article makes a good attempt at being thorough, but I got bored and lost interest what with all the ‘technicalities’ of your details. Must really rub salt in the wound to see that the SA Rugby Legends organization is going to pay for the fines. *snicker*
Moving along now.
Ziggy said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Interesting how little this IRB action has attracted in UK. Methinks the scribes and fans over there have it in the right perspective. And maybe it undescores the anti Bok bias in these forums.
Campbell Watts said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
Well Ziggy this is an aussie website so piss off to your yarpie websites and let us Bok-hate in peace eh?
Temba said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
Nice hehehe, good, very good… I can feel your hate. With each passing moment you make yourself my apprentice. Feel the power of the dark side flow, give into your hate!
Campbell Watts, you are a knob.
Why don’t you take a valium and whoo saaaa, put on an armband that says I hate yarpies.
Campbell Watts said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Just stiring the pot Temba, just stiring the pot!!
You’ve got to keep things interesting – I love these heated debates that sway WAY off the original topic. I jump from camp to camp, throwing a few inflamatory bombs here and there – fills in my day see?
I’m just mising ragging out on Tuqiri non-stop. Ah…. those were the days
Temba said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
I know CW, I miss Lote too… Who will we dish out to now?
o wait PDV always provides something special!
Ziggy said | August 27th 2009 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Firstly a spelling lesson – its Japie. Secondly, it’s highly offensive and even racist to some. Thirdly I am an Aussie citizen of some 40 years. Finally, as some measure of my suffering, I have supported the Waratahs(previously the Blues) for all those years so I know what is like to be a perennial loser. But you have always known that – have you not?
Temba said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Willem, I have to say, I live in Australia and love it, I love the people too, all of it. Unfortunately like life, this website has its creatures. Yes they are 1st world and miles ahead, take it from me but have no more passion then we do.
Ill always be a bok fan and just like us they hate losing and will blame everything on anything to divert the pain. Rules, IRB, armbands, boring rugby, refs, bakkies and suzy… o wait that’s the other tazman.
Doesn’t matter mate, just sit back and enjoy, don’t take to heart what some sour grapes bok hating bloggers think. Take it with a cheeky smile.
Willem said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
I know mate i live in melb myself, I love it here to, nothing wrong with the country, i geuss my comments make me sound more serious then what i intend it to be. you seem to have a nack of making your comments come accross as light hearted which i don’t. I geus i am trying to say that it is not how i am trying to come accross, i am flying up to see the boks play in Brisbane and intend on getting involved in some light hartet banter there to.
Ziggy said | August 27th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
They will probably lose in Brisbane(bad record there) so have plenty of XXXX to ease the pain.
Spiro Zavos said | August 27th 2009 @ 11:27pm | Report comment
Could David and the others who have suggested that I did not read the full IRB document and wrote a misleading article read the final paragraph (84) of their finding: ‘We are conscious that the IRB may well have the power to lay charges under the Regulations we referred to earlier. We should hope such a course is not followed. We trust that our views of the actions of the personnel and SARU in this matter make it perfectly clear that protest has no part on the playing arena. We have made it abundantly clear that, but for legal diifficulties we have outlined, the named individuals would have faced serious sanctions. We believe this in itself will deter not only South African players, but all rugby players, from adopting such an unwise and ill-considered way to make their feelings clear to the IRB, or the general rugby watching public.’
The IRB statement on this, and I followed its wording, called the ‘legal difficulties’ legal technicalities.’ This was appropriate and correct for clearly that was the impediment preventing the committee from coming down like a ton of bricks on SARU, the Springboks and the team’s management.
The committee said that that it would have imposed ’serious sanctions’ but for these legal difficulties. Those sanctions involved banning the players and the management from competing in the 2011 RWC (but suspending the sanction pending good behaviour). This hardly seems like an endorsement of the arm-band protest. Also, the committee would have levelled fines on all the parties of about $500,000, which the IRB was calling for.
David’s reading of these facts that somehow they represent an indictment of the IRB is bizarre, to say the least.
What could be clearer than this last paragraph? The Springboks as I said were lucky to avoid real justice on this matter.
