There is no violence in rugby.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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…

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.

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.”

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”.

I take it that you accept then you accept those criticisms you were silent about

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.