Schalk Burger

Forum for discussion of the British and Irish Lions trip to South Africa in 2009

Moderator: moderators

User avatar
sarah_lennon
Jamie Heaslip
Posts: 15372
Joined: April 19th, 2006, 4:14 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by sarah_lennon »

Farcical
Ici, ici, c'est Dublin 4

youngco
Beginner
Posts: 35
Joined: May 8th, 2009, 1:23 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by youngco »

this is sure a joke!! how can he only get 8 weeks in an incident that is at the very least comparible to the quinlan incident!!

User avatar
shelly94
Knowledgeable
Posts: 282
Joined: November 1st, 2006, 9:32 am

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by shelly94 »

shocking that he only got 8 weeks. As for De Villiers comments, the man is a fool if he thinks touching any where near the eye area is part of the game

User avatar
gfo
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2072
Joined: October 19th, 2008, 7:59 pm
Location: B.A.C.

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by gfo »

Its the always the same with the SANZAR unions, a slap on the wrist for extreme offences.

I can't remember the specifics, but I can recall a case when an Aussie player was suspended for indiscipline for 12 weeks or so.
Except the ban was carried out during the off season, when he wasn't playing anyway. He could start the next season without a bother, escaping basically unpunished.

Everyone knows that PdV is a joke. He was chosen because he's black (openly admitted by Oregan Hoskins, the guy who selected Luke 'the puke' Watson because of his famous dad). His post-match statements are laughable, accusing teams of cheating etc, failure to criticize his own teams cheating.
The saddest thing is that the Lions still managed to lose to a team led by PdV

User avatar
olaf the fat
Seán Cronin
Posts: 3633
Joined: April 5th, 2006, 11:35 am
Location: On the sofa of perpetual pleasure

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by olaf the fat »

Gouging is again a part of rugby- as sick as it sounds it may be true. Burger set the tone of the game in the first minute, ok he was clearly caught in the act by a offical who proved last week he knows the rules - YELLOW CARD!!. Then gets backed up by his coach and handed a lenghty 8 week ban, now that will really send the message that gouging will not be tolerated


The rules seem to say contact with the eye area, this may be to cover clumsy play that is dangerous but is being used to claim that attempting to blind someone was only clumsy play to reduce the lenght of a ban.
As they say in Russia, Goodbye in Russian

User avatar
suisse
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4891
Joined: April 2nd, 2007, 12:23 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Contact:

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by suisse »

Luke should have been given 8 weeks too for not taking the eye gouging like a man

User avatar
olaf the fat
Seán Cronin
Posts: 3633
Joined: April 5th, 2006, 11:35 am
Location: On the sofa of perpetual pleasure

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by olaf the fat »

In recent months it has happened in the Hcup semi final, Italy V ABs, Lions 2nd test- its worrying that there was plenty of footage but light enough punishment.
As they say in Russia, Goodbye in Russian

greengiant
Beginner
Posts: 13
Joined: June 28th, 2009, 12:28 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by greengiant »

New citing commission results:

Fitzy to recieve 6 month ban for reckless use of the eyeball
Adam Jones to recieve life in prison for impeding Bakkies botha with his broken elbow
Mike Phillips to be executed for refusing a date with Bakkies Botha

:x

User avatar
tate
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4218
Joined: March 6th, 2006, 6:15 pm
Location: Leinsteropia
Contact:

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by tate »

i wonder how long a junior rugby player would get for gouging. I dare say the branch would give something a little longer than 8 f**king weeks
Go on, give us a goo! https://twitter.com/DebRugby - rugby from Europe's eastern fringe.

User avatar
tackle-bag
Rhys Ruddock
Posts: 2972
Joined: March 25th, 2007, 2:48 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by tackle-bag »

8 weeks is nothing short of a disgrace. A slap on the wrist for a thug with an appalling disciplinary record who will no doubt go on to do similar, if not worse, things in the future. His offence was worse than that of Neil Best last year, which attracted more than double Burger's penalty. He should have been banned for 6 months at the least.

