Player 23: Burger’s brain explosion
28 Jun 2009
Should Schalk Burger have been red carded in the opening minute of the Loftus Test?
The British media certainly thinks so, including The Independent‘s highly respected sports writer James Lawton who, in an article titled ‘Authorities must blow away the stench of Schalk Burger’ laid into the Bok flank.
‘Schalk Burger happens to be an outstanding flanker, the winner of 50 caps and, no, perhaps he isn’t Hannibal Lecter, but if seeking out and gouging the eye of an opponent not much more than half your size who is lying on his back at the time is not evidence of psychopathic behaviour, not stripped of all conscience or awareness of consequences, it is hard to know what is,’ wrote Lawton.
‘The world saw Burger do this and so did a touch judge, who behaved admirably in all but the uttering of a sentence, which should haunt him and the rest of the game until another such outrage comes along, but of course won’t. The offending words of advice to the referee were: “At least a yellow card.”
‘What do you have to do to stitch on a red card? It is maybe just a little too easy to heap all the blame on the perceived moral cowardice of French referee Christophe Berdos, who settled for that least possible punishment for reasons he alone knows but at which we can only speculate, because surely there is nothing logical, or moral, to support his decision.
‘No doubt he was aware that to reduce the Springboks to 14 men so early in the Boer temple of Loftus Versfeld would have made him the least popular man on the highveld – and bring serious imbalance to a much anticipated Test match. Whatever the reason, Berdos failed both the game and himself, but then how seriously did he let down a rugby world which, like it or not, sees some degree of institutionalised violence as an integral part of the game’s appeal?’
Do you think Burger should have been red carded and was his eight-week ban sufficient punishment?
Have your say, as Vodacom’s Player 23, below.
86 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
29 Jun 2009, 10:23 am
Can anyone please explain how the citing system actually works (Keo perhaps you could do an article on this):
1. Who makes the decision to cite?
2. Who forms the citing commission?
3. In the event of “perceived” inconsitencies (ie why wasn’t Sherridan cited for the punch), does the IRB (or any other body) actually explain why a certain course of action was taken?
Apologies for the rather clumsy wording but it seems to me that rugby fans around the world are being short changed by rugby beurocrats who shown no consistency at all.
29 Jun 2009, 10:28 am
#47 RugbyRulz:
You doos. I said if they are going to whine and complain (words you can identify with) lets end Lions tours. What I am getting at is they should should just shut up and get on with it. Comprende? Now go away child and watch tennis.
29 Jun 2009, 10:29 am
M Phillips:
‘I couldn’t believe it. There was some dodgy refereeing throughout the Test, but that was the worst of it. You can’t do things like that, and it [Burger not being red carded] cost us the game.’
Was Fitzgerald injured? NO. So how could it cost you the game?
Was playing against a 14 man bok team part of their preperation?
29 Jun 2009, 10:31 am
Forcefan – its very simple ie If yourre a bok you will get cited.
29 Jun 2009, 10:33 am
Sadly I missed the test as I was at a wedding in Sweden and rugby coverage isn’t that great here, but it sounds like it was a hectic game and must have been awesome to watch that last kick go over!
I’m really bleak to hear that the was so much off the ball stuff – especially from the South Africans. You know, Jake White worked hard for us to shake off our “dirty team” mantle and it was so great to win the World Cup with a team that played hard but clean.
From the majority’s comments on Keo it seems as if Schalk should have had a red card right in the first minute – and for the most despicable of actions – the eye gouge! It seems that we have gone back to the time of Corne Krige’s team where there was tons of of the ball stuff instead of proper rugby. I believe this is due to poor leadership by the Springbok management team. Under White, the team ethic frowned upon foul play, whilst now it again seems OK..? In my book, anyone who does an eye gouge should be first be rebuked by his team, then banned for a year and have a case of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm opened at the police station! (Incidentally, if we made doping such as at the Tour de France a criminal offence and people went to jail for it I would definitely be much less common!)
Schalk, you are an awesome player who does not need to resort to eye-gouging and I am ashamed of you. When you come back I hope that you will let your play do the talking.
29 Jun 2009, 10:36 am
#50 Londonbokshark: Yawn… Homesick tard can’t handle being dished up. You’re the moron being quoted and can’t handle the heat. Think before you type tripe.
Owned, stuffed and discarded.