David said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:15am | Report comment
Spiro, I said that your article contains FACTUAL ERRORS because of SPECIFIC things that you said that are untrue. Notably,
1) “The committee … would have been inclined to go along with the level of punishment suggested by the IRB.” and
2)“SARU made the argument that the committee had no jurisdiction to hear the charges. This argument was rejected.”
You have not even attempted to back your original statements up. Until you can prove to us that these two statements above are correct, then I’m afraid your article remains factually incorrect. It may well be that the general tone of the judgement is critical of the Springboks’ behaviour. That, does not make those two statements quoted above correct.
No one ever suggested that the IRB endorsed the armband protest as you now claim. Your statement in this regard is the very definition of a straw man! What I said is that the judgement is critical of BOTH the IRB and the South Africans. You could simply have focussed on the criticism of the South Africans for your article but you chose to go further and actually introduce statements critical of the South Africans that the committee never made.
By way of a specific response to this: “David’s reading of these facts that somehow they represent an indictment of the IRB is bizarre, to say the least. What could be clearer than this last paragraph? ”
What is bizarre is taking ONE PARAGRAPH out of the judgement in an attempt to say that the judgement contains no criticism of the IRB!
What I said is that the judgement is critical of both parties. Because the judgement is critical of BOTH parties, there are certain paragraphs that criticise the South Africans and others that criticise the IRB. The indictment of the IRB’s behaviour in this affair is patent to any neutral observer and many of your colleagues have reported on the critique of the IRB. By way of examples, here are some quotes from the judgement:
* “The reality is that the IRB … determined to insist that it had an authority which we are satisfied is not forthcoming under the Regulations.”
* “As we noted earlier, the power of the CEO (or his nominee) derives from the Regulations. The Regulations do not empower him to simply nominate himself.”
* “In any event such amendment would cause injustice in the context of this hearing as the SARU and named individuals would face vastly different charges, with different relevant considerations that they were clearly not in a position to meet.”
* “It follows from this that the charges relating to breaches of Regulation 17.21.1, Regulation 20.21 and Regulation 20.16 against the SARU and the named individuals must fail for want of jurisdiction.”
If you see these as endorsements of the IRB, then you really are drinking the IRB KoolAid (is the cooler in the same room as their press releases?
)
The simple fact of the matter is that the misconduct charges the IRB brought FAILED. The committee said that the IRB did not follow their own regulations. The committee noted that the IRB’s appointment of its own CEO to as DDO was invalid. Any neutral observer can see how these things reflect negatively on the IRB. At the end of the day, the criticism of the IRB by the committee is more subtle because the committee is appointed by the IRB! And of course, you aren’t going to pick up that criticism by letting yourself be guided by the IRB’s own press release since the people who write those are paid to make the IRB look good!
At the end of the day, it makes absolutely no difference to the accuracy of your article whether or not the judgement was critical of the IRB. The factual errors in your article stand even if the judgement is a glowing endorsement of the IRB. What you said is simply not true.
Darryl SA said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:45am | Report comment
“The Springboks as I said were lucky to avoid real justice on this matter.”
Righto Spiro, I think it’s clear where your sentiments lie on this matter. Pointless anybody trying to convince you otherwise.
Now could you please write an article about how “The Wallabies were lucky to avoid real justice on the Giteau-du Preez matter”? After all “justice” is what you’re all about right? Regardless of player nationality. I look forward to reading it. Oh feel free to work in an angle on Elsom-McCaw while you’re about it. Thanks ever so much.
South African said | August 28th 2009 @ 12:19am | Report comment
If they banned Botha, then they should at the same time ban everybody who cleared out at the rucks in that or subsequent games. There needs to be consistency, and the IRB have failed miserably at achieving this. I wont go as far as to claim that the IRB are biased against South Africa, but I also wont claim that they’re not – I would love somebody to produce stats on this. What is clear is that the there is a level of incompetence in the IRB at spelling out clear rules and implementing them consistently.
Nobody ever died from wearing an armband to protest, and I place a lot of value of allowing people to honestly and openly express themselves. To be frank, the IRB’s shutting down of freedom of expression feels like a trip back in time to apartheid South Africa.
“After the committee entered its findings and sanctions, which many rugby people will feel are too light” – how does anybody know what rugby people will feel? What the article fails to be mentioned is that there are many people who think the polar opposite.
