The issues are a ‘lack of consistency’ in SANZAR’s legal committee, and a specific complaint that Jean de Villiers was treated harshly for his dangerous tackle on Renee Ranger when the All Black winger was lifted well above the waist level and then slammed on to the ground.
Ranger was shaken up by the tackle.
As a general argument in support of the complaint, the SARU asserts that the All Blacks captain Richie McCaw was “getting away with too much” at the breakdown and should have been yellow-carded at Wellington. Also, “nothing was done” about Ranger for an earlier ‘no-arms’ tackle against the Springboks full back, Zane Kirchner.
Taking the tackle Ranger tackle first, it is a marginal call to insist that this was a ‘no-arms’ tackle. Replays show that Ranger led with his arms, as a player is legally required to do. His shoulder then hit Kirchner’s chest when the collision was made.
This tackle was penalised, which was the appropriate penalty if it was deemed a shoulder charge that was below the runner’s head. In no way was the tackle comparable to de Villier’s dumping of Ranger.
De Villiers, in fact, was lucky to escape a much longer sentence which would have followed if the tackle, as it might have been, had been deemed to be a spear tackle.
Moreover, the SARU makes no reference to Kirchner’s head-high tackle on Corry Jane which was much worse that Ranger’s tackle and was not even penalised.
As for the McCaw nonsense, the All Blacks captain was penalised three times in the match. He was penalised once inside his own 22 for killing the ball when the video evidence revealed he actually turned the ball over legitimately, as he did later in the match.
After this penalty, the referee, Alain Rolland, gave the All Blacks a general warning that any more penalties inside their 22 would result in a yellow card. McCaw was penalised after this inside the Springboks half.
The New Zealand commentators, who clearly were not listening to the referee, could not understand why he wasn’t yellow carded. The reason was obvious, the offence was not inside the New Zealand 22.
Graham Henry has responded to the Springboks coach Peter de Villiers warning that he will have to coach his players ‘to cheat’ (the first coaching he has done for some time, I’d suggest) with the comment that Rolland was correct in his rulings in allowing a contest at the ruck “which is important … otherwise one side will get the ball all day.”
The basic principles of rugby as written down by the IRB insist that rugby is a game about a contest for possession of the ball. As Henry said, Rolland refereed very well at the tackle.
The problem here for the Springboks is that they have refused to adjust to the new interpretations. Instead of tackling low and sending in second diggers for the ball, the Springboks have continued to pick huge forwards who generally tackle high and are reluctant to release the tackled player as the law says they should.
An observant reader of The Roar has picked up, too, that the All Blacks are going over the top of the tackled player when the tackle is around the legs. This is the old-fashioned way New Zealand teams used to ruck.
The All Blacks won about three turnovers with this legal tactic of getting their upright bodies ahead of the tackled player.
The Springboks, on the other hand, and we will see this again probably at Brisbane on Saturday night, tend to dive over the tackled player.
A ploy that is illegal.
More generally, there is an arrogance about the SARU’s complaint. In the two Tests against the All Blacks, the Springboks had Botha sent off for deliberately lying on the ball on the Boks tryline only about 15 minutes before he had head-butted Jimmy Cowan out in the open.
And then Danie Rossouw in the second Test flicked McCaw’s eyes (a rugby no-no) and then kneed him.
This incident happened at the beginning of the Test, just like Botha’s head-butt, and like Shalk Burger’s eye-gouging against the British and Irish Lions last year.
When you look back at the Springboks, there is a pattern of taking out a player early on in a Test. The wonder is that they think they can continue to get away with this thuggish play.
If the referees are so hostile to them, too, how does SARU explain that Botha’s head-butt and Kirchner’s head high tackle were both missed by the referee and the assistant referees?
SARU should also explain why they allow coach de Villiers, who is becoming a buffoon who disgraces the great South African rugby tradition, to support Burger’s eye-gouging and Botha’s many acts of thuggery, including his latest head-butt.
