Schalk Burger’s four week ban for a high tackle on Samoan scrumhalf Junior Palu has been reduced on appeal.
The star Springbok flank had his ban for dangerous play reduced to two weeks, meaning he will miss Friday’s game against England and the clash against Tonga on 22 September.Springbok manager Zola Yeye confirmed that the appeal had been successful.
“We are all very relieved,” Yeye told Rugby365. “Schalk [Burger] is very relieved, as it [the original ban] would have meant he could not play in the quarter-final.
“This tournament is about playing rugby, not about sitting in tribunals and we are just happy that we can get on with it now,” said Yeye.
Bok coach Jake White has named Wikus van Heerden as Burger’s replacement for Friday’s crucial match against England. Bobby Skinstad comes onto the bench in place of Van Heerden.
thank goodness he’ll be back for the usa game 🙂
The IRB has negatively harmed the image of rugby in general either by enforcing the match-ban on Schalk Burger or by not having the teeth to admit that the initial reasons were influenced and then not rescinding the decision. Why was Brian Lima not cited? He should have got a life ban for his (often done) hideous tackle on Andre Pretorious.
Why use the (flawed) citing procedure to crack down on illegal play whilst using below-standard referees who do not? Paul Honniss never took control of the game which led to the opportunity for this debacle to arise.
Well said nambull – the irb are still a bunch of amateurs especially when it comes to the citing lottery. The official statement admits that JO Terry Willis was wrong:
“The Committee determined that the Judicial Officer (JO) 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 JO hearing the Appeal Committee decided that 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 the arm of Mr. Burger was withdrawn following contact with the opposing player.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.
“The entry point for such an offence is a two week (or two match) suspension. The Appeal Committee confirmed that there were no aggravating factors but considered that the player’s previous disciplinary history should be taken into account.
“Therefore the Appeal Committee decided that the sanction imposed on the player should be two matches instead of four.â€
Jerry Collins said Schalk’s citing was unfair:
“It’s a long way to come for your tournament to end early, but what can you do? Like Schalk, you go in low and then clip him high. It’s just the luck of the draw who gets picked up and who doesn’t. It is like having someone looking over your shoulder. You have it in the back of your mind, but the game is brutal and these things happen.â€
Finally the IRB have confirmed the total hypocrisy in the citing process.
I think that the standards set for citings should be set by the scrambled egg tie brigade of the ICC – at least they are consistant. In a cricket test match and players appeal for light on day 1, the umpires take a light-meter reading which is then used as the yardstick for the next 4 days.
The difference in the RWC is the citngs of SB, Vickery and a Yank have not set that yardstick. The Samoan citing was only done to try to appease those who bayed for the blood of kamikaze Lima – who incidentally should receive a life-ban.
After the OZ v Wales game, Thomas, Moore, Latham, Mortlock and Mitchell should have then been cited for any sort of consistency – the worst offender being Moore.
SB’s citing was out of fear that SA was strong enough to win RWC 2007 and makes him a marked man for the rest of the tournament.
But OZ and her cronies would not do citings otherwise imagine Oz without 4 players plus another 2 with injuries? Would the RWC committee sue them for loss of income for fielding an understrength side as O’Neill suggested should happen to RSA in the 2Nations?
Let’s look at the composition of the judicial panel at RWC :-
NZ – 3
Aus – 3
Eng – 3
Scot – 3
Fra – 2
Wales – 2
Arg – 1
Italy – 1
Ire – 1
Canada – 1
RSA – 1
No lopsided structure will ever make a balanced decision.
However, I believe that we will overcome anything that is thrown against us and win RWC 2007.