Boks should take legal action about referring
Roar Rookie By Sheldon, 15 Sep 2009 Sheldon is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- International Rugby, Rugby Union, SARFU, Springboks
143 Have your say
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- South Africa Springboks news
The biggest battle for South Africa should be beginning in the next month or two and that is with the IRB. The citings against the Boks have to end.
Instead of wearing silly armbands, SARFU should proceed with legal actions, through the correct channels, against certain individual’s.
Maybe the Springboks need to start complaining a bit more, like the All Blacks and Lions have done by running to the IRB. I think it may be more a case of sore losers rather than justified actions.
Brad Thorn was cited last year for a devastating spear tackle on John Smit, leaving him injured for the rest of the Tri-Nations.
A one week suspension seemed ‘fair’.
This year, Scott Nowland cites Jaque Fourie in Saturday’s game for a far less dangerous tackle and he gets handed a four week suspension.
I wonder where Scott was when Kieran Read shoulder charged Bryan Habana after the whistle?
The same Scott Nowland cited Bakkies Botha in the Lions series for legal play, causing the rather silly but understandable reactions from the Springboks.
However, in the same match he missed Brian O’Driscoll head-butting Danie Rossouw.
Nigel Owens should go in front of a disciplinary committee and be forced to explain his first couple of penalties against the Boks in the opening 30 minutes.
They simply were not penalties.
I wonder if Nigel could explain any of these decisions he made during the first 30 minutes:
1. Smit penalised for supporting Matfield off the kick off.
2. No yellow card for Rokocoko taking Habana out in the air.
3. Penalised Smit for slip on wet ground. He was not even looking at the scrum when he gave this penalty.
4. Read’s shoulder charge on Habana after the whistle. No yellow card.
5. Boks penalised for being ahead of Spies’ kick. Which Boks where ahead Nigel?
It does not matter if the statistics show that South Africa no longer leads New Zealand or Australia in the foul play department. In fact, it shows that we are now well behind in this regard.
We cannot shake off our reputation. Steps need to be taken.
If the Springboks don’t address the way they are cited and treated by certain referees and the IRB, I fear it may cost them dearly in the future.
But please, avoid armbands.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- International Rugby, Rugby Union, SARFU, Springboks
September 15th 2009 @ 1:34am
johnyfairplay said | September 15th 2009 @ 1:34am | Report comment
good point sheldon, a review of all such incidents during the 2009 season will sure make interesting reading. i wonder why the bias though, any idea?
September 15th 2009 @ 2:00am
Matt0931 said | September 15th 2009 @ 2:00am | Report comment
Sheldon Sheldon Sheldon. I think it’s time to stop reading those one sided South African sport sites and/or listening to the boks coach weekly rant. I presume you wrote your piece after reading something like the bit on the below link.
http://www.blogspotrugby.com/sanzar-judicial-joke/
SA are not the only team to from time to time think they were hard done by when it comes to refs whistles. The wallabies for example, Baxter it particular, felt they have been hard done by when it comes to their scrum.
It doesn’t surprise me though that bok fans are quick to complain about these decisions and get on their soap boxes but are very quiet about blatant dirty bok play – eye gouging for example or what about their illegal truck and train mauling- they did it again last weekend and got away with it.
Another point…Scott may have cited the players but he wasn’t the person who handed down the suspensions. These are decided upon by the SANZAR Judicial Committee which is made up of members from all member countries.
I’m sure if your coach wrote another letter to the IRB like the one he wrote a couple of weeks ago he will get a similar response again.
Finally, I don’t think smit was penalised for supporting matfield, wasn’t he penalised for breaking away from Matfield and then rejoining from the side and in doing so obstructed an AB from making contact with Matfield??
Rokocoko wasn’t penalised for the same reason Habana wasn’t when he took out Rokocoko in the air and the boks went on to score a try. Both players were in the air.
Yes Read did shoulder charge Habana and he was given a formal warning for this as this is all it warranted. No one was injured and play was able to go ahead…actually the boks kicked a penalty from this didn’t they?? Which could be the 3 points that got the boks across the line in the end..
September 15th 2009 @ 2:35am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 2:35am | Report comment
Matt my boy, let me spell it out for you so that you can also understand, it seems as if you are having a hard time. There have been in the recent tri nations four instances of deliberate foul play perpetrated against the Springboks where there were no intention to compete for the ball and or to intentionally injure the player.
There has now alledgedly been one instance of foul play by a Springbok.
There should therefore have been five citings, two AB players, one Woblly player and one Springbok player.
