SARU fight armband protest

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Cape Town â€" The South African Rugby Union (SARU) is full of hope that it will be acquitted on the charge deriving from the Springbok team's armband protest last month against the suspension of Bakkies Botha.

SARU, the Springbok team and Bok management on Monday appeared before a disciplinary committee of the International Rugby Board (IRB). Judgment was reserved after a marathon hearing of more than nine hours.

The individuals who had to explain the Boks' behaviour on July 4 Test against the British and Irish Lions before the IRB disciplinary hearing were: SARU president Oregan Hoskins, SARU acting managing director Andy Marinos, SARU Communications manager Andy Colquhoun, Springbok coach Peter de Villiers and Springbok captain John Smit.

De Villiers testified in Afrikaans and an interpreter translated his testimony to the three members of the disciplinary committee â€" Sir John Hansen from New Zealand (chairperson), Judge Guillermo Tragant from Argentina and the former Wallabies rugby captain, John Eales.

According to reliable information, SARU on Monday fought the charge that it had brought the game into dishonour on two grounds.

SARU firstly pointed out that the IRB's disciplinary committee didn't have the jurisdiction to hear the charge against them. They also claimed that the Springboks had acted in solidarity with Botha and in no way questioned the disciplinary process against the fiery Bok lock.

Sport24 has learned that SARU is fighting the disciplinary committee's jurisdiction on the grounds that Mike Miller, executive chief official of the IRB apparently personally requested the disciplinary procedure after the Bok team's actions.

According to the IRB's regulations, Miller apparently could only request any disciplinary action if a recommendation in this regard had been made to him. Such a recommendation could only be made by the designated disciplinary official for the relevant match.

SARU's legal representatives apparently heavily cross-examined Miller about his behaviour in the whole matter.

As far as the Boks' appeal for their solidarity action with the Boks was concerned, SARU's legal representatives apparently said that the Boks were continually getting the short end of the stick regarding disciplinary actions.

It was also apparently claimed that disciplinary procedures against players were not consistent and that there was a perception that the Boks were being singled out.

Judgment in the matter is expected at the end of this week at the earliest, but SARU is hopeful that they will be acquitted on the technical point of the disciplinary committee's lack of jurisdiction as clear rules regarding the disciplinary process were broken.[/b]

Saucy

Interesting. iRB throw the book at SARU but they hit it out the ground for a six!

Any thoughts on this? I have a feeling there will be. :lol:

 

[Boggle]

I read about this earlier today, the IRB seem to have some kind of thing for South African rugby, like a boy pulling a girl's pigtails on the playground because he actually likes her.

Honestly though, Dan Retief (as always) writes an interesting column about this very situation, and I have to agree with the man, it's absolutely shocking what's been going on with the citings over the years, swings and round abouts my footcheese, it's more like what goes around keeps going around and we simply have to keep taking this ****.
:/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

by Dan Retief | 11 August 2009 (20:10)
The concurrence of South African rugby’s misconduct hearing by an IRB disciplinary panel and the failure by the citing commissioner in the Springbok vs Wallaby Test match to take action against Matt Giteau has yet again drawn attention to the manifest iniquities in the game’s judicial procedures.
South African rugby, the Springbok players and the team’s management were in the dock for the symbolic gesture of the team having worn white armbands with the legend “Justice 4†on them as a mark of protest against a two-week suspension handed to Bakkies Botha because of an incident in the second Test against the British & Irish Lions.

In IRB-speak Botha was censured for “dangerously charging into a ruck without binding on a player†but his Springbok teammates felt his actions were completely within the dictates of the law and consistent with any number of such “clean-outs.†The Boks were suspicious that South Africa’s hard man was being victimised and forced to pay the price for a Press-generated reputation.

Helpless to make a stronger protest against something they felt to be patently unfair the players decided on the armband avowal to make a statement about their dissatisfaction.

Significantly the Boks made no protest about Schalk Burger’s eight-week suspension for attacking the face of Luke Fitzgerald, but they were angered by the fact that Botha was persecuted for an action that even the Lions agreed was lawful.

