If you remember a few weeks back, during the last leg of the Super 14, I posted how the SANZAR Judicial Commitee’s citing process was a joke. In that post I listed a whole host of on the field incidents that were unfairly treated differently.
I said, “Something has to be done to ensure a more standardised system across the board. I do understand that certain situations have mitigating circumstances, but at the same time certain offences should have a due punishment regardless.”
Now let me 1st say this, I am not arguing Schalk’s punishment, it was just. In my post match analysis I stated that he would get a minimum of 6 weeks for that incident, end of story.
What bothers me about this whole thing is that in an equally physical contest, with both teams giving as good as they got, not one of the B&I Lions players have been dragged over the coals for their part in the battle for dominance. Ordinarily I wouldn’t really care, as the Springboks won the series, but both the citing and subsequent judical process must be standardised as far as possible.
At least three incidents that B&I Lions should have been cited for:
- Brian O’Driscol flies in, from an offside position, with a swinging-arm, head high tackle on Dannie Rossouw, concussing Rossouw.
Law10.4 (e) states: Dangerous tackling, A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play. A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiffarm to strike an opponent.
- Andrew Sheridan maliciously makes contact with the groin area of Andries Bekker.
Law 10.4 (a) states: A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Law 10.4 (l) states: Acts contrary to good sportsmanship, A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.
- Ronan O’Gara makes no attemp to go for the ball in tackling Fourie Du Preez in the air, causing Du Preez to spin around, falling dangerously to the ground
Law10.4 (e) states: A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Law 10.4 (h) states: A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an apponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
In light of recent events, using a Schalk Burger example to argue my point probably isn’t the best idea right now, but I do feel it justifies what I’m arguing. Below is a clip of the mid air tackle from Burger during the Springboks VS Samoa game in the 2007 IRB Rugby World Cup in France.
Schalk Burger initially got a 4 week ban for this, a tackle which I feel is less dangerous than the one Ronan O’Gara performed on Fourie Du Preez at the weekend, as the Samoan player had no chance of landing on his head/neck.
Is the international citing process up to standard? You be the judge…
Not sure I completely agree in that Schalk’s was particularly bad and there was clear evidence…. it was absolutely shocking.
I didn’t see the Sheridan / Bekker incident so can’t comment.
O’Gara I think got away with it because it happened in the last minute – Berdot was guilty – he should have sent him off which would then have justified the citing process.
Nice blog by the way – I’ve added the link from our blog back to yours.
[...] I did in my previous post about how the international citing process is FAIL-ing us, I refer to the IRB laws of the game: Law 10.4 (g) states: Dangerous charging, A player must not [...]
@Rugby Strategist, are we talking about the same mid air collision? Fourie Du Preez spun round, landing upside down. That can be far more dangerous, and probably the reason for his sore shoulder.
Dooley,
Are you having a laugh?
Talk about hamming it up – O’Driscoll didn’t get blown up for offside so you can rule that argument out for starters (and I’m fairly sure you can’t get cited for being offside). Swinging arm or attempting to wrap his arm around the man he was tackling? Head high? Again you aren’t reporting the facts. There was a clash of heads now unless Brian O’Driscoll is some sort of warped Quasimodo whose shoulders extend above his eyes he can’t possible have tackled head high and clashed heads with Rossouw. If Rossouw hadn’t gone off concussed (quite like the point you make about the Bakkies and Adam Jones incident) you wouldn’t be raising the Brian O’Driscoll tackle.
O’Driscoll’s tackle was not early or late. I don’t think you could argue it was dangerous either. In hindsight, you could say that it was perhaps reckless in that they clashed heads but it was certainly not malicious or intended, or not that could in anyway be argued.
The tackle wasn’t above the line of the shoulders and it wasn’t a stiff arm.
NEXT!
Andy Sheridan pokes Bekker in the nuts and you want him cited and banned? Lighten up will you. What sort of punishment would you deem appropriate for such a heinous crime? 10 weeks, 12? Nah forget it throw the book at him and make it a year.
In reality a penalty at the very most if the ref had no sense of humour either but if that forms the basis for your argument that the South African’s have been unfairly done by the citing comissioner, your argument is fairly weak.
And finally – O’Gara never took eyes off the ball – and to say any differently would suggest you lack a basic understanding of the human anatomy – his eyes are looking up the whole time. The only mistake O’Gara made was that he didn’t jump to catch the ball and the reason for that is because he is yellow and the though of a mid-air collision scares him more than one on the ground.