There has only been one citing, and to make it even more ludicrous, the sanction is a very heavy handed four week suspension.
Brad Thorne in a similar incident of deliberate and intentional foul play, which happened after the whistle had gone and should have been sanctioned even more strenuously since it caused a serious injury and was not as the Springbok player had indicated an unintentional action, only received a one week ban.
Now would you like me to feed you your porridge and change your little nappy too?
September 15th 2009 @ 2:41am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 2:41am | Report comment
Well if we’re going back to the prior 3N tournament then perhaps you can explain to me why Bismarck du Plessis, CJ van der Linde and Schalk Burger were not seriously reprimanded for an ‘attack of the face’ (aka eye attack), a flying headbutt and a testicle grab respectively.
Now would you like me to feed you your porridge and change your little nappy too?
September 15th 2009 @ 3:01am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:01am | Report comment
Bismarck was also reprimanded
Schalk was reprimanded.
What did CJ alledgedly do and when did he do this?
And then lets talk about Sheridan and his sneaky little low blow and BOD’s head butt.
Now next time you come out with a little burp like that, get your facts straight and we’ll be able to have a rational conversation and I wouldn’t have to pat your little back. But don’t come talk BS with me when I’ve clearly stated facts and figures where procedures are clearly not being applied consistenly.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:17am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:17am | Report comment
Du Plessis was indeed reprimanded but certainly not on the terms their action merited. We are talking here about three of the most cynical fouls possible, where there was no intention to compete for the ball, only to injure another player. If you want to moan childishly about heavy sanctions then I suggest you clarify your perspective.
Schalk Burger was not reprimanded for grabbing George Smith’s testicles.
CJ van der Linde was mildly reprimanded for head butting Sam Cordingley, in the same match that Burger assaulted Smith’s testicles, which was also the same match that Frans Steyn knocked himself unconscious trying to take Drew Mitchell out in the air. I suppose pre-meditated violence isn’t anything new to you guys, eh.
Yes, let’s talk about Sheridan. If Burger’s sneaky gouge deserved such little attention then Sheridan’s punch deserved even less. That seems fair, eh?!
O’Driscoll’s headbutt? That is truly laughable.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:58am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:58am | Report comment
As far as I can remember Du Plesis got a sentence due to insufficient evidence, but still got found guilty and given a suspension, that makes sense doesn’t it. If in the motion of entering a ruck and if and when your elbow then makes contact with the opposing players forehead is cynical, well then you’ve never cleared out a ruck. Maybe you should try playing the game instead of just talking about it.
Was Schalk charged, is there any video evidence of this, or wait I think this was also thrown out due to inssufficient video evidence, which I think is basically what happened with the headbut scenario, or it was called an accidental collision. Those happen occasionally in a contact sport, especially rugby, ok bubba, or would you rather watch ballet?
Burger got what he deserved. There was a clear president set the previous week for an offence where it was ruled that their was intentional contact and in Burger’s case there was no proof that contact was intentional, but that it was reckless. So once again he actually got more than he deserved. If you watch the Burger incident he never sees what he is holding onto, which is why you can’t prove intention!
Steyn incident, well that’s your opinion. Two guys going for ball with eyes on ball…well I’d say both are going for the ball. But if you wanna see it the other way, well anybody can be biased to win an argument.
Sheridan intendid to harm a player he got nothing, in Burger’s case there was no intention proven, that’s a big difference sonny.
BOD, ran into another player without using his arms. It is an automatic penalty. Since the player was visibly injured after the collision it should have at least merited, in the interest of consistency to be looked at after the game by a disciplinary body.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:03am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:03am | Report comment
“Sheridan intendid to harm a player he got nothing, in Burger’s case there was no intention proven, that’s a big difference sonny.”
If Sheridan wanted to harm him, he would have hit him harder. If Burger didn’t want to harm Flitzgerald, he would have taken his fingers away from his eye area immediately.
Next you’ll be arguing Burger was ‘caught in the moment.’
September 15th 2009 @ 5:07am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:07am | Report comment
“If in the motion of entering a ruck and if and when your elbow then makes contact with the opposing players forehead is cynical, well then you’ve never cleared out a ruck”
That’s a terrible argument. You could equally defend O’Gara, Shaw and Sheridan in a similar way
September 17th 2009 @ 3:18am
johno said | September 17th 2009 @ 3:18am | Report comment
Best you go read the transcripts of the actual findings wingnut, then we can talk about the facts pertaining to each case. In the Burger case the comittee clearly stated that they couldn’t find intention dumbass.
Sheridan punched and hit a man in the groin area – that clearly establishes intent.
