It leaves a bitter taste

There is nothing wrong with a policy of zero tolerance towards foul play if the objective is to clean up the game and attract more youngsters to the sport.

The Rugby World Cup is after all the code’s showpiece opportunity, and if there is going to be growth in the game, then the big strides forward have to be made immediately after the event, when rugby will be the sporting focus for six weeks.

Springbok coach Jake White has acknowledged that he and his counterparts from the other nations were warned before the World Cup that the citing commissioners would be strict.

But the decision to ban Schalk Burger for four weeks was simply outrageous if you compare the incident he was booked for with other transgressions committed during the opening round of World Cup matches at the weekend. Why was the Samoan flanker Alfie Vaeluage given only a one match ban for a high tackle when Burger was given four?

Burger’s challenge on Junior Palu did look clumsy, but it was no worse than countless similar incidents that we see every weekend in the Currie Cup, the Super 14 and in the Tri-Nations fixtures. At worst, these transgressions usually cop a penalty and a yellow card, very occasionally a red one, and then only if it was completely over the top in terms of physical intimidation and violence.

And no matter how many times I watch the incident being replayed again on television, I find it hard to decide either way whether Burger was going for the man or for the ball. While it is illegal to tackle a man who has his feet off the ground, there is no law against competing for the ball in the air.

There was a lot of grey area in the Burger incident at Parc des Princes, and if there wasn’t, then the referee Paul Honiss, who consulted with his touch-judges before making a decision, would surely have at least yellow carded Burger. As it turned out, he only warned him and awarded a penalty to Samoa.

I find it hard to fathom that a non-cardable offence, which happened right in front of the referee, can suddenly jump to a four match suspension. Then we hear that both the referee and the two touch judges backed Burger at the hearing on Tuesday, but were overruled by the judge, which apparently he is entitled to do.

The big problem for the IRB is not so much their policy of intent to clean up the game, but the complete lack of consistency in application. That Burger is sitting out four matches while Brian Lima had no sanction against him for his ridiculously over-the-top challenge on Andre Pretorius is just criminal.

Those of us at Parc des Princes saw for ourselves how Lima appeared to line up his targets after coming onto the field. He pointed to each player in turn before launching into his next assault. From where I was sitting, his intention was obvious – he was out to hurt his opponents, not to win a rugby match.

And yet in the aftermath of the game there was hardly anything said about it. Why? Is it baseless conspiracy theory, or is there perhaps some substance to the whispers that Burger was the ideal player to make an example of?

Burger has undeniably cleaned up his act back home, and those who criticise him for his disciplinary record are living in the past, not in the present. He is though a full-hearted player who has perhaps the highest work-rate in world rugby, and those long blond locks of his and his omnipresence, coupled with his physicality, make him a marked man for rugby officialdom.

Jerry Collins has come out in support of Burger, saying that the interpretations and sanctions applied have become a lottery, and he is right. What the consumer wants is consistency, and too often the only thing that is consistent when it comes to referees and citing commissioners is inconsistency.