Botha ruling angers Smit
3 Jul 2009
John Smit hopes the recent ban to Bakkies Botha hasn’t set a precedent that will rob rugby of its essence.
Botha was cited for an illegal clearing of Lions prop Adam Jones in last Saturday’s Test at Loftus Versfeld. Jones was badly injured and Botha was handed a two-week suspension, a sentence the Bok management appealed.
The appeal proved unsuccessful and the Bok skipper told keo.co.za on Friday that he and his team-mates are appalled with the decision.
‘We’re angry with the outcome to that appeal,’ Smit said. ‘I just hope and pray that Bakkies has been victimised and that this is not the way the game is going.
‘The players are happy to stand against a ruling like this and I’ve had calls from a few referees saying we must stand against it. We’ve been supported by the Lions’ management and players and also by players around the world. A ruling like this has the potential to set a precedent to ruin this great game of ours. It’s ludicrous.
‘We have to believe Bakkies has been victimised. Otherwise you could take 15 to 20 clips from every Test and ban guys for clearing from the ruck. It’s a scary scenario.
‘Bakkies has come from behind the gate and used his arms to clear Jones away. It’s unfortunate that Jones’s arm was stuck in the ruck and he got injured. A moment before Matthew Rees cleared Bakkies away in a similar fashion. We accept that is the nature of the game.’
Smit admitted this Test series has seen a revisit to a more traditional, physical battle. As a front-ranker, the Bok captain said it’s a series he will savour.
‘Both Tests have been very hard. Rugby union has no place for foul play, but it’s a game you want to run and tackle at a million miles an hour, but [with the latest ruling] maybe you can’t anymore. When you feel the worst on Sunday you know you’ve been in a good Test, and that has been the case in this series.
‘This series has seen the big boys having more of a role to play.There has been plenty of intensity and plenty of emotion and we expect to see more on Saturday. But that doesn’t mean there will be any bad blood.’
Smit said the Boks would treat this Test like any other, aiming to win, and capturing a 3-0 series whitewash in the process.
‘It’s always been our plan to take this series one game at a time and let the overall result take care of itself, so it’s the same with winning 3-0.
‘There is a massive amount to play for and I don’t think it will take much to motivate the guys. It’s a historic match against the Lions so the guys won’t waste the opportunity,’ he said.
By Jon Cardinelli, in Johannesburg
229 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
4 Jul 2009, 02:48 am
For those who doubt the reasons why Botha’s actions have been cited, here is a memo from David Carrigy of the IRB. This memo was recently posted on an International Rugby Referees website. I can confirm its authenticity as I have seen a hard copy at my local referee’s society.
“To: Secretaries/Chief Executive Officers of Unions and Regional Associations in Membership of the IRB
From: David Carrigy Head of External and Member Relations
Date: August 19, 2008
Re: Dangerous Play
There is a growing concern amongst the medical profession, coaches, players, administrators and judiciary about the conduct of players when entering rucks and mauls and when clearing out players on the fringes of tackles, rucks and mauls which is considered dangerous. A DVD has been produced that demonstrates such actions and includes examples of illegal and/or foul play.
The DVD will be circulated with a hard copy of this correspondence.
The relevant parts of Law are very specific as detailed below:
Law 10.4 (j) Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
Law 16.2 (b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one
arm around the body of a teammate, using the whole arm.
Law 17.4 ( c ) Players joining the Maul
Players joining a maul must do so from behind the foot of the hindmost teammate in the maul. The player may join alongside this player. If the player joins the maul from the opponents side or in front of the hindmost teammate the player is offside.
In addition the Aide Memoire for the IRB Panel referees enacted at RWC 2007
stated:
• Zero tolerance to players who charge into rucks and mauls without binding.
• Zero tolerance to players who clear out opponents not involved in ruck and maul.
Match Officials, Citing Officials and Judicial Officers are requested to be vigilant and apply Law and appropriate sanctions when players are involved in dangerous play of this nature.
Yours sincerely,
David Carrigy
Head of External and Member Relations”
That pretty much closes the door on this issue. In the future, you can expect players who charge like missiles into rucks, mauls and breakdowns, administering flying head-butts to their opponents, to be penalised and sanctioned severely. Gatland is wrong, Paddy is wrong, and Bakkies is going to have to rethink his approach. The IRB intends for this practice to be stopped.
4 Jul 2009, 03:26 am
#201 cooky: It’s still bulls**t though. Bakkies did nothing wrong and thats the fact of the case, he did nothing wrong.