As for the rest, you’re clearly an ignorant biased hick without a clue or regard for procedure.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:29am
Matt0931 said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
Oh OK thanks for that johno, your views are obviously unbiased, fair and of course well balanced – It must be because you have A CHIP ON BOTH SHOULDERS.
Explain to me why Burgers squirelling did not receive a ban last season? and why didn’t Bismarck du Plessis get a lengthy ban last season for attacking Adam Thomson’s face?
Both these incidents were dangerous and should have resorted in lengthy bans.
They didn’t. Why not?
Surely if the world was out to get the boks then they would have been nailed for these too?
The truth is, some players are cited and others are not. You can be damned sure that many many other incidents go on that are not seen by the cameras and are therefore also not cited.
Now do you want me to pick that pacifier up and put it back in your mouth? It might help stop you crying!
September 17th 2009 @ 3:22am
johno said | September 17th 2009 @ 3:22am | Report comment
Plagarism is usually frowned upon parrot boy
September 15th 2009 @ 2:54am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 2:54am | Report comment
“Brad Thorn was cited last year for a devastating spear tackle on John Smit, leaving him injured for the rest of the Tri-Nations.”
Hahahaha, I remember that ‘tackle.’ He was rightly banned, but it’s not the worst spear tackle I’ve seen, not even close. But, what was ridiculous about it, was the Springbok camp effectively making a mountain out of a molehill. They went over the top with their complaint, with what was a nothing incident.
Terrible article. However, I would like to the Springboks take legal action, it would make comedy gold.
September 15th 2009 @ 3:05am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:05am | Report comment
Injuring a player deliberately after the whistle had gone is a nottjing incident?
Why again is it that you guys moan about Bakkies? O ja, for blowing kisses at Phil Waugh, and then he got suspendid for three weeks. Now that’s making a mountian out of a molehill
September 15th 2009 @ 3:12am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:12am | Report comment
Who’s you guys?
I can’t recall the incident, but I’ve seen it (The Botha one). Looked pretty harsh, but can any neutral (aka none biased) recall the Australians making a big fuss about it, especially considering it was in a Super 14 game?
September 15th 2009 @ 3:31am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:31am | Report comment
You mean the fuss that Spiro didn’t make?
And ‘you guys’ is any person that wants to pretend that what Brad did could even be considered in the same breath as the Phil Waugh incident.
It’s about consistency, that’s all any player wants. He wants to be afforded the same protection as any other player and he wants to be punished the same way as any other player if he oversteps the law.
If the players are expected to behave as professionals, don’t they have the right to be treated as such and that the officials also behave in an unbiased professional manner?
Or should we just expect certain players to be treated differently from oothers because they have the wrong colour eyes, come from SA / play for the AB’s or blow kisses at opponents?
Punishment is about consistency, you can’t punish the sons for the sins of their fathers because it leads to dissent and eventually rebellion.
September 15th 2009 @ 3:44am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:44am | Report comment
Spiro is a journalist, the Springbok camp is not. They made a huge fuss over the incident. Also, what papers does Spiro write for? He doesn’t strike me as a writer who’s going to create huge controversy in the rugby world, if he’s not writing for a big paper.
“And ‘you guys’ is any person that wants to pretend that what Brad did could even be considered in the same breath as the Phil Waugh incident.”
You’re the one who brought it up, so ‘you guys’ is obviously in reference to no one. But, you indeed can’t talk about them in the same breath, because well, they were punished for different offences. Back to the drawing board.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:15am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:15am | Report comment
It’s about inconsistency. Read further than just the first two paragraphs/ sentences! Try to read the whole argument before you make a response!
The Bok camp only made a ‘big fuss’ about the punishment, since it didn’t fit the crime. The ‘big fuss’ was also in response to and at a press conference! In other words people from the press asked the questions and wrote articles about it, which is what Spiro does, and as far as I know he writes for more than just the roar. With regards to his influence, well his attitude seems to be rather common towards SA in Aus, whether he writes in response to or is a catalyst, I wouldn’t be able to tell.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:18am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:18am | Report comment
That behaviour is absolutely disgusting and typically cowardly. Yet you consider that nothing? I’d love to see if the Police would consider it a tickle of you did that to somebody in the street. What vulgar hypocrisy.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:33am
Matt0931 said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:33am | Report comment
That youtube clip is great. Did you see that all out brawl after the phil waugh clip?
I think everyone should watch that and think their teams are lucky to not have to deal with that every game.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:35am
Fruit Cake said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:35am | Report comment
Is Bakkies in the Red or White team?
