Schalk Burger

[Made Of Ale]

Presume minimum six weeks. Has anyone else seen a clearer case of gouging? Should have been a red card, though in fairness it's rarely seen. Why is this? Do they have to defer to the citing committee? Couldn't have been a clearer case for red in my opinion, especially as the touch judge saw it all.

[pureBlue]

Is Luke's eye OK? Didn't see any interviews or close ups to get an idea of how bad it is. Presumably given that he played on he's fine.

BTW, who got MotM?

[8M LEINSTAW]

Simon Shaw got MOTM.

Judging by some of the articles written about the match - more specifically the gouge - Burger's in for a long ban. Even most of the SA press saying he should have been redcarded and the ref bottled it. No tri-nations for sure. An example to be made of him, part because of the gouge and also to satisfy the media hounds. 18 weeks, with an appeal to be unsuccessful at getting the 18 weeks overturned or reduced is my guess.

[8M LEINSTAW]

Unbelieveable. I know the guy is eccentric, but this is just not on.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLR199 ... 7?rpc=401&

Rugby-De Villiers says Burger should not have been penalised

PRETORIA, South Africa, June 27 (Reuters) - Springbok flanker Schalk Burger should not have been given a yellow card for gouging the eye of British and Irish Lions wing Luke Fitzgerald, South African coach Peter de Villiers said.

"I don't believe it was a card at all," De Villiers said after the Springboks won the second test 28-25 on Saturday to clinch the series.

"In the first minute already there had been a lot of needle and if you watch the whole game you will see how many yellow cards they were let off."

Burger was yellow-carded in the first minute after referee Christophe Berdos consulted with assistant Bryce Lawrence. Television replays showed Burger made contact with Fitzgerald's eye with one of his fingers.

"This is sport, this is what it's about," De Villiers said. "If things were clearcut then we shouldn't even bother preparing for a game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion."

Burger, a former International Rugby Board (IRB) player of the year, is almost certain to be cited for the offence.

"I felt a hand going for my eyes," said Fitzgerald. "If the referee decided to take action then it probably is a red card."

[Avenger]

I missed the match but I'm just in and SSN reporting that Burger and Botha have been cited.

(gutted we lost in such a fashion but I'm gonna watch the match now)

[hugonaut]

Absolutely appalling from Burger, who I never previously thought of as a dirty player. Reckless and teak tough; yes. Brilliant? At one stage the best player in the world. A filthy, cheating eye-gouger? Add it to the list, and at the risk of sounding as pompous as Stephen Jones, don't let it be forgotten.

This may sound like sour grapes, but he should have got a straight red. A total and utter lack of moral courage and integrity from the touch judge in telling the referee [who hadn't seen the incident] that it deserved "at least a yellow card." Pal, you saw it: what does "at least a yellow" mean to the ref? "Oh mate, you'd be well within your rights to give him a red. Oh, you didn't see the incident and I did? Well, I'm not really prepared to actually do my job if it means becoming unpopular with the locals – I'll be pretty mealy mouthed about my advice and play a significant part in bringing the game into disrepute." I'm sorry, what do you have to do to get sent off the field these days? Apparently deliberate and aggressive eye-gouging is only a sin-binning, on a par with a technical foul like not rolling away from the tackle quickly enough in your own 22 - for example, Ferris in the Cheetahs match.

He eye gouged the youngest opposition player – a winger, no less – at the first breakdown. Intentionally and forcefully [some would say brutally] eye-gouged him, purely to intimidate him. First breakdown of the match, so no niggle or retribution involved. No foul play from Fitzgerald's side, not even lying on the wrong side. Not his opposite number, having had an hour of niggle and verbals between them [not that that would be an excuse]. Significant size advantage [again, maybe not really relevant to any judging, if you're on the pitch you're fair game under the laws, but once you step outside the laws there's basic integrity involved – the basis of picking on someone your own size].

Absolutely no mitigating factors, in short. Deserves a 26 week ban. This isn't even making an example of him, it should be absolutely par for the course. An absolute f*cking disgrace to himself.

[true blue 06]

it looked worse than the quinlan incident so he'll at least miss the whole tri nations..bakkie botha cited also

[true blue 06]

if it was spotted by the officials which it was, why was it not a red?

[Hippo]

Because...it was the first minute of the game, hence not red. Nonsense, I know.

[thecoolfreak]

Because...it was the first minute of the game, hence not red. Nonsense, I know.

That's it exactly. While I agree he should have been sent off, it would most likely have ruined the game

[pureBlue]

If De Villiers statement "This is sport, this is what it's about" is shared by Matfield then BO'D was in serious danger when he had a go at him and mouthed 'bring it on'. You do have to hugely respect BO'D for his constant willingness to stand up for his team mates. In this case he is 10 inches shorter than his opponent.

[hugonaut]

I've never seen a more clear-cut red card. Seriously brings the game into disrepute that he's allowed play on after a ten minute breather.

"Oh, you gouged someone's eyes and seriously threatened their vision for the rest of their lives? That's ten in the bin."

De Villiers is a f*cking clown of the highest order. Some burden as a national coach, the Boks are welcome to him.

[D2 Blue]

I'm surprised that De Villiers' response surprises anyone. Apart from the fact that the guy's an idiot, he seems to revel in drawing attention to himself by making such comments. What else was he going to say? He's in the home territory of the Bulls and it looks like he simply wants to endorse this type behaviour to underline their "style" of play. I didn't see the game, heard it on the radio, but it sounds as if the pitch was like a scene from the American civil war with bodies scattered everywhere. Looks like the saffers tactics were to try to bully and kick the cr$p out of the Lions first and play a bit of rugby with whatever time was left. And any questioning of their tactics leads to this type of "it a man's game" answer.

I normally don't see the point in having a go at the ref unless I'm at the game, but in this case he completely bottled the decision. A red card was the only answer, but it looks like he didn't have the wontons to make that decision. The only consolation is that Burger might get a decent ban if he's cited. Makes the Quinlan incident look like wiping a baby's eye with a tissue.

[D2 Blue]

Simon Shaw got MOTM.

Judging by some of the articles written about the match - more specifically the gouge - Burger's in for a long ban. Even most of the SA press saying he should have been redcarded and the ref bottled it. No tri-nations for sure. An example to be made of him, part because of the gouge and also to satisfy the media hounds. 18 weeks, with an appeal to be unsuccessful at getting the 18 weeks overturned or reduced is my guess.

Absolutely agree that Burger should get a long ban. I'd say a minimum of 18 weeks, not sure what the max is. I don't think there can be any reasonable defence offered. It was the first minute of the game (wasn't it?). Its not like it was into the second half with a lot of niggle building up. It looks like they went out to make a statement and stick to whoever was the first body within reach, in this case Luke. I've always thought that the saffers never got over the McBride 99 lions visit and have been determined to leave a lasting impression on any visitors. In this case it was Luke's face.

[akared]

Here is a video of it for anyone who missed... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NYONDg4J_E

[fourthirtythree]

Incredibly difficult for a touch judge to decide in the first minute to have a guy sent off.

The tradition just isn't there and he wasn't out of line in having a yellow happen. That's normal, let the citing commissioner deal with it, might not be right, but it's normal.

And the better team won.

[John23]

Nothing short of a 12 week ban. Which would make him available for the "Autumn International" Mmmmm, I feel a frosty reception coming on.

[hugonaut]

Yeah, it may be difficult, but it's his job.

No one could have possibly complained in the aftermath of the match having seen the tape – apart from that brazen mentalist de Villiers. The game and the series is lost, and there's f*ck-all that the citing commissioner can do to change that. It's not satisfactory in the slightest. He eye-gouged him, was seen to do it by the touch judge, and should have been sent off. Then afterwards the citing commissioner can give him his 6 month ban on top of that.

I'm open to argument, but I really doubt my opinion is going to change on this one.

BTW, the better team always wins! Playing games is how you decide who the better team is, pretty much why they play the matches and don't just have a load of stats and never-ending arguments. Not having a go at you, just the way I feel about it, although sometimes I have to remind myself of that if Ireland, Leinster or 'Nure lose narrowly ... Unbelievably tight game though, and if the Lions hadn't shipped so many injuries ... all ifs and buts.

[fourthirtythree]

I just think, when you take an incident like that and say it warranted a red card, you are not taking the context of the game into account. Perhaps it should have been a red card. But it was never going to be one.

When I say the better team won I mean that kind of realism too. It wasn't refereeing decisions (and it can be, rather than the quality of the play) that led to the win, on balance of play the result seemed pretty just to me. Lions starting team was better but they fell apart.

And, like you, I'll get over it. Unlike Ireland and leinster. I just moved to the 'nure so I'm looking forward to some matches next year.

[tackle-bag]

With his appalling record, Burger won't play again in 2009 and may well lose out on a lucrative NH contract as a result. In other words, don't worry, the sh!t-storm arising from this disgraceful piece of unprovoked and unmitigated thuggery is only beginning.