Photon said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:05am | Report comment
Spiro, the fines the players received were fair, as $10′000.00 may not seem like a lot when you earn dollars but it’s pl;enty of dosh to a player who is paid in rands. You cannot fine all countries and players according to the same scale as all countries are not remunerated on the same scale, that’s why in Cricket players are fined a percentage of their match fee and not in currency. I am an avid Springbok fan who as Knives and co will tell you is at times unreasonably biased and but I realise that the actions of the players were unacceptable and as such the punishments were fair. As for whether or not Bakkies should have been banned, well suffice to say I do think the Springboks are unfairly treated at times and that because the Boks are not part of a block the way the Australasians (and I include Tonga Fiji etc) and Europeans are we get screwed more often than others. I also think there is a fair amount of resentment at the fact that what is for all intents and purposes is a third world country has been able to show up a whole lot of First world countries
Ant said | August 28th 2009 @ 1:36am | Report comment
Fascinating opinion piece Spiro. To call it an article would be to liken it to real journalism. You are becoming more and more tedious and predictable as time goes by old boy. Maybe you should just stick to the rugby and try and write about it as objectively as possible. It will be tough I know, but give it a go. Thanks.
Dingbat said | August 28th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
ANYBODY WANTING TO READ THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF SPIRO’S DRIP DRIP DRIVEL, NEED ONLY READ MR CHRIS LAIDLAW’S ARTICLE ON “THE ROAR”.
Spiro Zavos said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
Aside from the hysterical ‘Spiro-hates-South Africans’ nonsense, the difference between Dave’s take on the 3-man committee finding on misconduct charges brought by the IRB against SARU, the Springboks and its team management is that Dave sees the committee being ‘critical’ of BOTH sides and, as far as he is concerned, a sort of defeat for the IRB: and I see the findings as being critical essentially of the South African respondents, with the added sting that if ‘legal difficulties’ had not arisen, the South African respondents would have been subjected to a particularly harsh sanction (suspended depending on good behaviour) of the Springboks and its team management from the 2011 Rugby World Cup and something like a $1 million (Australian) fine in total on the respondents.
In my view, therefore, the findings vindicate the IRB and condemn the South African respondents. The ‘winner’ in all of this is the IRB.
The findings are as follows:
1. The charges against SARU and the named individuals under Regulation 17 and 20 are dismissed.
2. The charges against SARU under Regulation 18.1 are proved. We impose a sanction of 10,000 pounds.
2. The charges against named individuals under Regulation 11 are proved. Each of the named individuals is fined 200 pounds.
NOTE: there is no finding critical of the IRB, which rather shoots down Dave’s analysis.
To support my reading of the committee’s find, I quoted paragraph 84. Dave has complained about this: ‘What is bizarre is taking one paragraph out of the judgment in an attempt to say that the judgment contained no criticisms of the IRB!’
This is very misleading of Dave. He will know, or should know, that paragraph 84 is the last paragraph in the judgment. In this paragraph the committee set out the essence of its findings. It is clearly the most important paragraph in the judgment, and not just ‘one paragraph out of the judgment,’ as Dave suggests.
To ensure that there can be no argument over what the paragraph says, here it is in full:
‘GENERAL: (84) We are conscious that the IRB may well have the power to lay charges under the Regulations we referred to earlier. We would hope such a course is not followed. We trust that our views of the actions of the personnel and the SARU in this matter make it perfectly clear that protest has no part on the playing area. We have also made it abundantly clear that, but for legal difficulties we have outlined, the named individuals would have faced very serious sanctions. We believe this in itself will deter not only South African players, but all rugby players, from adopting such an unwise and ill-considered way to make their feeling clear to the IRB, or the general watching public.’
Remember this is the final paragraph of the judgment. It sums up the context to the findings. The committee concedes that it’s interpretation of the legal difficulties may, in fact, be wrong. It is very critical of the South African respondents. I cannot find any criticism of the IRB in any form in this final, crucial, paragraph.