September 15th 2009 @ 4:22am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:22am | Report comment
Oh, I definitely read the whole argument, but it doesn’t mean I can pick holes in the various points.
I agree it’s about inconsistency, but you make it sound like it’s only South Africa who are being harshly treated, much like the author of the article, which is simply not the case.
You seem to have changed your tune.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:27am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:27am | Report comment
Sorry *can’t*
September 15th 2009 @ 5:11am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
Ok, I’ll beleive you if you site the Aus / NZ players cited in the last two 3N and sanction imposed, whilest contrasting this with the ammount of citings and sanctions imposed for similar offences by Springboks.
You could even throw the net wider to include the Super 14.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:14am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:14am | Report comment
Like when Brussouw was cited for cynically taking out TPN? I guess what goes around..
September 15th 2009 @ 5:18am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:18am | Report comment
“Ok, I’ll beleive you if you site the Aus / NZ players cited in the last two 3N and sanction imposed, whilest contrasting this with the ammount of citings and sanctions imposed for similar offences by Springboks.”
I may do that later, I’m going out in a min, but think about this, the South African players were cited for a reason.
Fourie was rightly cited and banned, Botha was rightly cited and banned in the S14 (if three weeks seemed a bit harsh).
My mind’s gone blank, what other South Africans were cited in the last two tri-nations.?
September 15th 2009 @ 5:20am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:20am | Report comment
Bismarck du Plessis for attacking the face of Adam Thomson.
CJ van der Linde for head butting Sam Cordingley.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:23am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:23am | Report comment
Rightly so?
September 15th 2009 @ 5:26am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:26am | Report comment
They were dealt with extremely leniently.
Van der Linde’s butt took place during Australia’s 27-15 win at Durban. In the same match Burger grabbed the testicles of George Smith and Frans Steyn knocked himself out trying to take Drew Mitchell out in the air. Echoes of the 53-3 match.
September 15th 2009 @ 8:24am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
I rest my case.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:29am
Jerry said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
This whinging is pathetic.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:41am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:41am | Report comment
Wallaby fans.. all is forgiven..
September 15th 2009 @ 5:02am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:02am | Report comment
‘If in the motion of entering a ruck and if and when your elbow then makes contact with the opposing players forehead is cynical, well then you’ve never cleared out a ruck. Maybe you should try playing the game instead of just talking about it.’
‘Was Schalk charged, is there any video evidence of this, or wait I think this was also thrown out due to inssufficient video evidence, which I think is basically what happened with the headbut scenario, or it was called an accidental collision.’
You cannot deny video evidence. You are attempting to do so. Case closed. Good bye and good luck with your agenda.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:27am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:27am | Report comment
Sorry, I’m missing your point. The players were cited, one got banned on the back of insufficient video evidence.
One was ruled an accidental collsion or something similar.
And there was no evidence for Schalk’s indiscresion, right?
So now you’re basically saying that because they got treated fairly this is proof that they are always treated fairly, right.
Your argument is flawed son. It is essentially circular. You’re starting with a subjective which you then want to employ as an objective to judge all subjectives by, which is unfortunately completely illogical and makes all subjective arguments regarding this matter impossible to maintain, since you would have to now maintain all these arguments objectively without due regard to their subjective facts.
So, ja case closed, I can see you’ve got no argument, it’s just a bunch of manure without any thought behind it.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:31am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:31am | Report comment
‘And there was no evidence for Schalk’s indiscresion, right?’
Apart from George Smith being caught on the ref mike rebuking Burger for the act? It was well publicised.
Van der Linde’s foul play was a flying headbutt. No excuses.
Why was Brussow not cited for doing exactly the same thing that Giteau did?
So you’re basically saying that because SA has been treated unfairly (in your opinion) that they have always been treated unfairly? What you are attempting to do is suggest that there is an anti-SA attitude based on a very narrow collective of events. You conveniently ignore the fact that serious acts of SA foul play have essentially gone unpunished. It is a simple equation.
Manure. Get back to school, mister.
September 15th 2009 @ 6:15am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
Oh ja lets just beleive George, he’s an angel and he’s never done something similar, but I think Fleckie once said he tried to bite his off once, I can’t remember, and he never engages in any gamesmanship either, right?
Bret Sheehan was involved in a similar incident, just that his shoulder made contact with player’s temple, it was called an accidental collision, as I said those happen!
No I’m saying based on the last two seasons of Super and 3N let’s see who was cited for what and how much they got. That should bring some type of objectivity to a emotional and subjective argument.