29 Jun 2009, 10:37 am
Burger should have got a red and banned for a year. Buger is an overted prick. Bakkies was unfortunate as both teams were committing numerous off the ball dirties. Habana got an deliberate elbow to the head after he socred, Sheridan kept throwing jack punches and Shaw definetly high tackled to often. Mike Phillips should be fined for his comments and O’driscoll using his secret weapon, the head.
But I must say thank-you to both Teams for giving it all. Thank-you for returning the passion and the fight in the trenches back again. Thank-you Lions and your wonderful supporters for making such an entertaining specatcle.
It will be hard watching the Tri-nation poofdas with the Aussie diving all the time. Its Rugby and it is contact and its war.
29 Jun 2009, 10:39 am
Oh Yeah and thank-you TACKLER FOR MAKING US REALISE WHITE KIWIS ARE TOSSERS AND SOON WILL BE BRED OUT WITH GREAT MAORI BLOOD.
29 Jun 2009, 10:40 am
Anybody with more than 1 brain cell knocking around up there knows you NEVER touch the eye area! He deserved what he got.
In all honesty if it wasn’t a Lions test I would have said red, but as I am a biased Springbok supporter the yellow and 8 weeks will suffice
29 Jun 2009, 10:46 am
The hand was in contact with the face….but doesn´t mean gouging automaticly…..same thing than touch a ladies but or a guy….doesn´mean automaticly…hehehehehe
29 Jun 2009, 10:47 am
#54 RugbyRulz:
“Owned, stuffed and discarded.” haha. you wish silly little ******. You should change your nick to “touchrugbyrulz” *****. Anyway some of us work, so I’ll come back later to read your drivel.
29 Jun 2009, 10:51 am
#45 TheTackler: So did Sione Luaki, but **** happens, and in both cases, the better side won irrespective of the decision.
29 Jun 2009, 10:53 am
#59 Londonbokshark: When you have sufficient command of English then perhaps you can come back and argue the toss. Suggest you try to baffle your countrymen with your handling of the English language and not me. English for me is my first language and not to be sullied with your mismanagement.
29 Jun 2009, 10:54 am
Toddle off arseclown.
29 Jun 2009, 11:03 am
#55 KevinRack: Perhaps SA Rugby should lead the way and fine him his match fee too … that would teach that little ******* a lesson.
29 Jun 2009, 11:11 am
#63 CharlieBrown: Schalk will lose out on the next 5 test’s match fees
#46 Jinx: You are smoking your socks!!!
29 Jun 2009, 11:13 am
sCHALK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVED THE RED. No doubt about it…..but in all fairness, i think he has been done some injustice in the past for being spotted too easily by his big blonde mop (Given the nick: Flying squirell) and carded for just playing the game hard.
Maybe there was some justice in this call.
29 Jun 2009, 11:15 am
Schalk was trying to rip the oke’s head off, pitty his hands were in the wrong place at the wrong time!!!
29 Jun 2009, 11:18 am
#66 GP: i’ve seen his brain take a leave of absence once before when we played ireland in 2004. he got two yellows in that game….
29 Jun 2009, 11:19 am
#51 Breakdown Boy: It must have been their game plan, because BOD and Shridan tried really hard to get rid off some of the Boks
29 Jun 2009, 11:23 am
Schalk has anger issues
29 Jun 2009, 11:26 am
#67 Shark_Logie: SO has quite a few Boks as well, Bakkies, Victor (ask Kelleher), Bismack etc
29 Jun 2009, 11:36 am
I think Burger has done SA rugby a favour and given a fitting excuse to play Brussouw. Burger simply has not evolved with the ELV’s to be a true “Fetcher” and as such is now not the best number 6 in the country.
During last years 3N and on the NH tour we were lacking a fetcher with the ability to gain turnovers. Burger excelled when he started out but will come back in after these 8 weeks being the second choice 6.
29 Jun 2009, 11:47 am
i would love to hear what schalk has to say about the incident.i truly believe that he didnt know that his hands where near the guys eyes.
hes been a revelation for the boks from the first game he has played and is very highly ranked.
i believe any side is weaker without schalk starting.
sour grapes from the lions because they just cant beat us.(14 men would have been a great advantage for them.)
come schalk do some soul searching in your 8 weeks off and come back a better player.
29 Jun 2009, 11:52 am
#72 dreus:
“i would love to hear what schalk has to say about the incident.i truly believe that he didnt know that his hands where near the guys eyes”.
To quote a famous tennis player………………….”YOU HAVE GOT TO BE JOKING”.
29 Jun 2009, 11:56 am
WTF RugbyRules…?? Maybe you should “toddle off” your argument hold no water!!! The opening minute set the tone of what?? Please man what kind of rugby do you play, the whole bloody build up was responsible for the tempers, they were “out-bullied” or in English they weren’t physical enough in the first test and were working to correct that in this test and according to me the Boks were having a nice dose of their own medicine in the first 30 and that is was probably “set the tone”. It was all out war from last Sunday already and the match didn’t disappoint, what happens in the first minute never reflects a game even if a try is scored because nobody changes their mind or game plan after 1 min it will be suicide.
What happened …well happened ….!! Maybe you should run along and try and predict the future, because you are not very good at accepting history .
Burger deserved his ban if they can ban Butch for nearly a year for an injury less incident he can actually thank his lucky stars for 8 weeks. The only reason a player should ever receive a red card is when he’s awarded two yellows, the rest is up to the citing commission. This is not bloody soccer after all.
29 Jun 2009, 12:15 pm
hi Cane. it just blows my mind to think that schalk with his talent,experience and stature would deliberately go out to ruin his own career.i havent yet had the opportunity to watch the game again because i was at the stadium and the view was not good even on the big screen so i may be speaking out of turn with my limited knowledge or viewing of the incident.schalk is a f*^king hard ******* but he doesnt give me the impression of a dirty cowardly player.
29 Jun 2009, 12:47 pm
#75 dreus: I agree with you – he is a hard player and has the occasional brain **** – but I really dont think he would deliberately go for an eye gouge.
They were rolling around and Fitzgerald was also messing with Schalk. It couldnt have been a cut and dried case because the touch judge even said “at least a yellow”.
But burger needs a break – he needs to think about what he is doing, and this gives Brussow the chance to make #6 his own – something that I really wouldnt mind
(and Im a Schalk fan)
29 Jun 2009, 12:48 pm
#75 dreus: And dont feel the neeed to try and justify it to a Kiwi bro. Theyve got some of the dirtiest manipulative players so they really cant comment.
What Schalk did pales next to what Thorne did last year to Smit
29 Jun 2009, 13:46 pm
#36 Lions_Soutie: What ****! The Lions suffered because he was only given yellow instead of the red it deserved. Unbelievable comment.
Some of the postings on here really take the biscuit. Mellow you are another who is suffering from some kind of eye problem!
29 Jun 2009, 14:20 pm
#61 RugbyRulz:
Argue with a tosser? I am already am.
29 Jun 2009, 14:23 pm
Rugbyrulz what the f*%k are you on about? Your arguments are terrible and backed up by nothing but a complete lack of logic and understanding of the game.
Maybe take a back seat and let the men debate the issues for a while?
29 Jun 2009, 14:30 pm
1 down and one to go.
#79 Londonbokshark: Again your English fails you. Consult an English dictionary or try researching idioms, I am sure you will probably still come up short. Toss / tosser <<< not one of the same.
Here is another anomaly doos and douche. Both sound the same and that is where the similarity ends.
2. well you don’t even rate because you have no concept of the opening 60 seconds of the game.
#74 Bakmister: all I have for you clown is simple WTF! go away fool you got nothing.
29 Jun 2009, 14:32 pm
#80 jaimie: Another idiot seeking limelight.
Opening 60 seconds of the game was a Red Cardable offense by all Laws of Rugby. Now if you are indeed intent on arguing the toss… then toss off.
3 idiots in one day.
29 Jun 2009, 16:56 pm
All this fuss about Burger’s eye gouge is fine – he got what he deserved.
BUT the most dangerous tackle of the game was let go!!! I cannot recall the Lions player but the tackle in which Burger was thrown using his neck as the fulcrum was most deserving of a red card and citing.
A move like that can result in paralysis or death if it goes only ever-so-slightly wrong. What’s a scratched eye-ball in comparison to that?!?!
Nothing has been said about that incident, probably because those commenting don’t understand the nature of it. Certainly the citing officer didn’t unless he punished Boks for political reasons (pressure from UK-loaded IRB) in the case of Botha.
30 Jun 2009, 09:04 am
The chop disgraced South Afric as a whole and if he had copped a red card we would have lost the test with all to play for this weekend.
Imagine we had lost this weekend and the series!
Would you all forgive Schalk then?
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.