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.
Knives Out
Guest
Let me rephrase that.. The SA rugby side contains numerous repeat offenders. There is no violence in rugby.
South African
Guest
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.
Edward
Guest
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
Knives Out
Guest
-- 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.
Lee
Guest
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.
Eagle
Guest
Another reason why this will work is because referees are reviewed by the team managements.
Eagle
Guest
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.
Knives Out
Guest
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
Guest
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
Guest
None of that makes any logical sense, and you contradict yourself. Try again.
Knives Out
Guest
-- 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.
MM
Guest
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?
Lee
Guest
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.
Knives Out
Guest
-- 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.
Knives Out
Guest
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.
Darryl SA
Guest
MM?
MM
Guest
Are you blind.........................??
MM
Guest
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
Guest
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.
Ace
Guest
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.