Let’s try and look at who wasn’t cited either, which could be a little bit harder
Or are you chicken? Time to put your money where your mouth is. I’ll go and look up some stuff and come back tommorow. How ’bout them appels?
September 15th 2009 @ 6:28am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
George Smith tried to bite off Robbie Fleck’s testicles…
I not really sure what to say to that. I think you’re conflicted, and your argument is confused, erratic and inherently flawed. Going on the above assertion I think I shall respectfully be ignoring you from now on. Ja?!
September 15th 2009 @ 6:37am
Jerry said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:37am | Report comment
Well, George Smith got up immediately and accused Schalk to his face. Doesn’t prove anything, but I can’t imagine what would be gained from trying to convince Schalk that he did something he didn’t do.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:05am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:05am | Report comment
“You seem to have changed your tune.”
I take that back.
September 15th 2009 @ 5:15am
Jerry said | September 15th 2009 @ 5:15am | Report comment
Seriously, what is wrong with you Bok fans?
It’s as if the entire SA rugby community has been waiting to have a monumental whinge but didn’t want to be accused of being bad losers, so they’ve all waited till the Boks are the best in the world to have a huge en masse whinge.
Is it like the rush defence, where if you all come at the same time the ref won’t spot the offside? If you all whinge at the same time, the world won’t notice your argument is full of holes?
September 15th 2009 @ 6:16am
johno said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Rather like your, lets change the rules until they suit how we play so that we can win thing?
September 15th 2009 @ 6:29am
Jerry said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:29am | Report comment
Hmm, and did the press and players and millions and millions of fans then also come out and say the rules should be changed?
I must have missed all those “Change the Rules” threads on the Roar.
September 15th 2009 @ 6:30am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:30am | Report comment
Just like I missed all those ‘George Smith tried to bite off Robbie Fleck’s testicles’ threads..
September 15th 2009 @ 6:28am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
September 15th 2009 @ 9:36am
Ray said | September 15th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
Boks fans? So one or two opinions from Bok supporters embody the views of all Bok fans? Come now Jerry, we are used to more educated remarks from you in this forum…
September 15th 2009 @ 9:42am
Jerry said | September 15th 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
One or two? Hardly, I’ve read dozens and dozens of people expressing this view. Fans, journos, even your bloody coach. Not to mention the rest of the team with their arm-bands.
I’m sure there’s a bunch of reasonable Bok fans, but at the moment they’re being shouted down by the likes of Sheldon, Eagle and Johno.
September 15th 2009 @ 10:18am
Ray said | September 15th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Oh dear, another blog that seems to follow the same old boring rants, from Aussies, Kiwis and Saffas alike. This hand is too rich for me my friends, I’m out.
September 15th 2009 @ 8:33am
Bay35Pablo said | September 15th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
Sorry, my eyes glaze over whenever I hear Bokke whining about being hard done by. Never have I seen such a bunch of big beefy rugby lovers get so precious at times. I may have to change my rules of supporting the Wallabies and whoever’s playing England at this rate ….
September 15th 2009 @ 8:44am
Colin N said | September 15th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
“and whoever’s playing England at this rate.”
Surely that’s a given?
September 15th 2009 @ 3:43pm
Bay35Pablo said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:43pm | Report comment
ColinN, I would usually support Boks when they are playing England. But at this rate ….
I still recall being at the RWC 2003 final, and a Bokke in front cheering on the Poms. When we queried his lack of Southern hemisphere brotherhood love, his response was essentially “I hate you $%^*ing Aussies.” Clearly the man was insane – how could you prefer the Poms to us lovable convicts?
September 15th 2009 @ 9:11am
Willem said | September 15th 2009 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Please people can we stop the ” you bok supporters” and the ” you South-Africans” lines. For nations that claim to give everyone a fair go you guys love throwing around the generelisations. I geus we can all go around saying “you Aussies” or “you Kiwi’s” are a bunch of incoherent pis heads suffering from a mild case of little mans syndrome. But we dont’ or at least I dont so i should not have to read the “you bok supporters line ” followed by an insult. Leave all of that for youtube please.
September 15th 2009 @ 9:24am
Jerry said | September 15th 2009 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Fair enough, but this seems to be pretty damn widespread.
September 15th 2009 @ 3:44pm
Bay35Pablo said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:44pm | Report comment
Willem, henceforth I shall endeavour to use the terms “you (good bloke) bok supporters” and “you (whinging ar$ehole) bok supporters” as applicable, to avoid tarring you all with the same brush ….
September 15th 2009 @ 3:49pm
Willem said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:49pm | Report comment
I could not ask for more