If Du Preez hadn’t have jumped there would have been nothing wrong with the collision. If O’Gara had jumped, again there would have no offence from either player. The collision became unfair cause Du Preez jumped and O’Gara didn’t and by colliding with him Du Preez risked an injury. The important distinction here is that O’Gara was going for the ball and did not attempt in anyway to take out the player.
To be perfectly honest for you to come out and winge about poor old Bakkies (who I do feel sorry for cause I agree that he was only hitting ruck) when Burger got a jok ban for meditated and sickening eye gouging is a joke.
And for the SA team to wear those joke arm bands with Justice written on them is truly pathetic. Justice? Going by PDV’s changes he would probably have been rested for the game anyway. You lot need a reality check. The real injustice was Burger’s ban. For you to suggets that 6 weeks would be acceptable is laughable. the IRB guidelines state that 12 weeks is a typical ban for an eye-gouging offence at the lower end of the scale. Burger’s was nothing close to the low end of the scale. It was an entirely unprovoked, sustained, off-the-ball attack on Luke Fitzgerald’s eyes and has no place in the game of rugby.
Seriously one-eyed view of the game there.
@Minty, thanks for the comment, and your opinion. I think you completely missed the point I was making though. I didn’t want any of the B&I Lions players to get cited, I am campaigning for standardisation across the board. Equal calls for all teams. I have no argument for Schalk’s offence. I did not suggest he should get 6 weeks, I said “expect nothing less…”. In Schalk’s case the ban was reduced from 12 weeks to 8 weeks due to the fact that the judicial officer found there were “mitigating circumstances” (don’t you just love that phrase?) and that he received the ban for Acts contrary to good sportsmanship:
“A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship in the playing enclosure.”
Not for eye gouging itself.
For you to suggest that O’Driscoll’s tackle on Danie Rossouw was not high, from an offside position, and with a swinging arm is more bias than you claim me to be. O’Driscoll was lucky not to get carded for that challenge. Whether or not it was a clash of heads that caused the concussion, O’Driscoll charged him from an offside position, went in high, and swung his arm. Period. Watch the replay I posted.
I feel there was nothing really in the Sheridan/Bekker incident, as with the Bakkies Botha incident. I was merely using that as a comparison. Although Sheridan’s challenge was a tad below the belt (excuse the pun, it was too good to skip) and isn’t exactly in the spirit of the game. One could go as far as to argue that it is an act contrary to good sportsmanship…
As for the O’Gara incident, the law is very clear. Whether or not O’gara kept his eyes on the ball or not, he made no attempt to go for the ball. Your argument suggests that Fourie Du Preez was wrong in jumping for the ball. If I take a player out in the air, whilst looking at the ball, or perhaps other players, or perhaps just close my eyes, I’m okay? Sorry mate, but you don’t have a leg to stand on with this one.
Law 10.4 (h) states: A player must not tackle nor tap, push or pull the foot or feet of an apponent jumping for the ball in a lineout or in open play.
O’Gara is clearly in breach of the above law for his challenge on Fourie Du Preez. Du Preez spun around in the air, landing upside down. Something that could potentially injure a player very seriously. That is why that law is in place and thats why it should be upheld, much like the laws protecting players in the front row. Simple as that, the law is there, play to the law. O’Gara didn’t, end of argument.
Now again, remember that I stated these were incidents that I felt the B&I Lion’s players “should” have been cited for, due to the fact petty citing were taking place. I am against a mass citing frenzy. I merely meant these as comparissons to highlight how ridiculous Bakkies Botha’s citing was. O’Gara was penalised and I felt that was a fair punishment.
Thanks again for your comments. My comments are written in my opinion and I welcome your reply. Thanks again for the support and hope to hear from you soon.
[...] There are alot of improvements that need to be made, from the quality of their referees, to the joke that is currently their judicial process. If they don’t want anyone to express their unhapiness with the current quality of the IRB [...]
[...] a year that has been riddled with erratic (at best) judicial processes, here, here, here (and the list goes on), it will be interesting to see what comes of this latest [...]
[...] the first time that the IRB has wrapped their referees in cotton wool, there is a growing trend of sub-standard refereeing here, and with the amount of sub-standard refereeing displays in 2010, it’s becoming [...]