And while we’re at it, how do they allow de Villiers to continue to select Botha as soon as he comes back from one his frequent bans, and puts Butch James, another serial thug, into his match 22?
James was on the field for about 5 minutes in the first Test against the All Blacks. He threw Brad Thorn out of the way, illegally, and then gave Jane a facial massage that went very close to choking and eye-gouging.
If the SARU were serious about bias in the judicial system, they would issue an instruction that Botha and James are never to play for the Springboks again. And that coach de Villiers will stop from supporting his players when they are blatantly guilty of foul play.
Last year, the Springboks, with the support of SARU, wore black arm bands in support of ‘Justice4Bathies’ when he banned for charging illegally into a maul and breaking the arm of a Lions forward. Botha head-butted an All Black in the opening seconds of a Test, an action that even Victor Matfield concedes was ‘unacceptable.’
The fact that the SARU and the Springboks can’t see the link between their bizarre ‘Justice4Bakkies’ demonstration and Botha’s continued thuggish play is an unacceptable proof that South African rugby just doesn’t get it.
If you continually condone thuggish play and select players who have a history of thuggishness, you’ll get the deserved reputation of being a dirty team.
I’m looking forward to the Springboks proving me wrong at Brisbane that they can play an important Test without someone disgracing the jersey with unacceptable play.
Emma
Guest
1. PDV is a coloured South African man - he doesn't look aboriginal or torres strait islander. 2. Native australians were not hunted at any time. In the early 1800's settlers were given swatters rights which meant they could shoot any swatters who stole from their farms. 'Hunting' was never legal. 4. Alcohol-soaked victims who were forced into reserves is also inaccurate - the natives didn't drink alcohol until after being released from the reservations. 5. If you are an Australian citizen you need to learn your Australian history. 6. This is a rugby website, you should stick to matters regarding rugby.
Mike
Guest
I think its all quite simple... PDV looks like a native Australian and you guys dont like that, due to the fact that you still hunted them up until 1971. He probably reminds you of one of the alcohol-soaked victims who were forced into reservations - "they can hardly be fit to coach a rugby team" (Spiros thinks to himself...)
Grunter
Guest
Ya youre right, SA Rugby keeps getting it wrong.... Like having 2 SA teams in the S14 final, being world champions, beating the Lions (with PDV) etc. Ya... we are so far behind you guys. Thanks for the wake up call author. We'll be sure to take note and try do do better.
Jerry
Guest
I don't think I mentioned Botha being a thug either - He's usually a bit of a niggle merchant, but until recent times he's not been really thuggish. His cleanouts are always pretty hard, but that was pretty much allowed by everyone (I thought the suspension for the cleanout on Jones was a joke). What surprised me about the Cowan incident is that generally he's been pretty level headed on the pitch - he tends to niggle people and that pretty much relies on keeping your head while making the opposition lose theirs, but he snapped very quickly on Cowan.
Photon
Guest
'Sigh' My apologies OJ, I'm actually more interested in what Spiro has to say, I juat used you and Jerry caus you seem to generally know what you're talking about and I've heard about dirty Bakkies from just about every Australasian on this site. Although I suspect Spiro's monday diatribe has already been reserved for Robbie and his Wallabies and how if you believe and keep the faith the Messaih eventually delivers, topped of with Burger is an eye gouging scoundrel without mentioning that Pocock was trying to choke him.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I never mentioned anything about Bakkies being a thug but thanks for the name drop.
Photon
Guest
The first thing I'd like to say is well done to the Wallabies you were the better side. I do though have one thing to say to Spiro,OJ,Jerry and everyone else who says Bakkies Botha is a thug who doesn't belong on a rugby field. Yesterday afternoon about two minutes before half time the Boks made a break and were abut to recycle possession and in all likelihood score, before David Pocock dived into a ruck from the side and killed off the ball. Pocock is then seen standing up and laughing when he is penalised. The reason the Boks pick 'thugs' if you like, like the aformentioned Bakkies is because if Pocock does that Bakkies on the field he breaks his back for him. Pocock and every other lose forward in rugby knows this, that's why generally when Bakkies plays it very rarely happens. It's the reason why the last three Springbok coaches have been unwilling to go without him and it's probably why the single biggest loss the Wallabies and Brumbies have had in recent times hasn't been Larkham or Gregan but one Owen Finegan, I hated that guy but on a rugby field the intimidation factor they bring is invaluable. And just so you know I'm 30, I've played rugby all my life, been a lock and a forward and so I speak from experience .
MM
Guest
Migual - very well stated. It's objective and fair
Rusty
Roar Guru
haha too true. Read a fantastic comment the other day. PdV only opens his mouth to change feet. Felt it was very apt
Jerry
Guest
Cause he's mental and will laugh win, lose or draw?
Jerry
Guest
If your recollections are that clear, you should be able to name the matches or at least the opponents. That's how evidence works - you make the accusation, you back it up. For the record, I can only recall two yellow cards for Brad, one of which was in S14 and the other happened subsequent to the Smit incident. And the judiciary, who had all available evidence, specifically cited Thorn's "previously excellent' record.
Lee
Guest
Uh he has been injured for a good chunk of the S14 and will be out for most of the test season. I think most teams are getting away with us, just see how quickly the second player arriving at a ruck goes fior the ball straight away.
katzilla
Roar Guru
ROFL, your not Percy's Hairdresser are you?
warrenexpatinnz
Guest
Brad that is my arguement as well however I draw a broader bow. When a side is highlighted in the media for a part of their game which isn't lawfull or which is perceived as sub standard the referee, no matter his nationality walks into a game with pre conceived ideas. If Botha wasn't yellow carded in the first test, maybe Rossou would have got away with a warning. However when Botha got the yellow card, the suspension for the head butt the press went into overtime highlighting all the past discrestions so when Rolland ran out to ref, deep down in the back of his head the Boks were seen as the recidvist off the ball offender. This itself protects the other side, the ABs from the same view and allows them to get away with off the ball tactics (if committed) but more importantly those fifty fifty calls go against the perceived bad boys. The same can be said of some of the decisons against the Wallaby scrum where fifty fifty calls were against them due to a perception of weakness, yes at times they have been woefull but some calls were unjustified, mystifying. It will be interesting to see tonights game for this reason alone, will the Boks get a fair go, will my beloved Wallabies be targeted in the scrum calls, who knows?
MattyP
Guest
One bit you missed - other opposition players involved in the tackle and who don't go to ground, and so who are "other players", not tacklers. 15.6(c) requires them to release the ball and the tackled player. They can then play the ball so long as they are on their feet and onside (ie not from "any direction" as a tackler can). This bit seems to be the most confusing for a lot of teams, especially the South Africans. Heinrich Broussouw was an expert at turnovers when refs weren't enforcing other players being required to release the ball and the tackled player before playing the ball. Since they started enforcing it - Heinrich who?
MattyP
Guest
Good punch, great chin. The outstanding memory from this was the gutlessness of "King" Carlos Spencer. If I was an All Black I would have just stood back and let Big Kev take care of that situations, he had it well in hand!
MattyP
Guest
Oj, best comment I have read in weeks.
niwdEyaJ
Guest
McCaw does test the boundaries, that's what its all about... Butch just crosses the line, ungracefully, and far too often. He's just a plain dirty player (not unlike Bakkies) and his (their) penalty record speaks for itself.
niwdEyaJ
Guest
South Africa were world champions 3 years ago... you can hardly call them champions of the world at the moment...
Emma
Guest
As a white anglo aussie I must say I completely agree with you. 1. This is a rugby website not a political website. 2. Australia, NZ and England all have dark racial, political pasts just like South Africa. 3. I loved watching Percy Montgomery play. And now Joe Pieterson.