Why they penalized him and not any Lions player is a bit dissapointing.
The whole thing is an embarrassment!
4 Jul 2009, 05:26 am
How can you say he did nothing wrong when he directly broke two laws of the game.
He charged into the run [Law 10.4j], he failed to bind [Law 16.2b]. This is dangerous play, clearly dangerous enough to injure an opponent seriously enough so that he was unable to continue and will miss the next match as well.
You must have rocks in your head if you truly believe that he has done nothing wrong.
The memo is abundantly clear; doctors, coaches, players, administrators and the judiciary are all really concernad about this. Whether you think is BS or not, changes are going to happen. This kind of action is going to be stamped out of the game, and if Bakkies doesn’t change his ways, he is going end up watching a lot of Test Rugby from the stands.
4 Jul 2009, 06:33 am
There is this quaint and weird notion that if one team is penalised, then the other team must be equally penalised, even if they’re not breaking the law. Just to even out the penalty count. An unbalanced penalty count is seen as incontrovertible evidence of a crooked ref rather than of one side transgressing more than the other.
It’s naive to the point of being babyish, but many yarpies genuinely operate that way.
Bakkies “did nothing wrong”. Even though he was cited, the commissioner responsible thought that he had erred, the test-standard match officials thought so too, the test-standard refs on the IRB appeal panel agreed and so his two-week suspension was upheld.
But a gaggle of one-eyed yarpie supporters whose collective reffing experience would fill less than the time it takes to finish a little sneeze are going to keep stamping their feet and INSIST that “Bakkies did nothing wrong”.
Well…
EVERYBODY knows that all the world’s referees are totally biased against all the South Africans. And that’s another “true fact”. It’sprobably in the Bible somewhere as well.
4 Jul 2009, 06:53 am
#204 TheTackler: There is this quaint and weird notion that if you leave a country and your new home of residence doesn’t turn out to be the haven you’d expected, you should take every opportunity to point out how bad your old country is in order to justify your decision.
Tackler, why are you spending so much time on South African sites and so little time mingling with real people in your new homeland? I suspect it’s because the ability to spot a doos is a universal skill.
4 Jul 2009, 07:02 am
Is this a Springbok whinging by any chance!?
4 Jul 2009, 07:07 am
#202 Ezee-23: After having read post 201 you still insist Bakkies did nothing wrong!? It happens all the time but never gets penalised. I’ll be interested to see if it gets blown-up today!
4 Jul 2009, 07:15 am
#27 Pissant,
Good one but did you say how fitzwalter or someone head butted Shalk’s hand. Very nasty incident.
#204 tickles, same old, same old. SA are just very weak on the devious play, legal and administrative aspects of rugby and I’ve given you a few examples to chew on. Response?
4 Jul 2009, 07:21 am
#207 jonnymain:
Nothing wrong.
Now the refs have a big problem applying that rule in the same vein forthwith.
4 Jul 2009, 07:26 am
#205 Some Bloke,
Cracker mate.
4 Jul 2009, 07:32 am
#209 Pietman: According to the law he did do something wrong because he didn’t join the ruck by binding onto a player on his own team. Like I said it happens all the time and never gets penalised, a bit like the scrumhalf feeding the ball directly into the 2nd row at a scrum! Will be interested to see if Dickinson penalises it today, that’s all I’m saying. If the refs apply the law correctly to everyone then we’ll all be happy no?
4 Jul 2009, 08:21 am
Try as I might, I cannot get my head around this notion that a player who clearly breaks a Dangerous Play law of the game and injures someone has “done nothing wrong”.
Law 10.4 is titled “DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT” It specifically addresses those acts of foul play committed by players which are deemed to be dangerous because they are acts which are unfair and likely to cause serious injury.
Anyone who thinks that Bakkies is just fine breaking Law 10.4 (j) because he is “cleaning out” must also be comfortable with allowing any player in any match to carry out any of the other acts specified in this Law
? Punching or striking an opponent – 10.4(a)
? Stamping or trampling an opponent – 10.4(b)
? Kicking an opponent – 10.4(c)
? Tripping – 10.4(d)
? Tackling early, late, or without the ball – 10.4(ei)
? Tackling head high or stiff armed – 10.4(eii)
? Shoulder charge an opponent without the ball – 10.4(f)
? Shoulder charge the ball carrier – 10.4(g)
? Tackle or charge a jumper in the air – 10.4(h)
? Spear tackle – 10.4(i)
? Retaliation – 10.4(k)
? Front row rushing, collapsing or lifting scrum – 10.4(j)
? Any act contrary to good sportsmanship – 10.4(l)
? Misconduct with ball out of play – 10.4(m)
? Late charging the kicker – 10.4(n)
? Flying wedge or cavalry charge – 10.4(o)
If you condone players who charge into rucks (the way Bakkies does) without binding, then you MUST also condone any player doing anything I have listed above without penalty. You cannot pick and choose and you cannot have it both ways.
Referees are expected to “manage” the Laws of the game, but they are specifically NOT allowed to manage dangerous play.
4 Jul 2009, 08:46 am
#212 cooky: Cooky, you can cite all the law you want, but it does not excuse the decision made. Firstly, in my eyes (recently tested & passed with flying colours) Bakkies had is right arm out and bound onto the player.
As far as collisions go, it was not a serious collision, we have all seen players enter rucks with as much vigor before & we will see them again without any action being taken.
The ultimate truth remains (very often this sits above the law), that what Bakkies did was standard operating practice in a game of rugby. It has been confirmed by the % in world rugby – many players have commented that this is alarming for the game of rugby. Nothing would have happened if Adam had not been injured. This is true, because there were several examples of players hitting the rucks harder or equally hard during the match – 1 second later Mathew Reece did the same…
What is concerning is that the IRB are continuing to take drive the physicality out of the game, which is a significant part of what makes rugby so enjoyable to play & watch. I fully support them from stamping out’ flying headbuts’ in junior levels, but not at the highest of all levels, let the warriors do their warrior thing!
4 Jul 2009, 08:47 am
#212 cooky: Not following one law, does not mean you break all laws… if that were the case, people driving their car, talking on their mobile phone should get 150 years like Maddoff…
4 Jul 2009, 09:01 am
#213 The Bill: The citing commissioner, the adjudication panel, the IRB appellate team ALL disagree with you and upheld Bakkies’s ban.
They’re all in complete lock-step on this issue. It’s YOU who’s out of step. And you’re not even a club ref.
4 Jul 2009, 09:19 am
#212 cooky: COOKY, I think what everyone is complaining about is the lack of consistency. If the letter of the law was applied consistently to all players in all games, there would be a case for 20+ suspensions each test.
4 Jul 2009, 09:28 am
#215 TheTackler: The citing commissioner is inept, the adjudication panel is covering the system, the IRB appoint both the aforementioned and are covering their ar*es and the the appeal committee all three of the aforementioned as well.
It’s called the Bernie’s F1-syndrome.
Just about every known referee has disagreed, players unions have disagreed, BL and SARU have disagreed, vast majority of supporters have disagreed.
Guess that makes you part of a very small uninformed group. Why am I not surprised, fcukadilly twitwit (to coin Skops phrase)?
4 Jul 2009, 10:57 am
#204 TheTackler:
i thought it was in the bible somewhere, deuteronomy 7 ‘and the lord sayeth bakkies is a wee angel…’
4 Jul 2009, 11:42 am
#212 cooky:
“Try as I might, I cannot get my head around this notion that a player who clearly breaks a Dangerous Play law of the game and injures someone has “done nothing wrong”.”
from
your posts
it’s clear
that there are
many things
you can’t
get your head
around
4 Jul 2009, 20:03 pm
#217 Bul-a-Bhloo: Each and every man who matters is in complete agreement. The couch referees and sundry TV-watching know-alls with zero reffing knowledge cling to their myths. Fools laugh at their own folly.
5 Jul 2009, 00:10 am
#200 Big Hit:
Big Hit aint no Pom. He’s a Safa.
#202 Ezee-23:
No.
Embarrassing is your team calling the opposition ‘whingers’ all week – a week, incidentally when your player was banned for eye-gouging – and then rock up with ‘Justice’ lit up like Piccadilly Circus.
If that was the ABs, theyd have a shorter Test career than an Iranian footballer.
Have you EVER seen anything more arrogant ?
‘Justice’ ?
oh, thank goodness. The Gods of Rugby have come to save the game from itself.
Absofkenlutely arrogant. Thank God they didnt grace that with a victory.
5 Jul 2009, 00:12 am
#221 WakaNathan: Waka he’s a pom. A good guy. (I know you Kiwis hate his guts).
What happened to you? You came on in a cool way, I now know who WakaNathan the player is (respect), but why have you started swimming in the dirty water?