I don't suppose there's any means by which the citing officer is able to appeal the leniency of this sentence?
"Hickie, scorching down the wing... God, I've missed saying that!" - Ryle Nugent

User avatar
RoboProp
Seán Cronin
Posts: 3441
Joined: December 29th, 2008, 2:45 pm
Location: Mandalore

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by RoboProp »

The guy has shown no remorse regarding incident. Quinlan wented to Leo and apologised after the match, doesn't take away from he did acknowledge he did wrong. No such thing from Burger. Eight weeks is an insult. De Villiers comments were those of an insane asylum inmate.
This is the way

Give us a swerve Girve
Bookworm
Posts: 126
Joined: June 14th, 2006, 7:54 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by Give us a swerve Girve »

Guess we'll just have to absolutely hammer Schalk and co. next time they come to Dublin, serving our own brand of justice.
In BOD we trust

greengiant
Beginner
Posts: 13
Joined: June 28th, 2009, 12:28 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by greengiant »

I reckon we should get that drunken Dutchie shitfactory that attacked Dave McHugh over and tell him that the Green and gold 6 is a referee. Perhaps we could also tell him that Bakkies Botha likes his eyes and would like to meet him in the tunnel at half time.

User avatar
tate
Shane Horgan
Posts: 4218
Joined: March 6th, 2006, 6:15 pm
Location: Leinsteropia
Contact:

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by tate »

Give us a swerve Girve wrote:Guess we'll just have to absolutely hammer Schalk and co. next time they come to Dublin, serving our own brand of justice.
angry mob justice?!?!
Go on, give us a goo! https://twitter.com/DebRugby - rugby from Europe's eastern fringe.

User avatar
holyschmoke
Beginner
Posts: 21
Joined: January 16th, 2009, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by holyschmoke »

greengiant wrote:New citing commission results:

Fitzy to recieve 6 month ban for reckless use of the eyeball
Adam Jones to recieve life in prison for impeding Bakkies botha with his broken elbow
Mike Phillips to be executed for refusing a date with Bakkies Botha

:x
LMFAO love it.. possibly a new career on the horizon for you? :wink:

greengiant
Beginner
Posts: 13
Joined: June 28th, 2009, 12:28 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by greengiant »

holyschmoke wrote:
greengiant wrote:New citing commission results:

Fitzy to recieve 6 month ban for reckless use of the eyeball
Adam Jones to recieve life in prison for impeding Bakkies botha with his broken elbow
Mike Phillips to be executed for refusing a date with Bakkies Botha

:x
LMFAO love it.. possibly a new career on the horizon for you? :wink:
Thanks holyschmoke. If I thought someone would pay me to be a professional grump, i'd be there in a second. Mind you, Dunphy and Hookie must be near retirement age now :lol:

User avatar
id@53
Bookworm
Posts: 149
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:26 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by id@53 »

Schalk Burger's statement and the findings of Judicial Officer - http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/lions/200 ... ement.html
Schalk Burger's statement
'As a proud South African and Springbok Rugby player I only have the utmost respect for the traditions of the wonderful game of rugby. Through my life and career I have always approached the game with the intention only of playing it hard and fair.

'I am not a rugby thug and will never intentionally engage in eye gouging or similar illegal actions. This was also the case in the second Test against the Lions.

'I am therefore grateful that the Judicial Officer confirmed my stance with his conclusion that there was no deliberate eye gouging as charged by the Citing Official.

'I will always play the game as hard as possible within the rules. I apologise to my supporters and fellow team mates for the fact that I have been absent for the first ten minutes of the second test. I look forward to returning with zest in due course.'
Findings of Judicial Officer:
4.1. I am required by Regulation 17.14.2 to undertake an assessment of the seriousness of the conduct in question in order to identify the appropriate entry point pursuant to Appendix 1 of Regulation 17. I have considered the factors enumerated in Regulation 17.14.2 and have concluded:

a. I do not find this to be an intentional act on the part of Burger. I accept Burger's evidence that he did not intend to make contact with the eye area of Lions No 11.

b. In my view his actions were clearly reckless. That is he knew or should have known that there was a risk that his actions could result in an act of foul play - that is contact with the eye area of Lions No 11.

c. While there was no significant injury to the eye of Lions No 11, the contact could not be described as simply trivial. It is clear on the report of the Lions doctor that there was initially redness and swelling about the left eyelid and there was some short lived tearing and blurred vision.

d. I am unable to conclude that there was eye gouging in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area, but I do conclude that there was contact in the left eye area which while not serious in the result, cannot be described as insignificant.

e. Contact with an opponent's eye area is a serious matter because of the vulnerability of the human eye and the potential of a permanent injury to one of the key sensory organs of the body.

4.2. I have been referred by Mr (Gerrie) Swart to the reasons of the Judicial Officer in the case of Bismarck du Plessis dated July 2008 (Tri-Nations test series 2008 - SA vs NZ). The use of the Judicial Officers' Reports is of interest in cases involving similar facts and offences and can be instructive. I find the circumstances in the Du Plessis matter different from this case, and in particular in that case there was no contact with the eye itself. That is not the situation here.

4.3. I find that in this case the appropriate entry level for the determination of sanction is the lower end. In such circumstances Appendix 1 of Regulation 17 provides for a suspension of 12 weeks.

4.4. I must next consider any relevant aggravating factors, which might add an additional period of suspension. I find that there are none applicable in this case.

4.5. I must then turn to an identification of any relevant mitigating factors which could reduce the period of suspension. I find there are some as follows:

a. Burger is clearly a fine rugby player with fifty test caps and many national and international accolades.

b. I have heard a great deal of Burger's fine character off the field. I accept the evidence of Mr (Arthob) Petersen, manager of the Springboks and Mr (Dick) Muir, assistant Springbok coach in this regard.

c. Burger's record is quite good for a player of his experience. Importantly he has never been disciplined for any offence related to the face of any player.

d. Burger expressed remorse for these events at the hearing and conducted himself appropriately throughout the hearing.

4.6. The above all constitute mitigating factors which I have concluded will apply to reduce the period of suspension. Burger's suspension will be reduced from 12 weeks to 8 weeks. He is suspended from playing rugby until midnight 22 August 2009.

4.7. The parties were made aware of the right to appeal.
I do not find this to be an intentional act on the part of Burger. I accept Burger's evidence that he did not intend to make contact with the eye area of Lions No 11, sorry but what video did you watch!

User avatar
ronk
Leo Cullen
Posts: 11050
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by ronk »

An apology to supporters and teammates over the 10 minutes he was missing but not to his victim. Says it all about the amount of respect for the disciplinary hearing.

Seems de Villiers' statement was a fair reflection of SA attitude, just tactless. Disgraceful.

bootlace
Knowledgeable
Posts: 305
Joined: November 15th, 2008, 11:25 pm

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by bootlace »

shelly94 wrote:shocking that he only got 8 weeks. As for De Villiers comments, the man is a fool if he thinks touching any where near the eye area is part of the game
The man IMHO is a fool, and maybe he is trying to put a smoke screen around his earlier comments,which IMHO makes it that more crass, here is an interesting link,
http://www.rugby365.com/all_news/sa/news/1765880.htm

User avatar
Donny B.
Devin Toner
Posts: 26654
Joined: March 27th, 2006, 3:10 pm
Location: D12!!!!!!!!!

Re: Schalk Burger

Post by Donny B. »

Farcical, a total cover-up. Accidental contact? Is this dipshit Canadian Hudson having a laugh? As for his fine record how many yellow cards does this scumbag have? Plus he was banned in the last World Cup.

And the comments from the pr!*k himself that his only regret is missing ten minutes of the match, what a complete w&%ker!

The IRB should step in here and investigate this so called inquiry. This moron Hudson should be summoned and asked to explain exactly why this was accidental!!!

Post Reply