Made Of Ale wrote: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.
Six weeks!? The minimum is 12 is it not!? He won't play again in 2009 if any sort of justice is served. It was much worse than Quinlan's for the following reasons: 1. It was miles away from the ball (or indeed anywhere the f***ing scumbag could claim he thought it to be); 2. It was prolonged - there appeared to be more than one movement around the eye area; 3. Burger has an appalling disciplinary record; 4. He's such a primitive piece of inbred sh!t that he will probably be completely recalcitrant in the citing hearings and thereby exacerbate the situation.
If I had my way, he'd never set foot on a rugby pitch again. He has been a thug from day one - in 2004, he was sin-binned in all bar two of the test matches he played if I recall correctly. In any event, he's a disgrace to the game of rugby and shouldn't be allowed to compete at the highest level any longer.
"Hickie, scorching down the wing... God, I've missed saying that!" - Ryle Nugent
tackle-bag wrote:1. It was miles away from the ball (or indeed anywhere the f***ing scumbag could claim he thought it to be); 2. It was prolonged - there appeared to be more than one movement around the eye area; 3. Burger has an appalling disciplinary record; 4. He's such a primitive piece of inbred sh!t that he will probably be completely recalcitrant in the citing hearings and thereby exacerbate the situation
5. It was in the first minute of the game, at the first breakdown. Premeditated.
6. The gouged player wasn't doing anything illegal, like pulling his hair, pulling his jersey over his eyes, choking him, biting him etc. He wasn't even lying on the wrong side!
Always admired Burger's style of play, and he seemed like a nice guy in interviews he has given. Now I think he's an eye-gouging c*nt.
I also think you have to look at the Assistant Referee's (was it Lawrence) contribution. Berdos seemed initially just to give a penalty, then the AR said "it's a yellow card at the least". I just don't understand how this comment can be made. He's either got to say its an incident worthy of a Yellow card or else a Red. Given Berdos hasn't seen the incident, the recommendation must be clear.
Again for the final try (which I thought was fine), he says to the referee No Try and then says have a look upstairs.
Never argue with an idiot. Someone looking on may not be able tell the difference
It's unreal that someone like Peter De Villiers has one of the top jobs in world rugby
"My final expression of thanks is to the supporters of both Ireland and Leinster with whom I have shared some special days that I will never forget" - Shane Horgan
South African forwards Schalk Burger and Bakkies Botha face disciplinary hearings on Sunday after being cited for alleged foul play following their second Test victory over the British & Irish Lions at Loftus Versfeld.
Flanker Burger has been reported for allegedly making contact with the eye area of Lions wing Luke Fitzgerald while second row Botha has been cited for a dangerous charge on Lions prop Adam Jones.
Both players must now face the judiciary in Pretoria where they face potential bans ruling them out of the third Test in Johannesburg next weekend.
Burger was given a yellow card following the incident that took place just 32 seconds into the match and returned to the game to help steer the Springboks to a series-clinching 28-25 victory.
Munster flanker Alan Quinlan, an original selection for this summer's tour, was handed a 12-week ban for a similar offence during the Heineken Cup semi-final last month while Italy's Sergio Parisse faces eight weeks on the sidelines after being found guilty of such an offence in his side's defeat against New Zealand on Saturday.
true blue 06 wrote:it looked worse than the quinlan incident so he'll at least miss the whole tri nations..bakkie botha cited also
Hmm, I doubt it. We're talking a southern hemisphere citing committee presumably so Luke will probably end up with a ban for getting his face in the way of Burger's fingers.
"This is sport, this is what it's about," De Villiers said.
Either ..
a) He saw the incident and thinks that's all part of sport (any sport).
b) He didn't see the incident
.. either way that still makes him an arsehole in my opinion.
Neither has he done anything to alleviate any concerns parents may have about their children expressing an interest in the game.
"You'd better watch who you're calling a child, Lois. Because if I'm a child, you know what that makes you? A paedophile. And I'll be damned if I'm gonna be lectured by a pervert"
Taking the game into context should not been an issue with eye-gouging. The touch judge showed he didn't have a pair of balls as it was only 30 seconds into the game. It was still eye-gouging. Other red card offences can be considered in this concet i.e. its only 30 seconds in, but not eye-gouging.
"Munster could join the French League, or an expanded English / British league."
Sergio Parisse has been given an 8 week ban for contact "around the eye area" in yesterday's match between NZ and Italy. How come he is suspended immediately, yet Burger will probabl;y get to stew on this for a while, under the whole blows over, and he is left with a ridiculous 24 hour ban or something? The Parisse sourse is the ever reliable SSN
Burger is a disgrace. There has been an orchestrated campaign in the media to humanise the likes of Burger and Bismarck du Plessis with touchy feely stories ( appropriate words in the light of what's happened ), but when it comes down to it, the Dutchmen just play a nasty brand of rugby that is unnecessary with the talent at their disposal. They could win without playing that way. Bakkies Botha is the epitomy of the smirking, smartarse Bok. How nice it was to see him substituted having made zero honest impact, and looking like he was about to blow a gasket
And for De Villiers to claim it wasnt a yellow! Well..he is right, it wasn't. Lawrence was a coward in not recommending a red card.... "at least Yellow" my h@le. And yes Sheridan should have gone too for the Bekker family jewels punch
Having said all of this, I have yet to meet a Saffer i didnt like, just dont engage them on rugby
Hippo wrote: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
Certainly not looking to start a bunfight here, but sport without rules and discipline is not sport irrespective of the game being ruined or not and rugby is potentially a very dangerous game. The players are the determinants of whether the game is ruined or not by their actions and Burger has been around long enough to know this. I've lost all respect for Burger.
As for de Villiers.....he wouldn't be in the job if it wasn't for political interference.
greengiant wrote: ... sport without rules and discipline is not sport irrespective of the game being ruined or not and rugby is potentially a very dangerous game. The players are the determinants of whether the game is ruined or not by their actions and Burger has been around long enough to know this.
Absolutely spot on. Nail of the issue hit on the head eloquently and with exceptional brevity.
8 weeks for Burger. Absolute disgrace especially when you consider the bans handed down to Quinlan and Best this season. It should have been at least 18 weeks in my opinion. There's no way Burger will be appealing, he knows well he has got off very lightly
8 weeks? 8 weeks? It's nothing. It's a joke. A premeditated act that could leave another person severly disabled gets 10min & 8 weeks? Can the IRB step in there ala the DPP on some court sentences and ask for a higher ban? If not this is scandalous and will damage rugby. Does someone need to lose an eye on live TV before they take appropriate action?