Lets look forward to 3N.
Going to be god, and we all have to watch the Aussies.
5 Jul 2009, 00:15 am
#221 WakaNathan: Man, that is a serious bug up your ***.
Nice support I think, might just help next time Ali joins a ruck you won’t have him banned for weeks at a time…
You need to see the two incidents, separately. Nobody is defending Schalk, everyone is defending Bakkies, cause that is what is right…
5 Jul 2009, 00:52 am
#223 The Bill:
i cant believe any rugby fan would in any way condone that. I’d be absolutely livid if the ABs did that.
#222 SodaJoe:
I aint for ya or against ya, sonny.
I must say tho, youre quite different from your brethren. I suspect you live offshore, you appear to have both headlights working.
Look, Im more scathing of my own team than anyones. But I hate sanctimonious and righteous **** like that more than anything. The jersey should mean more than that.
Justice for who – Luke Fitzgerald ? Mandela ? Jacko ?
5 Jul 2009, 01:01 am
#222 SodaJoe:
I like Big HIt,he is a bug to NZ people on here but thats his job and hes good at it.Its cos NZ have had it over the POms for so long it is frastrating for him but his knowledge of the game is huge.I like giving a bit of stivck to BH,he can handle it,he gets a bit personal sometimes as we all do when cornered.
Overall hes a great supporter of rugby.
6 Jul 2009, 00:58 am
#225 Hurricane:
WTF ?!
You got laid recently didnt you ?! I forget what the 1st time was like.
6 Jul 2009, 12:47 pm
I have just heard from a friend in Wales. The injury sustained by Adam Jones from Bakkies’ illegal shoulder charge has ruled him out of all rugby for six months. Bakkies was banned for two weeks. By my rough calendar calculations, Jones will miss ALL of Ospreys Heineken Cup Pool matches. Where’s the “justice” in that?
6 Jul 2009, 18:54 pm
#227 cooky:
That doesnt fit in the with the nationawide-accepted theory of vicitimisation tho, does it.
And then read all the other entries about Shaw deserving more than 2 weeks because “he’s done it before”.
Yes, well, quite.
26 Aug 2009, 22:12 pm
Sorry to bring up this old thread, but with the recent release of an iRB ruling regarding entry to the ruck, I felt it would be useful to further explain why what Bakkies Botha did in the second Lions test and to Mortlock last year, is going to be removed from the game on a permanent basis.
===================
Here is the latest iRB ruling 2009 – 7
To: Secretaries / CEOs of Unions & Regional Associations in Membership
From: David Carrigy, Head of External & Member Relations
Subject: Law Ruling by Designated Members of Rugby Committee
Date: August 25, 2009
Ruling: 7: 2009
Request for a Ruling from the Designated Members from USA Rugby. The request for a Ruling arises from the way that players are required to join a ruck which appears to be covered by a number of sections in the Law Book and
in particular:
Law 16.2 (b)
A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate using the whole arm.
Law 10 4 (j)
Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.
This leads to the following questions:
1. Does a player joining a ruck have to bind on a team-mate?
2. Can a player joining a ruck bind on to an opposition player?
3. Does the contact with the arm have to precede contact with any other part of the body?
4. Does the contact with the arm have to be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body?
5. Can contact with the shoulder precede contact with the binding arm?
Ruling of the Designated Members:
The Designated Members in reviewing the Request for Ruling also had in mind Law 10 4 (g) Dangerous Charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent without trying to grasp that player. The grasping of a player on contact in open play and binding on contact at rucks and mauls is designed to protect players on impact. Bearing this in mind
the Designated Members have ruled:
1. If a team-mate is the hindmost player in the ruck then a player must bind onto that player in accordance with Law 16.5 (c) – Offside at the ruck
2. It is recognised in a dynamic game that rucks are not perfectly formed and therefore to comply with Law 16.5 – Offside at the ruck, contact may have to occur with an opposition player. This contact would require a
bind to take place in accordance with Law 10.4 (j)
3. In answer to questions 3, 4 and 5 the bind onto another player when joining the ruck must either precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body including the shoulder of the joining player
Yours sincerely,
David Carrigy
Head of External & Member Relations
==========================
You can download a pre-release pdf of the ruling from;
d.yimg.com/kq/groups/14456533/709343510/name/090723%20SG%20IRB%20Ruling%207%202009%20Joining%20a%20Ruck.pdf
you will need to preceded this address with h t t p : / /
This will appear on the iRB website early next week.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.