Schalk Burger given 4 match ban

I didn't want to post on this topic but I think I'll do.

In all fareness - I think he got a reasonable suspention. It was high and in the air afterall.

I think what makes the biggest difference in this situation is the fact that emotions are pretty high because it is the WC and also because he will miss a few very important games.

On the rest, I'll rather not comment.
 
MielieSpoor said:
In all fareness - I think he got a reasonable suspention. It was high and in the air afterall.
Click to expand...

I would agree if everyone received the same treatment. A spear tackle which IMO is probably the most dangerous thing in Rugby got only 1 week more. Vickery got half that of Schalks and Lima did not even get cited. If you want to clean up Rugby then you put all of these things down on paper. No flexibility. High tackle (1st Offence) = 3 weeks ban, High tackle (2nd Offence) = 8 week ban, etc. Rugby league did this and it was very effective at stomping out things like high tackles.

One last thing, you don't start these sorts of things in a WC. People have been happily playing a certain way for 10 years and must suddenly change in the WC. It is something that players need to become accustomed too. There are going to be casualties in terms of players lost for some games but what you don't want is a NZ - SA final with 1/3 of the players missing because of citings for things that historically have been acceptable. What also needs to happen is that everyone should get the same treatment. So for example, Lima was injured so they didn't cite him for something has was as bad if not a lot worse then Schalks offence.
 
Did they specify which 4 games he must miss?
Jake can organise a few quick extra games against some team, and leave Schalk out.
 
Abe said:
I would agree if everyone received the same treatment. A spear tackle which IMO is probably the most dangerous thing in Rugby got only 1 week more. Vickery got half that of Schalks and Lima did not even get cited. If you want to clean up Rugby then you put all of these things down on paper. No flexibility. High tackle (1st Offence) = 3 weeks ban, High tackle (2nd Offence) = 8 week ban, etc. Rugby league did this and it was very effective at stomping out things like high tackles.

One last thing, you don't start these sorts of things in a WC. People have been happily playing a certain way for 10 years and must suddenly change in the WC. It is something that players need to become accustomed too. There are going to be casualties in terms of players lost for some games but what you don't want is a NZ - SA final with 1/3 of the players missing because of citings for things that historically have been acceptable. What also needs to happen is that everyone should get the same treatment. So for example, Lima was injured so they didn't cite him for something has was as bad if not a lot worse then Schalks offence.
Click to expand...

Well Said.
 
Good to be guilty in RWC farce by Dan Retief
The farcical Rugby World Cup disciplinary system plunged further into ridicule on Tuesday night when it emerged a Samoan player received a light sentence because he had pleaded guilty to the charge he was facing.
Rugby World Cup Extras

Samoa's Alfie Vaeluaga, who received a belated citing to appear before judicial officer Terry Willis, the Australian who handed down the irrational four-match suspension against Schalk Burger, for alleged breaches of Law 10.4(e) for a dangerous tackle on Springbok fullback Percy Montgomery during the Samoa v South Africa match in Paris on Sunday.

Vaeluaga pleaded guilty and submitted that he did not intend to execute a dangerous tackle.

According to a Press Release from the World Cup media office, “Montgomery was treated but not injured and played out the remainder of the game,” -- as did Burger’s “victim” Junior Polu.

“The Judicial Officer (JO) determined the offence to be at the lower end of seriousness. There were no aggravating circumstances, however there were several mitigating factors, including his plea of guilty, his expression of sorrow and remorse for the incident and his good disciplinary record.

“The JO heard that he had played 11 tests for Samoa, 24 games for Bristol, 20 games for Plymouth and more than 20 games for Orrell and had not appeared before a disciplinary tribunal for seven years.

“The entry point for a low-range offence is two matches. However, the JO decided in this case the suspension should be reduced to one match in light of the mitigating factors.

“The player has 48 hours in which to appeal the decision."
Click to expand...
 
It gets worse, check out Jakes comments in the Sunday Times.
I have to say I agree.

The four-game ban has angered White, whose initial reaction was to consider withdrawing the Boks from the tournament. White said the punishment smacked of a “smear campaign” against the Boks.

“I was so angry … my initial reaction was to withdraw the team and come home,” White told The Times. “There appears to be a bias against the Springboks because I saw much worse this weekend [in World Cup matches].”

Unless McCochran persuades the appeal board to overturn the ban, Burger will be ruled out of the World Cup until the semifinals, if the Boks progress to that stage.

Burger was the third player at this World Cup to be hit with a ban.

The others were England captain Phil Vickery, who will not contest his two-match ban for tripping US centre Phil Emerick, and Emerick himself, who was banned for five games for a spear tackle on England flyhalf Olly Barkley.

White contrasted Burger’s heavy punishment with Vickery’s light sentence.

“Phil Vickery received only a two-match ban for kicking an opponent — how is it possible that Schalk gets four weeks for contesting the ball? And [Samoan player] Brian Lima wasn’t even cited, even though he nearly took Andre Pretorius’ head off with a tackle in which he didn’t use his arms.

“ The judicial officer [Terry Willis] was an Australian and we might play Australia in the quarterfinals. What does that suggest?

“There is clearly a campaign against the Springboks.”
Click to expand...
http://www.suntimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=563114
 
Last edited:
Just curious as to what the lawyer fees where for this very, very highly paid english lawyer.
 
Boodles said:
Just curious as to what the lawyer fees where for this very, very highly paid english lawyer.
Click to expand...

Rupert no doubt footed the bill.

and the 2 week ban is still an absolute farce considering the fact that many others went unpunished in that game.
It is no secret that that is the way the Samoans play the game, they have always played that way when facing insurmountable odds.
The person that failed to act on the other players while singling out Burger is a disgrace to the tournament and should be fired.
 
Last edited:
Schalk's sentence cut in half
The RWC 2007 appeal committee on Thursday reduced Springbok flanker Schalk Burger's four-match suspension to two matches.

This was announced following an appeal hearing by the RWC appeal committee comprising chairman justice Wyn Williams, Bruce Squire QC and judge Guillermo Tragant, into the incident where Burger tackled a Samoan player in the air during the Boks' opening match last Sunday.

The committee determined that the judicial officer had made an error in his first instance decision, in that he was wrong to find that the player was not at any time during the incident intending to win the ball.

"On the basis of the video evidence and the transcript of the initial hearing the appeal committee decided the player was attempting to win the ball for a significant part of the time involved.

"However, the committee found that the player ultimately realised that he was not going to catch the ball and instinctively adjusted his approach to tackle the opposing player.

"The committee concluded that the tackle was a dangerous tackle but noted that that the arm of Burger was withdrawn following contact with the opposing player. The committee decided the offence should be categorised as a lower level entry offence rather than a mid range offence and the suspension was reduced to two matches," the statement says.

Burger will therefore miss Friday evening's match against England as well as next Saturday's match against Tonga.

He will thus be available for the Boks' final group match against the US.
Click to expand...
 
YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

when did this become a game for girls?

yea that american oke deserves to be banned for 5 games, actually i think it should be a year ban considering he could have broken that english dudes neck

i think the refs need this stuff pointed out and yellow cards instead of this gay banning bs

emerick excluded as his tackle was just shocking
 
WOW. It seems the aussies will do anything to take the boks out of the world cup. What are they scared of? Surely it is a case of "MAY THE BEST TEAM WIN" BUT

LET'S NOT FORGET THIS ONE IMPORTANT POINT - WHAT IS THE AUSSIES OFFICIAL COULOUR - YELLOW!!!!
 
yeah double standards being applied once again by the aussies, 4 game suspensions is ludicrous and i'm glad the world cup committee saw it that way too. begs the question why this aussie c--t got the job in the 1st place?!!!

i also don’t agree with a 10minutes sin binning either. countless close games have been lost when 14 plays 15 and i don't think the paying public wants to see that. surely docking 25% of the guilty players match fee would suffice? suppose amateur rugby players would agree with me...

SA policies of the past have made us very unpopular in the rest of the world and it's going to take us forever to shake the stigma associated with SA and the previous regime. face it we simply not liked...
 
James said:
I think that image makes it look worse than it is. You need to look at the entire situation to put it in context. He was attempting to play the ball, where he went wrong was once he missed the ball he played the man in the air. Theoretically that is a dangerous tackle and deserves to be penalized.
Click to expand...

The thing is he was going for the ball and missed it, not how is he supposed to stop midair, did the IRB give him a secret jetpack? :p

It wasnt a tackle, it was a collision...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X