Botha’s run-in with the law was the latest in a series of incidents in which South African players got the short end of the stick and the players clearly felt that it was time something was done to signal their dissatisfaction â€" especially as there were two acts of foul play by the Lions in the same Test which were allowed to go unpunished.

Right after Botha slammed into Adam Jones he was himself violently cleaned out by Lions hooker Matthew Rees â€" from the side and not head-on in the way he had confronted Jones.

The incident raised the question whether Botha had been cited because Jones had been injured and later in the same Test there was a heinous deed by Andrew Sheridan which was ignored by the citing officer â€" even though I know for a fact that he was alerted to it.

Sheridan twice punched Andries Bekker in the groin and the Boks rightly wanted to know why nothing was done about it.

In the third Test No8 Jamie Heaslip performed a clean-out almost identical to that which had got Bakkies Botha into trouble and again nothing was done.

And now Matt Giteau gets off scot-free for a flying forearm attack on Fourie du Preez that I have no doubt was done with serious intent to injure.

And when was the last time we saw such an aerial clash? Ah Schalk Burger against Samoa in the Boks’ opening game at the World Cup at the Parc des Princes in Paris. Burger at least was looking at the ball and trying to catch it before clattering into Junior Polu but what happened to him?

Oh yes he was cited, harassed and banned for six weeks â€" a shocking judgment that was later, at great expense and trouble to the South African camp, reduced to four weeks.

Giteau’s offence to my mind was worse, yet again showing up the gross inconsistency of rugby’s judiciary. There’s something rotten in the state of Union and instead of hounding the Springboks for a harmless gesture to draw attention to the appalling disciplinary contradictions the worthies of the IRB should be striving to put in place a system which is fair and objective.[/b]

 

[Steve-o]

I think it's really silly that the media are even hinting that Schalk Burgers ridiculously short ban for eye gouging justifies Giteau's misconduct last week. What this whole fuss is about is consistency. Giteau should of got a ban. Bakkies shouldn't of got a ban. Schalk Burger should of got a long ban. Everybody can see this but the IRB.
Good on SARU for taking them on I say, everybody has been unhappy with the IRB citing process of late at least they're getting their say in. More than than just their say actually! The IRB are on the spot now.

 

[O'Rothlain]

I have to be honest, South Africa have done themselves no favours. You have a jackass for a head coach and have had more than questionable conduct on the field. Then, instead of sucking it up and moving on, they wore the stupid armbands. It's like they're begging to be punished for more. I'm ready for this chapter to be over with. Step 1: Get rid of de Villiers.

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I have to be honest, South Africa have done themselves no favours. You have a jackass for a head coach and have had more than questionable conduct on the field. Then, instead of sucking it up and moving on, they wore the stupid armbands. It's like they're begging to be punished for more. I'm ready for this chapter to be over with. Step 1: Get rid of de Villiers.[/b]

That's the thing about rugby being professional nowdays. They don't care if they're like by the IRB or not.
It's a pity but the IRB set the tone with this whole disciplinary committee to read them the rules. So they bring their legal team. What's Eales gonna do with his degree in psychology in that situation?
I still think the armband thing was not the best way to handle this but protocal was broken on the IRB's side. SARU are getting their own back.

BTW, "more than questionable conduct on the field" :lol:

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

BTW, "more than questionable conduct on the field" :lol:[/b]

Well, I was going to say "Schalk Burgher is a dirty f___" but thought "more than questionable conduct on the field" sounded classier.

 

[Bullitt]

As for Botha, maybe he was wrongly banned, but the first thing he did on his return game was take somebody head clean off and wasn't even spoken to. What goes around...

Anyway.

Considering how disgustingly short Burgers ban was for his gouging, the SARU and Boks have absolutely no right to complain about any citing decisions. End of story.

 

[KZNSharksFan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Aug 15 2009, 12:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As for Botha, maybe he was wrongly banned, but the first thing he did on his return game was take somebody head clean off and wasn't even spoken to. What goes around...

Anyway.

Considering how disgustingly short Burgers ban was for his gouging, the SARU and Boks have absolutely no right to complain about any citing decisions. End of story.[/b]

"Maybe wrongly binned!" I see worse cleanouts every time I watch a rugby match! Yes Burger should have been slapped with a longer ban, but that's the first time I can remember a S African geting off lightly in a citing!

Burger's case (or anyone else's case) is irrelevent though, all everyone wants is consistency. None of this bullsh** "make an example of someone" that's coming from the IRB nowadays. That's not ethical and you wouldn't see it in a real law court.

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Aug 14 2009, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

As for Botha, maybe he was wrongly banned, but the first thing he did on his return game was take somebody head clean off and wasn't even spoken to. What goes around...

Anyway.

Considering how disgustingly short Burgers ban was for his gouging, the SARU and Boks have absolutely no right to complain about any citing decisions. End of story.[/b]

How, how on god's good earth does that even things out. As they say two wrongs don't make a right. If anything SARU are highlighting that excuse for a ban ok probably not. But they saying what needs to be said. IRB's citing process has gone down the shitter.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BTW, "more than questionable conduct on the field" :lol:[/b]

Well, I was going to say "Schalk Burgher is a dirty f___" but thought "more than questionable conduct on the field" sounded classier.
[/b][/quote]

Rather call it like it is, Burger is dirty. It sounded like you were saying the Boks were dirty.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BTW, "more than questionable conduct on the field" :lol:[/b]

Well, I was going to say "Schalk Burgher is a dirty f___" but thought "more than questionable conduct on the field" sounded classier.
[/b][/quote]

Rather call it like it is, Burger is dirty. It sounded like you were saying the Boks were dirty.
[/b][/quote]

I'm not saying they're not dirty...let's put it that way. I think if I had to say what one team leans towards the dirty side more than any other team I'd be inclined to mention a certain team in the southern part of Africa.

 

[shazbooger]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Aug 14 2009, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Considering how disgustingly short Burgers ban was for his gouging, the SARU and Boks have absolutely no right to complain about any citing decisions. End of story.[/b]

I was originally of this mindset but to be honest it just causes more problems. Everyone and their mothers believed the ban was incorrect (though we could all have identified a number of other reasons to ban Bakkies ) so the SARU have a point in highlighting it. The manner in which the team protested was stupid (and wothy of a two match ban for all of em ), but if it keeps the debate open and results in a more consistent disciplinary process then its good for the game as a whole.

Whether your on the side of the IRB or the SARU there can be no doubting its the IRB's problem, and so far they have failed to introduce any consistent policy on discipline in rugby. Everyone is calling for consistency, so I dont understand what the problem is. Sort it out!

 

[Steve-o]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BTW, "more than questionable conduct on the field" :lol:[/b]

Well, I was going to say "Schalk Burgher is a dirty f___" but thought "more than questionable conduct on the field" sounded classier.
[/b][/quote]

Rather call it like it is, Burger is dirty. It sounded like you were saying the Boks were dirty.
[/b][/quote]

I'm not saying they're not dirty...let's put it that way. I think if I had to say what one team leans towards the dirty side more than any other team I'd be inclined to mention a certain team in the southern part of Africa.
[/b][/quote]
Got any video evidence?


Doubt it, we burnt it all.

 

[O'Rothlain]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 07:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Aug 14 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Aug 14 2009, 06:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BTW, "more than questionable conduct on the field" :lol:[/b]

Well, I was going to say "Schalk Burgher is a dirty f___" but thought "more than questionable conduct on the field" sounded classier.
[/b][/quote]

Rather call it like it is, Burger is dirty. It sounded like you were saying the Boks were dirty.
[/b][/quote]

I'm not saying they're not dirty...let's put it that way. I think if I had to say what one team leans towards the dirty side more than any other team I'd be inclined to mention a certain team in the southern part of Africa.
[/b][/quote]
Got any video evidence?


Doubt it, we burnt it all.
[/b][/quote]
Ha Ha Ha...yeah, we've all seen your "Currie Cup," or should we say "Thug Training Academy." :lol: