- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
South Africa's Schalk Burger walks into the field for his 50th match ahead of the international rugby union match against the British lions at Loftus Versfeld stadium, Pretoria, South Africa, Saturday June 27, 2009. AP Photo/Martin Meissner
The British and Irish Lions, or the IRB, someone, should appeal the appalling decision by the Canadian IRB judicial officer Alan Hudson to impose a playing ban on Schalk Burger of only eight weeks.
The implication behind this decision must be that Burger was reckless and not intentional in his action in fiercely attacking the eyes of the Lions winger Luke Fitzgerald only 32 seconds into the abrasive second Test of the 2009 South Africa-Lions series.
The reason why this must be so is that the Italian captain, Sergio Parisse, received an eight-week ban for his eye-gouging of Isaac Ross in the New Zealand-Italy Test last weekend.
Peter Larter, the Citing Commissioner in the Parisse case, after reading the match officials reports and viewing the tape evidence, ruled that the contact was brief, had occurred in the open, there was no injury to Ross, and that the initial contact had been with the cheek.
Parisse was given an eight-week ban for behaving recklessly.
This is the same punishment that Burger was given. But Burger’s conduct was much worse than Parisse’s. And a very strong case can be made for the assertion that Burger acted intentionally.
If this is the case, the minimum punishment for his offence would have been twelve weeks. The details and circumstances of the Burger incident, though, suggest that he should have been put off the rugby fields for six months.
There is no doubt that Burger acted recklessly. The fact of the eye-gouging is proof of that. There cannot be much doubt, either, that he acted intentionally.
Let’s go through the check list set out in the Parisse case.
The contact was not brief. It went on for many seconds and Fitzgerald was only able to stop it before major damage was done because his arms were (fortunately) free and he was able to prise Burger’s fingers out.
The contact ended up in the open and a tempestuous ruck disintegrated.
But the initial gouging started in the depth of the ruck with players piled around. It became evident when the players started to roll away after the whistle sounded. Burger seemed to continue the gouging after the whistle, even though he was in full view of the assistant referee, the New Zealander Bryce Lawrence.
The initial contact was clearly with the eyes. There was never any suggestion or evidence from Burger’s behaviour that his hand had slipped up from the cheeks to the eyes, as Parisse’s had.
So what we have is an intentional attack on the eyes of an opponent. There were no mitigating circumstances. The action was carried on for some time. The ferocity of the attack warrants an extremely harsh punishment.
What Burger received was a risible punishment that allows him to play the last three Springboks matches of the Tri-Nations and the November tour to Europe.
This is a disgrace, which was made more disgraceful by the outrageous comments made about the affair by the flaky Springboks coach, Peter de Villiers: “I don’t believe it was a card at all. In the first minute already there had been a lot of needle. This is sport, this is what it’s about. If things were clear-cut then we shouldn’t even be bother preparing for a game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.”
De Villiers has since apologised for his defence of Burger, claiming that he’d made his comments “based on what I know of Burger as a player, and not on what occurred.”
This is self-serving nonsense.
The first comments were made when the eye-gouging incident had been fully revealed on the video replays. De Villiers was obviously speaking to the incident and making the startling claim that it did not deserve even a yellow card sanction.
This brings me to a point that needs to be made about the Springboks.
They have a history of thuggery to win big matches. Yes, I understand the outrage over the dumping of Brian O’Driscoll by Tana Umaga in the opening seconds of the first 2005 Lions-All Blacks Test at Christchurch.
But this was an isolated incident.
The continual foul play of Bakkies Botha, for instance, is a case in point of the Springboks having a tendency towards foul play.
Botha has finally been punished for dangerously charging into a ruck without binding on a player. The only reason why this practice, which is Botha’s trademark play, was penalised was because this time he broke the arm of Adam Jones.
But virtually every match Botha has done this and got away without so much as a penalty awarded against him.
Some years ago Victor Matfield knocked out the All Blacks halfback Byron Kelleher in the opening minutes of a Test in South Africa, and was not even penalised.
The initial lack of remorse, indeed, the justification of Burger’s behaviour by de Villiers, suggests that the Springboks coaches and players just don’t get it.
Eye-gouging is a rugby no-no.
It cannot be tolerated or excused. It is potential criminal behaviour, if there is damage. Players who indulge in eye-gouging should be penalised so heavily (as Richard Loe and Troy Flavell were by the NZRU) that their careers are virtually put to an end.
The South African authorities say they will not appeal against Burger’s punishment.
Of course they won’t.
Burger has committed a grave crime and has been given the treatment meted out to someone who has committed a petty offence.
The IRB says it is waiting for a report from their judicial officer, Alan Hudson.
On the facts of this case, the IRB should not even wait for Hudson’s report. There is more than enough evidence and justification to have a full review of this unfortunate case, with a view to imposing an appropriately heavy punishment that fits Burger’s serious rugby crime.
That punishment should be a ban on Burger for six months or longer.