Brits calls for relook at citing and disciplinary system

Vodacom Bulls and Springbok hooker Schalk Brits will return to the field on Friday to face the Crusaders at Loftus Versfeld, but has issued a call to the game’s lawmakers to relook the citing and disciplinary rulings that saw him being banned for five weeks recently.

Brits was given four weeks – but because the Bulls had a bye it effectively became a five week ban – for his role in the fight with Akker van der Merwe in the Bulls' win over the Sharks in Durban last month.

But while Brits was the one on the receiving end of the punches, the strange disciplinary rules meant that because he had previous offences he received a stiffer sentence than Van der Merwe, who wasn't cited for a headbutt and landed several blows to the solitary one of Brits.

Brits has accepted his sentence but believes there should be a relook at the rules governing how players are handled because of their past.

Schalk Brits opens up on his ban - and calls on lawmakers to relook the disciplinary system - video here. https://t.co/TLnl4gOUXb via @YouTube

— Brenden Nel (@BrendenNel) May 7, 2019

He makes the point that while others are given leniency for being new in the game, what counted against him was the fact he had two other disciplinary offences in a 20-year career.

While most administrative law sees any offence in the workplace expunged after two years, the offences – the last being in 2013 – counted against Brits and saw Van der Merwe effectively get two weeks less than him.

"Firstly there was an incident, and the incident was looked at, and because there was contact to the head, so you have to go in midway. But the interesting thing is that it is two different hearings – mine and Akker's,” Brits explained.

"They didn’t cite him for the headbutt so you only get entry level. But if you look at the law of it, he only came in halfway because he hasn't got a record – he got three weeks. Because I have a record, the same offence and it is irrelevant if you hit a guy once or 20 times – you still get midway. Because I've had a prior incident, they gave me four weeks.

"Do I think it is fair, maybe not, but it happens. I did ask them to have a proper look at it. In essence rugby is a fair game, and if you look at the incident from beginning to end, the outcome shouldn't have been what it was.

"But I made peace with it quite quickly and from a hearing perspective, it wasn't my choice to pick the lawyer and it wasn't my choice to appeal either. The Bulls felt we needed to prove a point and from my point of view I would have liked to get less."

Brits said he would love the lawmakers to have relook at the system, to make sure that players' past indiscretions are removed after a fair amount of time. He said that South African players felt they got the "short end of the stick" in the disciplinary processes.

"I spoke to them about it. I was pushing to play against the Stormers. Surely the thing is to make it fair and that was not fair. You are penalising me for actually being a clean player through a 20 year career. Now you are penalising me for a red card I got four years ago. I did make the joke I am getting more angry the older I get, but I made the point that if you are going to take it over an extended period, surely you have to look at the length of the guy's career.

“And now you are penalising me for that. They just said sorry those are the guidelines. And unfortunately speaking to Stefan Terblanche and a lot of guys, there are very strict guidelines. Even if a guy doesn't get cited, you can’t cite him if the citing commissioner didn't see it.

"I think going forward there needs to be changes on how they apply it and sometimes from a South African point of view you feel how can a guy get two weeks in Australia when a guy in South Africa gets four weeks for example.

"As a rugby player I feel we get the short end of the stick a lot of the time. I am generalising a lot now and that is why they standardise things, but they do need to reassess the process."For now, Brits wants MyPlayers – the rugby players association – to take up the cudgel on behalf of players and have a look at how they can make the system more fair for those involved.

"I became friends with Akker's attorney and we discussed it at length. I don't know if they are going to do anything about it. We agreed on the same terms and there isn't a foreign body that I can appeal to and say I am unhappy about it, but when the Rugby Players Association and everybody gets together they will have a look at it.

"There are two things I'm concerned about and they need to look at. One how do you appoint attorneys or advocates and secondly the process itself. The thing I was unhappy about was that they thought I started the fight and in essence I wasn't in control of anything. The point is hopefully they will reassess. It happened to me but hopefully going forward for the next player when it is a vital game, they need to make sure the process is fair. That is all I want, a fair process."But whether his call will be heeded or fall on deaf ears is the million-dollar question as Sanzaar is unlikely to be swayed by his comments.