|
|
|
Forum Guru
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/11/2009 12:22:33
Posts: 54,
Visits: 149
|
|
| Trying to keep this on a technical coaching level, and not get drawn into emotional 'us v them' ... if the IRB minimum ban for gouging is twelve weeks and (I think) the Springboks are saying, or trying to imply, it was accidental ... what does eight weeks mean? That it was a little bit accidental? Either he did it or he didn't. My boys are reaching an age now where they are starting to face foul play from some teams. What am I supposed to tell them when the world champions play like this and are treated leniently? Shall I be like de Villiers, and effectively tell them that everyone else does it, so they may as well join in? I love this game and I love coaching it but I despair of how we are supposed to do it when the rules are applied in such an inconsistent way. Ferret
U14s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 04/10/2009 21:27:35
Posts: 60,
Visits: 331
|
|
What also surprised me was that the suspension he received was the same 8 weeks as Parisse got for his case v NZ and where the judicial officer Paul Tully said
the offence had been reckless rather than intentional, with mitigating factors including the fact that the contact was brief, occurred in the open, there was no injury to Ross and the initial contact was with Ross's cheek and slipped into the eye.
I don't think there can be any argument (unless you are PDV) that this was the case with Burger
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/11/2009 12:22:33
Posts: 54,
Visits: 149
|
|
| Good point, which illustrates the problem. Failing to distinguish between recklessness and deliberate foul play is inexcusable. I am responsible (admittedly, with others) for the safety of up to 22 boys in every game ... responsible to them and to their parents. We all know the risks, but take comfort in knowing there are rules to minimise them, that everyone plays to. Now if that game appears to condone/allow something which would very likely lead to a custodial sentence if committed elsewhere, how do I explain that to parents? My own son's mother is already in doubt about letting him play. She didn't see this - thank goodness! Ferret
U14s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 02/11/2009 13:45:04
Posts: 9,
Visits: 22
|
|
| Sorry guys , you right there is no place for that kind of dirty play , but I still cannot find it in me to say that he was eye gouging on purpose, he probably was trying to impose himself like always and got it wrong. Ok they have a history SA, but he is no Korne Krige or Johan Le roux , and sure the pictures make it worse but there is no bent finger in his eye socket but what PDV said does not help matters . Great game hope they see the light and play that Steyn fellow at 10. Saludos
gettingthere.
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Being
Group: Moderators
Last Login: 05/03/2010 11:46:41
Posts: 229,
Visits: 1,561
|
|
| I know that players at the top have used the "brush" over the face with the hand, because it spooks the opposite number. Perhaps that was what Burger was doing? Does it make it right? Er, no. I have watched the Bakkies Botha incident a number of times and I need someone to confirm the exact reason for his ban. I know that Adam Jones was seriously hurt, and this was a massive pity because he was fully deserving of his position in the Lions team (and is a good bloke to boot), however was it a shoulder charge or a head butt?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 11/11/2009 12:22:33
Posts: 54,
Visits: 149
|
|
| I heard PdV's latest comment on the radio on my way home last night, the selective extract about the tutus, and I thought the poor guy must be losing his mind. Saw a longer extract later on TV and in context it wasn't quite so bad, as he is now clearly saying it was not deliberate... but the IRB clearly held it was and this brings me back to my original point - it can't be a little bit deliberate. Either it was, in which case 12 weeks is supposedly the minimum, or it wasn't. I know PdV is not universally admired in SA (putting it politely), I actually have a lot of respect for him due to a personal connection I won't bore you with, and I am certainly not going to comment on all the issues within SA rugby and their politics generally, but it seems to me he is setting himself up for a fall with all the enemies he has ... or maybe he is so politically secure he feels safe to do this. Nevertheless like it or not, he is the coach of the current world champions and having him say these things really isn't helpful IMO. I also know from my SA friends that a lot of Bok fans are as disgusted as we are with Burger and wish de Villiers would shut up. I agree with you Dan it looks to me more like him brushing his hand over the face - wrong in any case - but that isn't what Fitzgerald said is it? It saddens me that a team like the Springboks get sullied by this sort of thing. They really don't need to. Yours, slightly dismayed - Ferret
U14s Backs Coach "There is a forgotten, nay almost forbidden word, which means more to me than any other. That word is England" (Sir Winston Churchill)
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 26/02/2010 08:39:09
Posts: 22,
Visits: 308
|
|
Gouging is the most dangerous and disgusting piece of foul play in rugby. It is not done for any other reason than to cause grievous physical harm to another player. Burger should have received a red card at the time from the referee. Bryce Lawrence (assistant referee) who had a clear view of the incident and brought it to the attention of the referee, should have recommended a red card, instead he said "a least a yellow card". He is an elite level referee and should be aware that any contact to the eyes or eye area is a red card offence. Burger should have received the mandatory 12 weeks the IRB recommend. I hope they sanction De Villiers too, for bringing the game in to disrepute (He has now appologised for his original statement after a chat with the SARFU) . How anyone can even attempt to condone this foul play is beyond me. Eye gouging\contact of ANY SORT has no place in rugby whatsoever, the game is physical enough when played legally! The suspensions should be increased to 6 months minimum as a deterrent and to eradicate it from the game. Dylan Hartley received a 6 months ban for making contact withe eye area on 2 different players in 1 game. I don't think we will see him repeating his actions after getting such a lengthy ban.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 19/11/2009 17:32:48
Posts: 48,
Visits: 106
|
|
My impression/reports received is that what was seen on TV was only part of the entire incident -- what we saw was what was going on after the ruck broke apart -- the incident began well before that in the ruck, then continued after it broke apart, in full view of the touchie. I also can't objectively say that is was a "brushing" of the eye area -- from where I sit (in the cheap seats!) it was clearly intentional and with malice.
I also think this has to do as much with the language barrier between the two refs as anything else, much the same as the farcical TMO conversation in the 1st test. The ref seems to be a good enough ref, but the communication issue had a massive impact. Lawrence recommended AT LEAST a yellow card. Anyone who saw that (except for PDV) knows that it should've been a red -- and that affected the outcome of the game. I can't see the Boks winning, when playing an entire match with 14 men on the field.
This isn't sour grapes, as I had no horse in this race, but it appears to be a monumental error, and one that potentially affected the outcome of the whole series.
Other than that, what a match!
Nipper
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 09/03/2010 12:58:32
Posts: 2,
Visits: 96
|
|
Ruckoff (30/06/2009)
Gouging is the most dangerous and disgusting piece of foul play in rugby. It is not done for any other reason than to cause grievous physical harm to another player. Burger should have received a red card at the time from the referee. Bryce Lawrence (assistant referee) who had a clear view of the incident and brought it to the attention of the referee, should have recommended a red card, instead he said "a least a yellow card". He is an elite level referee and should be aware that any contact to the eyes or eye area is a red card offence. Burger should have received the mandatory 12 weeks the IRB recommend. I hope they sanction De Villiers too, for bringing the game in to disrepute (He has now appologised for his original statement after a chat with the SARFU) . How anyone can even attempt to condone this foul play is beyond me. Eye gouging\contact of ANY SORT has no place in rugby whatsoever, the game is physical enough when played legally! The suspensions should be increased to 6 months minimum as a deterrent and to eradicate it from the game. Dylan Hartley received a 6 months ban for making contact withe eye area on 2 different players in 1 game. I don't think we will see him repeating his actions after getting such a lengthy ban.
I would have to agree with this post. Sorry but anyone who suggests that this may be 'brushing' is not looking very closely.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Guru
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 23/02/2010 12:53:57
Posts: 72,
Visits: 244
|
|
Dan- Botha was charged for charging into a ruck in a 'reckless manner'  - Outside of body alignment/ positioning (I dont believe it was a shoulder charge nor was there a head butt) its not like we coach players to hit rucks 'safely'?!
Rugbia floreat ubique
|
|
|
|