As for Dave’s quotes about supposed criticisms of the IRB, he knows (or should know) that these criticisms are of the arguments put forward by the IRB to justify the use of the IRB’s CEO on the tribunal hearing the charges against Bakkies Botha. The committee concedes that its reading of the legal difficulties involved with the fact that the British and Irish Lions are not a Rugby Union and therefore may or may not be subject to regulations involving Rugby Unions may well be wrong.
Paragraph 66 makes the point that the dismissal of the charges against SARU and the individuals under Regulation 17 should not be considered ‘a vindication of their behaviour … We say it is not a vindication because in our view of the merits of the matter the individuals have committed acts of misconduct.’
Paragraph 67 goes further: ‘We consider the evidence suggesting this was merely a protest under the laws of the game is disingenuous in the extreme.’
I would include Dave’s attempts to somehow see the judgment as a criticism of the IRB on an equal level with its criticism of SARU and the other respondents.
Any unbiased reading of this judgment will support my original contention that SARU and the Springboks were very lucky to escape real justice in this matter.
South African said | August 28th 2009 @ 7:18pm | Report comment
Qui tacet consentit
I take it that you accept then you accept those criticisms you were silent about
David said | August 28th 2009 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
Spiro, when we interpret facts, there is room for each of us to have an opinion. I think that the parts I quoted contain very clear criticism of the IRB particularly in the context of the IRB being the committee’s “employer”. Furthermore, the fact that the main charge the IRB brought (under regulation 17) was dismissed because the IRB was determined to exert an authority it did not have, are in my opinion, a clear criticism of the IRB’s behaviour. Our respective interpretations of the facts give us contradictory OPINIONS and you are entitled to yours just as I am entitled to mine.
I have not criticised your article for the OPINION you expressed but for the FACTUAL ERRORS. The accusation of bias is not one that I have made. I in fact posited that you were probably careless in your reading of the judgement and let yourself be influenced by the IRB press release. Frankly I think you would have done well to admit that your article contains errors and perhaps say that it does not change your opinion. The following two statements are as far from the truth as they could possibly be and one wonders why you spend your time raising straw men arguments rather than publishing errata. The discussion here has always been about the FACTUAL ERRORS in your article not your opinion.
1) “The committee … would have been inclined to go along with the level of punishment suggested by the IRB.” and
2)“SARU made the argument that the committee had no jurisdiction to hear the charges. This argument was rejected.”
Ace said | August 30th 2009 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Real justice?
Please, present us with an article on Giteau’s assault on Fourie du Preez and the lack of action that followed it. Compare that with the “Justice 4 Bakkies” case and tell us where the real miscarriage of justice was.
Photon said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:07pm | Report comment
I think is a more pertinent question is. Where is Spiro’s friday preview, or is this article a substitute. It must be caus Spiro can’t bring himself to predict a Wallay win.
Darryl SA said | August 28th 2009 @ 8:13pm | Report comment
“will support my original contention that SARU and the Springboks were very lucky to escape real justice in this matter”
Like I said in a previous post, I for one don’t expect your sentiments on this issue to change. “Real justice” is what you’re after. And on that note, still waiting for your in-depth article castigating the IRB and the citing commissioner for not citing Giteau and Elsom in recent test matches, and how they escaped “real justice”.
MM said | August 30th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Are you blind…………………….??
Darryl SA said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:14am | Report comment
MM?
Eagle said | August 28th 2009 @ 10:43pm | Report comment
Spiro, in South Africa Matt Giteau told the IRB referee to go jump in the lake (to put it mildly), showing very strong dissent very publicly, when his team was justly penalised. He and his team was marched 10 metres. If he repeated his dissent immediately he would probably have been yellow carded. And that would’ve been the end of that.
I think it was not the most wise thing that the Springboks did. But South Africa have over the years lodged internal complaints with the IRB over the fairness of the justice it meets out. Yet we have never seen a proper overhaul of the citing process. Do you really honestly think the process is working? There are so many extreme inconsitencies – look at how you screamed about the Burger incident and in South Africa people where extremely unhappy with both the Shaw case and with the non citing of Giteau (it appears Fourie Du Preez is being singled out in attempts to injure him) where justice was not seen to be done.
Nontheless dissent may be punishable. However, when people responsible for justice start talking in this macho way of 1m dollar fines and nations being expelled from a world cup, in the context of this armbands dissent, then I think we have a major problem with the capacity to understand justice of the individuals involved. And once we are there we have a great problem if the system of justice is left in the hands of such people, who clearly lets emotion cloud their judgement. If the Springboks where wrong it was probably the result of emotion clouding judgement, and if we then have the people judging them respond in a way that clearly reflects emotion meeting emotion, we are in deep trouble as a sport.
Now we start to come to the point where serious action is required to correct the status quo. The status quo now no longer is just an inequitable and inconsistent citing process, it is a dangerous level of injustice with extreme damage threatened. And as we know in South Africa, if the channels do not adress your concerns, your next recourse is peaceful protest, and if is suppressed with violence or threats of violence, then you have to take the appropriate action in the cause of justice.
I do not know what a single nation can do to defend itself against the prejudice of individuals wielding power in the IRB management, but I do think that if the SARU representatives are so weak in the IRB set-up that they cannot get the problem fixed, then the situation calls for other steps. What this would be, I do not know. Is it government driven intervention? Is it recourse to courts of law?
I hope for the sake of the game of rugby that this situation is adressed.
Knives Out said | August 30th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
The prejudice of power?! That must be a pretty bland prejudice given Burger’s mild gouging ban. One only has to recall the lack of punishment doled out last year following van der Linde’s flying head butt on Burgess and Burger’s testicle grabbing of George Smith to note that there is certainly no prejudice against SA in the IRB. If there were then following the 53 incident match against England a lot of players would have been removed from the game for a long time.
MM said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Knives Out
Where do you evidence prejudice of power based on factual data?
You’re still living in the past. But let’s try and get some perspective: Sorry to have to tell you that Burger’s “Mild eye-gouging ban” is due to the substantive facts that he did not eye-gouge. Being an editor myself and examining the frames of that incident, if Burger intended to eye-gouge – he certainly could have. This particular incident is so exacerbated it begs for statements such as, “Pity Burger didn’t eye-gouge” to the point where the opponent’s eye was hanging out of it’s socket – then the winging would be worth it. Look at the verdict revealing the truth. Why would many journalists point out Burger’s fair nature and disposition on the rugby field continuously right up until this incident?
As for the remainder of your remarks, remember the golden rule that if you’re going to criticise – you have to own up to ALL illegal play, penalties and citings not allocated – like the Matt Giteau one and others… Let’s return to the last world cup where Johny and company winged on and on about a try not awarded, yet there was absolutely no action taken when Montgomery was intentionally pushed over the barriers onto one of the huge cameras….???
Bakkies: It’s largely the consensus that he was doing his job and not illegally either. There was another consensus saying it wasn’t legal – he’s been tried and punished – so what do the anti-Boks’ people want further given the numerous inconsistencies?
Albeit that Boks’ skipper, John Smit said that if he knew wearing the arm bands, “Justice 4 Bakkies”, would be as contentious and illegal as the findings revealed – this act in no way compares with the undoubted intent of the recently famous fake injury – akin to fraud.
My personal view is the inconsistency by Refs and TMOs’ So why do supporters fall into the well designed trap of media and begin attacking, attacking and more attacking?
Paradoxically, there would be something grossly wrong if supporters did not feel aggrieved as we all have. We’d surely have big worries if the territorial part of the psyche failed to come into play where each Nation has it’s own pride.
It is that pride and ownership that’s immensely powerful in supporting our Nation’s players.
Judging by another article written very recently by Spiro, he is one of those journalists who certainly know where and how the buttons can be pressed.
I trust you see the holistic picture and fairness – and keep up your passion!!
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:31am | Report comment
No, MM. I’m living in 2009.
Of course Burger attempted to eye gouge. It defies belief that anyone would suggest otherwise. It is obvious he knew he wasn’t dealing with Fitzgerald’s hamstring or shin, rather his face. Frankly, I don’t care what journalists had to say about Burger’s nature. He may be a nice man, but he is a violent recedevist (who was massively berated by the media), unless, of course, you have forgotten the 3N last season when George Smith vocally took Burger to task for grabbing his testicles. That he showed no remorse following either incident has shown himself up for the low-IQ fool that he really must be.
That match, by the way, was also the match where van der Linde took a flying head butt at Luke Burgess and where Frans Steyn laughably knocked himself out attempting to take out Drew Mitchell in the air. The match followed a pattern of foul play, and no nation other than SA has ever conducted itself in such a manner during a whole match in the professional era (apart from England v SA 2003 and this match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuCVJunTRQ). This persistent behaviour is in stark contrast to Giteau’s charge on du Preez. That charge was awful, and yes the IRB citings lack consistency but it was something out of character for him. Foul play from this SA team can not be so easily dismissed. Twice this season Bismarck du Plessis has stood over grounded players and threatened to punch them. Clearly, certain players believe that the rules don’t apply to them. I’m happy for Flood to be castigated for his push on Montgomery (perhaps he was re-enacting the moment when Montgomery assaulted a match official?) because I can assure you that if such consistency is applied then SA would be short of a lot of players.
Lee said | August 31st 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
I’m sorry but if you want to call in the accounts of Bismarck standing over players threatening to punch them, then you should probabvly watch the tape of those incidents in the 15 seconds leading up to them. An act of foul play intended to wind up Bismarck was the main cause to which he responded, and the fact that he didn’t retaliate says more than him threatening to do it.
And what a BS response, so you are pretty much saying that Giteau has no history, so this was an isolated incident out of character but you are then saying that as far as you see it the entire Boks team has a “history” of foul play, and that should therefore count against any player in the Bok jersey? Sounds fair…
From now on I will tar all Australia cricket teams(and every player within them) with the arrogant, sore losers brush because during the 80s they made some questionable decisions i.e. the under arm.
MM said | August 31st 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Lee – you’re right and I’ll add to what you’ve said.
There are certain comments not worthy of response and I felt this was one of them – thus I did not.
All I’m going to add to what you’ve said is Mr Knives out is a born star who missed his career for heaven’s sake… According to his observations – which as you’ve touched on are narrow such as the video he underlines which defeats the said statements anyway.
I’m wondering what us earthly individuals with some sense of fairness are doing, witnessing a person who is so knowledgeable, that all Refs, TMO’s and Unions should be replaced by himself???
Sounds like a one man job – doesn’t it?
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:16am | Report comment
None of that makes any logical sense, and you contradict yourself. Try again.
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 8:14am | Report comment
–
Obviously you’re not familiar with the term ‘threatening behaviour’, Lee, or acts contrary to the spirit of the game. Retaliation is also a punishable offence, as I recall. The fact that du Plessis didn’t punch anybody is because he is probably a low-IQ fool who presumed that waving his fat fist in somebodies face would be enough to scare them. Unfortunately for him O’Driscoll and Palu were not impressed and thus du Plessis’ ‘Cold War’ fist waving was made laughably redundant.
It is obvious what I am saying because it is in print. Giteau made an awful challenge. He deserves to be punished as do all offenders. However, this boring juvenile SA paranoia is just that.. boring and juvenile. It completely ignores the fact that some players are recidivists and unfrotunately for the SA premise that they ‘are more sinned against’ they are such a nation and therefore there cries of woe are so very lamentable. You can extend that premise as far as you like, that’s your call.
Lee said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
As far as I am concerned “acts contrary to the spirit of the game” are not limited to those who retaliate or as Bismarck did, shape to retaliate and then stop i.e “threatening behaviour”. These “acts contrary to the spirit of the game” would include those of O’Driscoll and Palu prior to them being threatened by Bismarck. By only highlighting the response of the retaliator, you fail to apportion any blame to the instigator. All I am saying that is this case, it is a clear example of the involvemnet of two parties both in the wrong.
You could have used the example of Burgers eye gouge (nothing to incite Burger), Sheridan punching Bekker(who did nothing to incite Sheridan), Giteau taking out Du Preez(who did nothing to incite Giteau) for thuggish behaviour. Find me other examples of the Boks doing something(that isn’t a retaliation to other foul play) in a game, and I guarentee you I will find an example in the same game of an opposition player being the instigator. Thats what happens in a game or rugby, each side trying to get the upper hand mentally and physically on the other.
South Africa received a reputation in the past for thuggish behaviour, something that Jake White tried and succeeded to abolish. This current team was no more thuggish than the Lions were, nor the Australians, nor the All Blacks. They are simply living off the reputation of past offences. I am sure that even you will note that some decisions i.e. Botha’s ban, Burgers ban at the World Cup were excessive when viewed in light of other decisions. The protest was a protest for consistency, which I am sure most supporters of the game, with even 2 eyes slightly open would agree is needed.
As for calling a player a “low IQ fool” perhaps you should look at Du Plesis’ life and academic accomplishments before commenting:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article6493030.ece
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
Wow… Bismarck is a genius. Anybody who acts like that in a public arena is an oaf.
What did O’Driscoll and Palu do? When have you ever seen a player stand above a grounded player and threaten to hit them? I have never seen that. Du Plessis is a recidivist. I have clearly stated that all foul play should be clamped down on but technically retaliation is considered the worst offence, and I never saw a Jake White Springbok act like that. Btw, how do you know that Bekker did nothing to incite Sheridan? That du Preez did nothing to incite Giteau? You don’t because you weren’t present.
Where is the NZ instigation:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuCVJunTRQ. Likewise where was the instigation versus Australia last year?
I cannot be living in the past simply because in the previous 3N SA resorted to their typical behaviour following two homes losses, and you have no response to that. No other team acts like that. This team is far too quick to resort to illegal play. Australia and NZ aren’t.
Lee said | September 1st 2009 @ 6:22am | Report comment
For some reason can’t reply below your last post…
So let me get this straight, teliing an opposition player that if he does something to you again you will hit him is worse than the opposition player doing something to you…right…Maybe hitting him in retaliation is wrong but not standing up for yourself. I know you would rather him walk away? As I said before it is a physical game where both sides look for an edge, if one side tries to niggle at the other, then the other side will respond be it with “threatening behaviour” or a fight. This is hardly new to rugby.
I never said that the Boks didn’t instigate foul play, but what I said was that over recent years they have no longer behaved like the idiots they were under Corne Kriges captaincy. I asked you to show me an instance in a game where SA instigated foul play, and I said that within that same game, I think I could find an instance where the opposition instigated foul play as well.
So you are saying that O’Driscoll and Palu did nothing but then telling me I can’t say Du Preez did nothing to incite Giteau and Bekker did nothing to incite Sheridan because I wasn’t there. Well you can watch the video footage of all of the above incidents and see that Du Preez was no where near Giteau in the 30 seconds before that, and that Bekker was driving in a maul, when Sheridan decided a bunch was the best course of action.
You add a video showing foul play for an assortment of games, and while some of those are clear incidents of foul play, I don’t know how you would class a number of those as foul play, eg contesting for a kick with your arms out stretched to take the ball as an eye gouge attempt, talking a dummy runner from a flat back line, being commited to a tackle and then the player passing the ball, when they are incidences that happen in every game. The point being if I had the time and the capabilities I would go through every Wallabies and All Blacks game from this year, and put all the incidences of taking out support players, stepping into kick chasers, high tackles, late tackles etc I would also have a 2minute tape from both.
Knives Out said | August 31st 2009 @ 3:32am | Report comment
–
No, MM. I’m living in 2009.
Of course Burger attempted to eye gouge. It defies belief that anyone would suggest otherwise. It is obvious he knew he wasn’t dealing with Fitzgerald’s hamstring or shin, rather his face. Frankly, I don’t care what journalists had to say about Burger’s nature. He may be a nice man, but he is a violent recedevist (who was massively berated by the media), unless, of course, you have forgotten the 3N last season when George Smith vocally took Burger to task for grabbing his testicles. That he showed no remorse following either incident has shown himself up for the low-IQ fool that he really must be.
That match, by the way, was also the match where van der Linde took a flying head butt at Luke Burgess and where Frans Steyn laughably knocked himself out attempting to take out Drew Mitchell in the air. The match followed a pattern of foul play, and no nation other than SA has ever conducted itself in such a manner during a whole match in the professional era (apart from England v SA 2003 and this match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLuCVJunTRQ). This persistent behaviour is in stark contrast to Giteau’s charge on du Preez. That charge was awful, and yes the IRB citings lack consistency but it was something out of character for him. Foul play from this SA team can not be so easily dismissed. Twice this season Bismarck du Plessis has stood over grounded players and threatened to punch them. Clearly, certain players believe that the rules don’t apply to them. I’m happy for Flood to be castigated for his push on Montgomery (perhaps he was re-enacting the moment when Montgomery assaulted a match official?) because I can assure you that if such consistency is applied then SA would be short of a lot of players.
Eagle said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:11pm | Report comment
The continous stream of weird notions about justice and and how justice works that appear here and elsewhere make it relatively clear why the citing process as it stands will not work.
I have suggested previously that a single citing officer should not be one officer, but should a representative of a each nation playing plus of a third nation and a citing should be unanimous. Similarly the nations offending should also be represented on the citing commitee.
Otherwise the best idea is to implement the regime that applies at the English Premier League, where the number of cards a player gets will determine when he gets suspended and how long. So if a player has ex amount of yellow cards or red cards he gets suspended for a fixed period.
That leaves it in the hands of the referees who are right there in the context of the game and in my opinion have a much better record than the poor citing commisioners.
You could then have a system where if something is missed by the onfield referee a tv match official could afterwards hand a yellow or even red card to a player who received no onfield sanction.
Eagle said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
Another reason why this will work is because referees are reviewed by the team managements.
Knives Out said | September 2nd 2009 @ 12:24am | Report comment
–
Lee,
‘So let me get this straight, teliing an opposition player that if he does something to you again you will hit him is worse than the opposition player doing something to you…right…Maybe hitting him in retaliation is wrong but not standing up for yourself. I know you would rather him walk away? As I said before it is a physical game where both sides look for an edge, if one side tries to niggle at the other, then the other side will respond be it with “threatening behaviour” or a fight. This is hardly new to rugby.’
Here is a scenario: you push somebody, an opposition team mate runs in and pushes you. Referee gives against you and then reverses it due to the retaliation.
I understand what type of game rugby is but I have never seen a player act in such a manner and you have not been able to provide me with the name of a player who has.
‘I never said that the Boks didn’t instigate foul play, but what I said was that over recent years they have no longer behaved like the idiots they were under Corne Kriges captaincy. I asked you to show me an instance in a game where SA instigated foul play, and I said that within that same game, I think I could find an instance where the opposition instigated foul play as well.’
They behaved like idiots versus Australia during the 3N last year. Burger gouged Luke Fitzgerald. That is strong behaviour. As is du Plessis’s childish fist waving and the behaviour (forearm smashing?!) against NZ in the youtube video.
‘So you are saying that O’Driscoll and Palu did nothing but then telling me I can’t say Du Preez did nothing to incite Giteau and Bekker did nothing to incite Sheridan because I wasn’t there. Well you can watch the video footage of all of the above incidents and see that Du Preez was no where near Giteau in the 30 seconds before that, and that Bekker was driving in a maul, when Sheridan decided a bunch was the best course of action.’
No. I merely asked you what O’Driscoll and Palu did because you seem so sure they did something overtly hostile in order to effect such a reponse. The point is that SA is a team of recidivists. Andrew Sheridan (only twice including the punch) and Matt Giteau have never been pulled up for foul behaviour whereas du Plessis, Botha and Burger have, for example.
South African said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:22am | Report comment
recidivists – nice scrabble word.
“The point is that SA is a team of recidivists.” So let’s tar the entire team with the same brush while we’re at it.
I’m not surprised at the violence in rugby, with its big hits it’s a close cousin of boxing.
Knives Out said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:24am | Report comment
Let me rephrase that.. The SA rugby side contains numerous repeat offenders.
There is no violence in rugby.
BennO said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:37pm | Report comment
er Willem, he based his interpretation on the entire transcript of the committee, not a press release. He stated that in the article and in the comment to which you replied. Try reading the article again, slowly, and read the words Spiro writes not what you think lies behind them.
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
Yes you are right he did base hes interpretation on the transcript and not a press release but this still does not change the fact that he makes his interpretation based on arrogant assumptions from as he himself says “a few nuggets” he could understand.
David said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
If he gave the judgement the pride of place it deserved, how come he continuously refers to “technicalities” which is a word only used in the press release and not the judgement itself?
Willem said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment