Burger ruling a disgrace

As if France losing the opening match wasn’t bad enough rugby’s “little big men” have conspired to turn the Coupe du Monde into a French farce.

I’m talking referees, I’m talking citing commissioners, I’m talking judicial officers (or JO’s as they are so aptly described in RWC dispatches) and I’m talking about the tournament disciplinary regulations.

Viewed from any perspective Schalk Burger’s four-match suspension is simply ludicrous – a classic case of the punishment outweighing the crime.

I have no quibble that Burger’s case should have been re-visited and that he deserved some censure (especially given his checkered record) but the severity of his suspension bears no relationship to the actual transgression – especially when you consider England captain Phil Vickery was banned for only two matches for what in the “charge sheet” was described as a kick (an incident, incidentally, that was missed by Jonathan Kaplan).

The ludicrousness of the suspensions handed down by two different tribunals – one chaired by South Africa’s old “friend” (inverted commas intended), Australian Terry Willis and the other by Scotland’s Professor Lorne Crerar – is demonstrated by the fact that American centre Paul Emerick was slapped with a five-match suspension when anyone with any inkling of how the tournament works would have known the Eagles only had three more matches to play.

The inconsistency of penalties handed out by disciplinary tribunals (and how have South African teams not suffered at the hands of these puffed-up officials down the years?) have long been a blot on the game and the latest spate of inequitable rulings has blighted the tournament; not to mention the game itself.

From the moment Paddy O’Brien made strong statements about “zero tolerance,” “back-chat” and referees being instructed to come down hard on all indiscretions one had a feeling of foreboding.

Then came the grinning Tony Spreadbury’s inept performance in the opening match, followed by some other oddities, and I just had a feeling we were in for the “tournament of the officious official.”

What is so annoying about what has happened to Schalk Burger (whatever his appeal might turn up) is the fact that while Samoa might have no chance of winning a World Cup they do have the capacity to lose it for another country.

Just as in the Ellis Park quarterfinal in 1995 the attitude of the Samoans and the resultant temper of the match at the Parc des Princes left a lot to be desired and any decision about alleged foul play should have been seen in the context of the game.

The Samoans had clearly set out to unsettle the Springboks with an overtly physical approach and any number of the South Africans, most of whom bear lacerations as a reminder of the encounter, have described the opening 20 minutes as some of the most torrid they have ever been involved in – damning comment when the players involve the like of John Smit, Os du Randt, Juan Smith, Victor Matfield and Schalk Burger who have played in numerous test matches.

This was a mean and brutal test match, which does not say much for referee Paul Honiss’s handling of it, and when a man such as Burger, who weighs in at 110 kgs clashes in the air with a Junior Polu, at about 90 kgs it is going to be an unequal contest. That Burger made hard contact is unquestionable, but whether he did so with intent to injure his opponent or in trying to regain his balance after trying to grasp the ball is debatable.

To my mind, given the dynamics of one of the most confrontational games on the planet, there is enough doubt to make a four-match suspension, which is just about as harsh as it gets in a tournament that can last a maximum of seven matches, is completely unjustifiable.

There have been a number of references to Burger’s collection of yellow cards but, in truth, these were for technical infringements at rucks and mauls or on the offsides line and not for foul play.

Surely there has to be something wrong with a situation in which the referee, remember “the sole judge of fact”, thinks an incident requires no more than a penalty and the JO, in this case Australia’s “hanging judge” Terry Willis, who has a history of harsh rulings, turns it into a four-match suspension?

How can it possibly be that Brian Lima was not cited for his head-high tackle that might have caused serious injury to André Pretorius? And, yes, how come Juan Smith was not cited for throwing a punch?

How can it be that the citing is not delivered until nearly 36 hours after the event. Surely if there is going to be a citing – certainly if it is something that warrants a four-match suspension – it should be so clear-cut as to be delivered the next morning?

I have long advocated that rugby has got it’s disciplinary process completely out of kilter by allowing the intrusion of lawyers, even QCs, who pontificate on points of law rather than the realities of rugby – a game which, thanks to these same administrators, has been allowed, as memorably described by former England lock Paul Ackford, to deteriorate into “a series of car crashes.”

I have little doubt that if the disciplinary panel had consisted of the like of Colin Meads, Willie John McBride, Morné du Plessis, Gareth Edwards, Bill Beaumont and Gerald Davies, with one of them as the chair, a completely different decision would have been handed down – and also a decision would have been consequential with previous and other incidents.

It is time to give rugby back to rugby people; time for a great rugby man such as Syd Millar (chairman of the IRB) to step in and save the World Cup and the game itself from these tin gods.