Boks land Saru in hot water
7 Jul 2009
The IRB will bring charges of misconduct against Saru after the Boks’ wore white arm bands against the Lions at Ellis Park.
The players were protesting the two-week ban given to Bakkies Botha who, according to the judicial officer, dangerously charged into a ruck without binding during the second Test at Loftus. The Boks believed Botha was victimised, pointing to several similar incidents in the game that went unpunished.
The white arm bands, that were also worn by Bok management, had ‘JUSTICE 4′ written on them with a black marker pen.
In a press release on Monday evening, the IRB said it ‘takes the view that such an act demonstrates a clear disregard of the disciplinary process and does so in a manner which brings, or has the potential to bring, the game into disrepute.’
Saru responded with a statement of its own, saying ‘it would allow the process to take its course. No further comment will be made until the judicial process has run its course’.
298 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
7 Jul 2009, 17:01 pm
#200 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL:
fair enough.
Then the Springboks have NEVER beaten the All Blacks in a Series throughout history.
Since 1992, the All Blacks have won:-
1994 in NZ 2-0 (1 drawn)
1996 in SA 2-1
from 2006 when mini-Series of 3 rounds were introduced to the TriN:-
2006 NZ 2-1
2008 NZ 2-1
Since 1992, when neutral referees finally controlled All Blacks vs Springbok encounters:-
NZ has won – 27
SA has won – 10
Prior to 1992, the Sth African ‘Representational’ XV played the NZ ‘Invitational’ XV – in Sth Africa – controlled solely by Sth African refs, in 20 Tests.
SA won 14
NZ won 5.
7 Jul 2009, 17:07 pm
what are the possible sanctions ?? sorry if i missed them earlier ….. can they seeriously impose a 1 match ban on all boks who wore armbands ??
7 Jul 2009, 17:21 pm
#202 redrum:
Since no other team has been so stupid and arrogant to think of doing something like this to their national jersey throughout the distinguished history of rugby union, then I suppose the IRB are going to have to dream something up.
A 1 or 2 match ban and a fine would be a good starting point tho.
7 Jul 2009, 17:26 pm
#203 BlackPanther: Fok that is bad.
7 Jul 2009, 17:30 pm
ok found the regulation:
Regulations;
REGULATION 18
18.6.1 Upon finding a breach of the Bye-Laws and/or Regulations, or that an offence pursuant to Regulation 18.1.1 (a) to (d) inclusive has been committed, Judicial Officers and Judicial Committees shall be entitled to impose such penalties as they think fit. Such penalties may include, but shall not be limited to:
(a) a caution, warning as to future conduct, reprimand and/or a fine;
(b) a suspension for a specified number of Matches and/or a specified period; a requirement that a Match or Matches be played with the exclusion of the public; the cancellation of a Match result and, where appropriate, the replaying of a Match; the forfeiture of a Match or matches and/or tie(s); the deduction or cancellation of points; the immediate or future expulsion or suspension from a tournament(s) or competition(s); or any such similar sanctions;
(c) cancellation or refusal of the registration of any Person registered in contravention of the Regulations;
(d) a recommendation to the Council that a Union or Association be
expelled or suspended from Membership of the Board. Subject to the
provisions of Bye-Law 6(d), only the Council shall be competent to
expel or suspend a Union or Association and any such expulsion or
suspension shall only have effect if approved by a two-thirds
majority of the votes cast at a properly convened and quorate Council meeting;
(e) an order that any Union, Association, Rugby Body, Club or Person pay compensation and/or restitution;
(f) the withdrawal of other benefits or membership of the Board,
including, but not limited to, the right to apply to host International Tournaments; and
(g) any combination of the penalties set out in 18.6.1(a) to (f) above.
7 Jul 2009, 17:31 pm
I don’t think it’s stupid at all. Copping a 2 week ban for a offence, every player has committed AT LEAST once in ANY game for the last 100 yrs is. From Smit’s comments last week re Bakkies being ‘victimised’ it should be clear where they’re coming from. How is that stupid?
7 Jul 2009, 17:35 pm
re timing, its a bit vague when dealing with judicial committees – but there is a 14 day window in which appeals can be lodged and which would then need to be heard.
so you have to assume that SARU could ensure that any penalty could be delayed for a few weeks …. at least up till when we start touring in the TN
7 Jul 2009, 17:39 pm
#201 BlackPanther: Yes, but before 1992 SA won more games than NZ, including 1937 series in NZ. As you would very well know, SA has gone through a transitional period. I’m sure you can accept that, maybe not here but in the privacy of your thoughts.
7 Jul 2009, 17:40 pm
No fine, no ban, no nothing already appealing?
Shoot us already govnor.
7 Jul 2009, 17:44 pm
#208 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL: Man you kidding yes? For 100 years we say fok off black players. No players for SA and NO invites for color players. NZ no chance for anything but whiteys. Now we say need more black players and color players and less whiteys.
Getting dizzy going round and round.
7 Jul 2009, 17:45 pm
#201 BlackPanther: My point is this:
We cannot change the past, politics unfortunatly influenced rugby. However, I’m sure you will agree that without SA rugby would not be the same, same as rugby would not be the same without NZ. NZ has dominated the Boks in between WC’s since 1992, but that can change, and it will. IT has always been like that where the one team dominates for a period of time, then the other team gets their turn. NZ has had a long run (except for the WC’s), but the Boks will have their time soon.
7 Jul 2009, 17:49 pm
#210 oodles: You’ve lost me. The past cannot be changed, we are in a new era. We need the BEST players, regardless of skin color! Fact is we went through a transition period, growing pains. Not easy you know! Look what happened in Yugoslavia, Somalia, DRC, etc. You cant just change people over night, cultures need to be intergrated.
7 Jul 2009, 17:55 pm
#212 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL: You think we got intergated with armbands? You think we looking whitey with that genius move? Fok no we look like a bunch of ……s
7 Jul 2009, 17:57 pm
#213 oodles: What did I say about the armbands?
7 Jul 2009, 17:59 pm
#213 oodles: Did your wife hit you or something that you are so aggressive?
7 Jul 2009, 17:59 pm
Any case, cheers!
7 Jul 2009, 18:20 pm
#211 AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL:
I found your name easier to decipher than your argument.
I think the question was ‘from when was there a level playing-feild ?’.
What with the issue of neutral refs and no-visas to Maoris/Polys and whites-only SA teams, that line in the sand was drawn in 1992.
Since 1992, the Springboks have only beaten the All Blacks more than once in a season, on only one occassion (1998). Otherwise that stats heavily favour the ABs (see #201 above).
In RWC matches betw NZ vs SA, the record is 1-1.
Please nb this is not an exercise in (yawn) producing the ‘Greatest Team Ever’ (far too many times on this blog already), but has grown organically from the ridiculous and oft-cited argument of what constitutes a ‘real’ RWC as proposed by Pietman at #192. We therefore took this silly premise and asked what was a ‘real’ rugby team and what was a ‘real’ Series.
Hence this long journey. I wonder whether Pietman will now trade his RWC theory for the Boks NEVER having beaten the All Blacks in a Series home or away ?
7 Jul 2009, 18:39 pm
If we still take Pietman’s argument:
NZ – Never won the World Cup
SA – Twice won the World Cup
What more can you say?
7 Jul 2009, 18:46 pm
#218 boktoinfinityandbeyond:
Er, Einstein, just like I summarised in the Idiots Guide in the last para.
A Series of no less than 3 matches remains the recognised method of evaluating the stronger of 2 teams.
Unless of course you think youre ‘only as good as your last match’ in which case the Boks just lost to the Lions and were last nilled, at home, by the Blacks.
What more can I say ?
7 Jul 2009, 18:53 pm
#217 BlackPanther:
’99 cup SA played NZ in the third place playoff and won. So that makes it 2-1.
7 Jul 2009, 19:23 pm
#220 rich1:
fair point, but 3rd/4th games are a nonsense and usually mean all the other squad members get a game. Personally I think theyre a waste of time and unfair on the players. The same premise as the Boks selecting 10 new players for the 3rd Lions Test.
But including even that match, the record since 1992 remains NZ 27 SA 10.
7 Jul 2009, 19:49 pm
I am in two minds about this one.
On the one hand we can say yes, if you are going to protest about something don’t protest about one of your players getting a measly two week ban after he dislocated someone’s arm (regardless of the fact of whether it was legal or not). I mean they could have protested about something meaningful like…I don’t know, the environment or world peace or some hippy **** like that…real issues in other words. Instead they chose to unite against what was regarded as an injustice against a player, who to be fair, doesn’t have the greatest disciplinary record.
But on the other hand the citing laws and the inconsistencies of their application do create frustration and I do think the IRB are not beyond reproach in that regard. Why do we just have to sit back and blindly obediently and unquestioningly accept the farce that citing has become? Why should the Boks have to pay for “daring” to challenge the rugby authorities on these issues? Is the IRB so precious about their omnipotence that they have to impose serious sanction on South African rugby merely for voicing their opinion? There is a little thing called “free speech” that the UK and the rest of the modern world like to promulgate in other regards, so lets see them walk the walk on this one.
7 Jul 2009, 22:25 pm
#222 Harlequin:
Surely the advocation of ‘free speech’ argument is more acceptable when the cause is regarded as worthy. In this case, Bakkies received a 2 week ban only, for exactly the same offence as July ’08, and in the same week that an eye-gouging teammate got a pitiful 8weeks.
Simon Shaw got 2weeks for a knee-in-the-back which he too has been banned for previously. Many think it was unintentional. We havent heard from him since.
Do we really want to see the proliferation of political messages by individuals and teams during rugby Test matches ? Im only just getting used to them smiling after tries.
7 Jul 2009, 22:40 pm
200. AGTEROSKOMOOKINNIEKRAAL
“New Zealand has never beaten SA before 1992. Before then SA only made use of their white players. Black make for 80% of our population, and colourds 6%”
That is a such a twisted bullsh!t argument it defies belief at any South African would have the sheer gaul to make it.
Firstly: That South Africa did not use Black players is a situation of their OWN doing. New Zealand choose not to use any NZ players who play outside of New Zealand, but we don’t claim the All Blacks to be not full strength without them.
Secondly: The Black & Coloured players in South Africa during the apartheid years weren’t all that good anyway. They had little if any resources spent on them and were actively discriminated against. On the occasions when touring teams played matches against the best Black and Mixed Race sides (e.g. v The Leopards and v The Proteas) they beat them easily.
Thirdly: The All Blacks were prevented from using their Maori and Pacific Island players, who were the core of the team. This racist policy restricting opponents from using black and Coloured players was IMPOSED upon them.
To suggest that South Africa choosing not to select from a group of weakener players, while preventing their opponents from choosing from a group of their strongest players, is somehow creating an even playing field is nothing short if disingenuous.
7 Jul 2009, 22:58 pm
As far as the armbands are concerned, Stu Dickinson was actually within his rights to have made the SA players remove them if he chose to. All apparel a player wears in the field, must be iRB approved. There is even an iRB approved black or white “mourning” armband which players/teams have to get prior permission to wear.
Additionally, there are contractual restriction on displaying any wording on apparel to prevent “ambush” marketing.
—
IRB REGULATION 11: ADVERTISING WITHIN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
11.5.3 Save for the emblems or marks of Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies or Clubs and as otherwise expressly provided in this Regulation 11, no form of emblem, mark, name or other form of commercial and/or promotional association may be displayed on any item worn, used, placed or carried onto the playing enclosure that is not referred to in Table 1.
—
The players were clearly advertising their dissent and contempt for the judicial system. The argument “everyone picks on us” will not wash in the hearing.
7 Jul 2009, 23:09 pm
#225 cooky:
Dont you get it. It wasnt really about Bakkies per se. They were doing it ‘for rugby’.
We were being preached to.
On the field of play.
The Righteous Brothers.
7 Jul 2009, 23:09 pm
If I was bok coach I would not have condoned what the boks did as it brought more attention on to them at a time when staying out of the spotlight would have been more appropriate.
But the IRB reaction is also a bit silly, as all it is going to do is amplify the players message – and cause further discussion on Botha’s banning. Discussion that is likely to emabrrass the IRB given very few people think Bakkies should have been cited let alone banned.
There is an issue with the way citings work and the way punnishment is metered out – even comparing bakkies and schalk there is inconsistency given one was harshly dealt with and the other probably got off lightly. In my opinion the IRB should have taken the cirticism on the chin and just let it die out. They are not beyond criticism and their response is typical of an all powerful body that believes it owns the game.
Have any of the lions players been censured for criticising the referees during the series? They did it quite openly and regularly.
7 Jul 2009, 23:20 pm
#227 munkiboi:
All we keep hearing from the locals is this BS about “….very few people think Bakkies did nothing wrong”. What utter ****. What you have done is cherrypick 1 or 2 quotes and spread it evenly over your thin argument to give it substance. Certainly, the press is damning of Bakkies and even more so the Boks for their incredibly inappropriate behaviour.
“OPINION: Victor Matfield, the Springboks’ lineout genius, had the word “Justice” written across the front of his headgear, and along with the rest of the side that played a memorable third test against the British and Irish Lions, on an armband, as well.
I wondered who or what cause the protest might be supporting until the commentator told us that it was a sign of solidarity for Bakkies Botha over his two-week suspension for foul play during the second test. The Springboks wanted to highlight their contention that Botha should have been cleared of the charge against him.
If we ever needed further proof of the arrogance and obsessive belief in the divine right of the Springboks to get their way on and off the field, this gesture has provided it. Botha had charged the Lions prop Adam Jones off the ball and had dislocated his shoulder. He was given a two-week suspension. It is unprecedented in rugby that the integrity of an IRB ruling has been challenged so blatantly and provocatively in this way.
When the Springboks captain, John Smit, was asked if his team might get into trouble with the IRB over its armband protest, he replied: “We’ll have to see.”
The case of Botha needs to be looked at in tandem with that of Schalk Burger. In the opening seconds of the second test against the Lions, Luke Fitzgerald’s eyes somehow attracted the groping fingers of Burger. The Canadian IRB official, Alan Hudson, ruled that the action was reckless but not intentional: that there was some short-lived tearing and blurred vision, and that there was no eye-gouging “in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area”.
Even a layman can see there is an inherent contradiction in this finding. Burger’s fingers were in Fitzgerald’s eye for some time. Some damage was done to the eyes. Given that eye-gouging is a “serious matter,” the eight-week ban imposed on Burger was totally inadequate and an injustice to the injured player.
Burger and Botha play the part of the hitmen of the Springboks pack, the enforcers. They launch themselves, illegally, like missiles into the rucks and mauls. They constantly provoke opponents off the ball. They are persistent offenders in the rucks and mauls, Burger going off his feet to kill the ball and Botha coming in from the side and invariably lying on the opponents’ side of the ruck. They tackle around the head constantly.
If the referee tolerates this mayhem, which often happens, the opposition get intimidated and overwhelmed. This tolerance gives a decided edge to the Springboks, as the first two tests against the Lions indicated. But on Saturday in the third test, the Lions trounced the Springboks 28-9. The Australian referee Stu Dickinson penalised the Springboks early on for killing the ball at the tackle. This excellent refereeing and the absence of the thuggish play of Burger and Botha meant that the Springboks forwards struggled to stop the Lions recycling ball.
With this front-foot ball, the Lions backs made breaks time and again. Forced to play with shape and discipline, the Springboks were, according to Peter Bills of The Independent, “as clueless as their coach Peter de Villiers”.
After the debacle at Johannesburg and the bizarre defence of Botha, things might have changed for the Springboks. The Lions revealed that without their hitmen, the Springboks struggled to make an impact. This might be the true justice in this matter.”
7 Jul 2009, 23:25 pm
#226 WakaNathan:
a bit rich coming from our self righteous brother….
sarcasm will not endear you despite the fact your points are valid. i just wonder again what your reaction would be if it was the ABs who had done it for a perceived injustice on their side. would you be defending or castigating them?
this is a unique situation and one which is going to set new norms – something we hould all fear.
And just think for a minute why the boks are so upset – bakkies has been abnned for clearing out a ruck – not in accordance to IRB regulations but in accordance to the norm which has crept into the game. he is doing what players do a dozen or so times in a test match. and if for some strange reason he gets cited again for doing it – he will banned for even longer because he has already been disciplined for it. it is not only the ban itself but the precedence it is going to set.
watch this space this is just the start and instead of looking for issues to criticise the boks and their supporters on (something you apear to enjoy) you should think of the wider implications here for all of us rugby lovers.
7 Jul 2009, 23:27 pm
227. munkiboi
The IRB DOES own the game.
It makes Regulations that govern the game administratively.
It makes and amends the Laws the game is played under.
It owns all advertising & broadcasting rights for the RWC.
The IRB is made up of the Nations that play the game. It is not some disembodied far off body of people unrelated to rugby. If the IRB have decided that SARU is to be charged, it is because the representatives of other Nations wanted this to happen.
This is not the first time that the IRB has charged a National Union. Russia were expelled from the qualifying competition for the 2003 RWC for fielding ineligible players.
7 Jul 2009, 23:38 pm
#228 WakaNathan:
i lost interest in your cut and paste article when it stated the two issues needed to be looked at in tandem.
and I’d like to point out that I live in NZ and most of the kiwis in my workplace, as well as the NZ press (Herald articles) question bakkies banning. so dont tell me otherwise because it suits your argument.
and lets be clear – we agree that the “protest” was inappropriate – even if for different reasons. no doubt we can politely agree to disagree.
7 Jul 2009, 23:46 pm
#230 cooky:
In my opinion the IRB are the GUARDIANS of the game – they DO NOT own it.
And again lets make this clear – I do not condone what the boks did. I purely maintain that by charging SARU the IRB are amplifying the playes voices and it is only going to further discredit the game as it is going to result in more column inches and both SARU and the IRB are going to be losers in all of this.
I remeber the Russia incident they were playing a whole bunch of south africans funnily enough. The difference is that it is a passing story when they fined russia who is a rugby minnow – this is gonna get messy.
7 Jul 2009, 23:50 pm
People who think players are going to be allowed to charge into rucks unbound in the future had better think again. This brutal practice has no place in the game.
That something has “become the norm” does not make it legal or safe. Tackling players in the air used to be “the norm” and was only made illegal a few years ago. The “Cavalry Charge” and the “Flying Wedge” used to be legal moves before the danger was realised and they were specifically outlawed.
I hear people crying that the physicality will be gone from the game if players aren’t allowed to use their bodies like exocet missiles. That is just a load of BS. It is possible to be physical without being a thug, and it is more skillful. Any dumb idiot can fly headfirst into a ruck hitting opponents with a flying headbutt, but is takes SKILL as well as technique to bind, drive and overpower an opponent. Anyone who has played in the front rank will testify to that. A prop with really good scrummaging technique can beat the pants off a bigger stronger opponent whose technique is poor.
The days of players being allowed to defy the following laws with impunity are numbered;
—
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 team-mate, using the whole arm.
—
Get used to it or get left behind.
7 Jul 2009, 23:50 pm
during the eighties i was innocently oblivious of the fact that the boks had the edge over the all blacks in test series.
it was pointed out to me by an englishman and his french father-in-law.
apparently they had not considered the evil intervention of local refs and political interference in ab slections.
i suppose it just shows that the rest of the world looked at results while the kiwis looked at excuses (again)
7 Jul 2009, 23:57 pm
232. munkiboi
“In my opinion the IRB are the GUARDIANS of the game – they DO NOT own it.”
Yes, I agree. “Guardians” is probably a much better description than “Owners”.
However, as Guardians, it is still their responsibility to ensure that the game is honoured.
I don’t think this will get messy.
* IRB will reprimand them and give them a suspended fine
* SARU will accept they were wrong
* PDV will be told by SARU to wind his head in
It will be a case of “naughty boy, don’t do it again”. SARU will be on notice and will have to tread carefully in future.
8 Jul 2009, 00:06 am
#233 cooky:
again I dont disagree with you. But you dont stamp it out by starting to single out players randomly.
The IRB must send a clear directive to unions that it is an aspect of the game that needs correction and that it is going to be policed on the field by the refs. the refs are then instructed to start penalising the offence – ad using yellow and red cards for repeated or partcularl violent infringements.
Anyways I am glad the IRB has such a strong supporter in yourself cooky given they are so often cirticised for constant and incoherrant rule changes, for failing to grow the game outside its strongholds and of course for inconsistent application of laws and disciplinary actions.
8 Jul 2009, 00:07 am
#235 cooky:
that is the logical outcome
8 Jul 2009, 00:11 am
#234 charo:
dont worry too much about them excuses… Here in NZ the kiwis still talk about how they LOST the world cup in 2007. people like Wakanation call us arrogant, yet they have an inherrant belief the cup was their to lose. as opposed to theirs to win. a subtle difference that tells us so much about them.
8 Jul 2009, 00:20 am
#231 munkiboi:
Bakkies Botha has been getting away with flying-headbutts for years.
Even you have acknowledged he has been banned previously for exactly the same offence. He does not use his arms and it is his head and/or shoulder making 100% of the impact. Its dangerous and he keeps taking guys out.
The relevance of the Burger incident illustrates the hypocricy of the protagonists. 1 player gets let off lightly and the other player not lightly enough. Smokes and mirrors.
JUSTICE for who exactly ?
All week the Boks complained about the Lions whinging. So what was JUSTICE if not a glorified whinge ?!
8 Jul 2009, 00:20 am
#234 charo: just the kiwis huh ?? ridiculous comment… look at quotas, reffing alliance, travel, PDv…
is that looking at results or is it excuses ??
theres an old saying
“people in glass houses shouldnt throw strones”
#238 munkiboi: like last years 3Ns huh ?? you guys had an inherent belief that your WC Champs were going to walk it, and we all know the result… so Kiwi supporters expect a lot from their team, its because the team has given us sooo much in the way of “RESULTS” since the professional era, no other team comes close…
it wasnt only us that thought that (not that I ever did), take a look around the world , all the different media reports and even supporters felt NZ were the best team and should win it, there is a difference… but dont let it stop you from your little tirade…
8 Jul 2009, 00:26 am
#234 charo:I will watch your posts with interest now, and every time the Boks play, I will be looking.. definitely hope I dont see any excuses offered under your name, would hate to have to point out your hypocrisy.
8 Jul 2009, 00:28 am
#238 munkiboi:
Talk it up.
No team has an inherent right to win anything. Altho I do recall the Springboks arriving in Ireland under Jake White with ‘Grand Slammers’ on their training kit and JW claiming no Paddy would get in the SA team. They lost. Twice.
Kiwis have been hearing nothing but reasons why SA has not been winning, refs, transformations, travel, bannings, conspiracies, emails….. since post-isolation. And now, punch drunk after success over the Lions, Smit and his boets decided to tell the World we were all wrong. The message is loud and clear – ‘noone beats us fairly’ !
Yep, I stand accused. That is bloody arrogant.
8 Jul 2009, 00:31 am
20. sharks_lover :
July 8th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Well ladies and gents
Here is the team i think will be chosen for saturdays game against the WP
Players i know were not allowed to play are: Smit,Beast,Jpp,Bismark,Ruan,F Steyn,Hernandez (new signing)
15 Stefan
14 Odwa
13 Strauss
12 Swanepoel
11 Vulindlu
10 G Cronje
09 Rory
08 Ryan
07 Deysel
06 Botes
05 Muller
04 Sykes
03 Jannie
02 Burden
01 Carstens
16 Skipper
17 Cilliers
18 Oom Albert
19 Keegan
20 Downey/jordaan
21 Lambie
22 McCleod
It would’nt surprise me to see someone else like Jordaan at fullback or lambie with Stefan moving to outside center, but i feel they will stick to the old school
8 Jul 2009, 00:33 am
#243 sharks_lover: Add Adi Jacobs to the list that cant play
Eish thats another 8 players
8 Jul 2009, 00:38 am
#244 sharks_lover: Hey Sharks, shame they cant play for you guys, but it does open up opportunities for others… question is if they will stand up and take the opportunity ?
Abs have had a similar prob this year..
8 Jul 2009, 00:44 am
#245 poppa69: Hiyas mate , hope ur well…
That be true , and its good to have 2 ,18 year olds coming through in cronje and lambie
Anyhows mate im off to bed , damn near 1 am and im still up talking ****
take care and catch ya 2morrow
8 Jul 2009, 01:03 am
236. munkiboi
“Again I dont disagree with you. But you dont stamp it out by starting to single out players randomly.
The IRB must send a clear directive to unions that it is an aspect of the game that needs correction and that it is going to be policed on the field by the refs. the refs are then instructed to start penalising the offence – ad using yellow and red cards for repeated or particular violent infringements.”
They have done this already. Here it is. I have posted this before, but in case you missed it:
“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 (i) 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”
8 Jul 2009, 03:45 am
The armband protest has only damaged the springbok reputation further. It shows us up as petulant and sulky. Regardless of how aggrieved the boks may be with the Botha verdict, we look like 4yr olds who can’t accept a bad ruling with grace and dignity.
Bad decisions go against teams and individuals all the time in rugby, but taking it like a man is what separates those who understand the spirit of the game from those who don’t.
This is like argueing with the ref, except it was premeditated and advertised to the world. What reaction did they expect from the IRB? A) Poor boks, you knows they have a point, what were we thinking? or B) These guys don’t know how to accept the judge’s verdict, no wonder they have such a poor disciplinary record.
Whoever sanctioned this protest displayed very poor judgement.
8 Jul 2009, 03:48 am
#248 stormer in a teacup: And, when they get their just desserts, they’ll bleat “conspiracy theory” and “everybody keeps picking on us”…
Pathetic!
8 Jul 2009, 04:23 am
#187 charo: “is it because as a nation you haven’t really produced that many outstanding citizens?”
is that right Charo ??
check out Ernest Rutherford (famous for splitting the atom)
check out the White Mouse (Nancy Wake)
check out the Commander of the air forces in the Battle of Britain and the Battle of Malta (Keith Park)
check out Sir Edmund Hillary
check out John Britten
check out Arthur Lydiard
check out Alexander Aitken
check out Katherine Mansfield
check out the only man to receive the Victoria Cross and Bar in WWII…
and thats all off the top of my head, sure I can find many, many more.
your post shows a complete lack of respect, especially for a country that didnt want to get caught up in politics, just wanted to play rugby with your country, to the point that many African countries boycotted an Olympics because NZ was there, after touring SA during isolation… so, best you farkin remember who your friends are… perhaps one should engage the brain a bit more before they open the mouth…
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.