Mailbox: Your beef with Burger

Springbok flank Schalk Burger’s four-match ban for his dangerous high tackle on Samoa scrum-half Junior Polu has outraged the rugby world, even more so after England captain Phil Vickery was slapped with a soft two-match ban for his trip on USA centre Paul Emerick.

Burger, who maintained he was contesting the ball in the air, caught Polu across the face with a forearm jolt as the Samoan jumped to catch a high ball in the first half of the match at the Parc des Princes on Sunday.

Burger was penalised by New Zealand referee Paul Honiss, who deemed that no further sanction was required.

But the incident has since been picked up by citing commissioner Douglas Hunter and Burger appeared in front of a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday – which handed down the four-match ban.

We asked if this decision was harsh or fair. And while your opinions continue to roll in, the majority of our readers have voted in favour of the Springbok star…who have described his ban as “Pathetic!”…

“I would like to cite the citing panel; my punishment would be to spend 4 weeks watching contact rugby between the Tri-Nations teams. They would probably have a heart attack…

“Others have said it and I will say it again, the Samoans are renown for their high tackles, look at Brian lima, why was he not cited? Warning to all rugby players, don’t you dare contest the ball in the air, cause we might ban your ass.”

Greg MacDonald

Thanks for your explanation of Paul Honiss’ refereeing in “Time’s up?”. I was also surprised by some of the criticism of Honiss. And I thought the Samoans were lucky not to get a penalty try awarded against them after the third scrum collapse.They were also lucky not to be penalised for continually questioning the referee’s decisions. And Brian Lima was VERY lucky not to be yellow-carded for his utterly cynical and dangerous late and high tackle on Andre Pretorius. But why no citing?

Schalk Burger’s four-week suspension seems excessive, but let’s say it was the correct punishment for the transgression. That what would Lima’s transgression warrant. Surely more, especially given the player’s record. But not even a citing.This is the sort of thing that gives the citing system a bad name – remember the Super 14?

Robert Brand

Burger fully deserves his ban. This particular tackle was dangerous so the punishment is justified. Lima’s tackle was not dangerous to anyone other than himself and was deemed legal by the officials during and after the game. South Africa now seem to want a smoke screen to get Burger off the hook. He often grabs people around the neck in every game – usually from behind rather than hitting them high from the front.

If you want to look at dangerous play then examine the way South African players join every pile up / ruck situation – they lead with their shoulders and make no attempt to bind on, often connecting with heads, necks and exposed backs, yet not once have they been pulled up for it, despite it being contrary to the laws. They are the worst offenders for this but New Zealand and Australia also do it. As they have all been getting away with it the other nations seem to have no choice but to copy it if they are to compete at the breakdown. Will we have to wait for a serious injury or will the referees enforce the laws before that happens?

AJ

Total ridiculous!

Why does one player get a four match ban for slightly late but not unduly dangerous tackle, and another player, namely Phil Vickery, get half that, for an illegal and very dangerous trip. Where’s the consistency?

Damian Byrne

I think the punishment handed down to Schalk Burger is extremely harsh. I understand that there is a zero tolerance stand in this world cup but common sense needs to come into it too. Burger was contesting the ball and although the incident didn’t look good at the time this was in no way a ‘dangerous high tackle’ as was mentioned by the plonkers who handed out the punishment. Who does the panel consist of and where do they come from? Get a grip!! What about Brian Lima? This was far worse and it was poetic justice when he went off. Rugby is a physical game – soon the 15 man game is going to become a game of ‘touch rugby’ the way things are going.

Iain Stirling

Yet again England get away with dirty and dangerous play whilst other countries are penalised, in South Africa’s case for committed play, severely and quite unjustly.

Tell me please how Vickery escaped with a two match ban for a highly dangerous and cynical kick and trip. It was a wonder that he did not break the Americans leg! Who sits on these panels? Do they really look at the tapes? Did they take into account the probability that USA would have scored? That this was a cynical and deliberate tackle I do not doubt!

As to the four week suspension handed down to Burger my first reaction was one of anger. Barnes who is no friend of SA even remarked, on watching the replay of the incident, that Burger was playing the ball. The referee saw the incident and thought it merited a penalty, not even a yellow card. I doubted personally whether even a penalty was called for.

As to the Americans suspension very, very harsh. Unlike Vickery’s offence it was not premeditated and like Burgers penalised by the referee at the time.

These three cases raise a much larger question as to the actual control the referee has over the matches under his command. Who is in control the referee or the citing official? I thought the citing official was there to raise incidents of foul play that the referee missed.
In these three cases the referee saw two of the incidents and punished the culprits as he saw fit. Surely the subsequent citings undermine the referees authority both on and off the field with much, much larger repercussions and implications? Does the referee give a lighter/harsher punishment because he is afraid of the citing officer undermining his decision? Where does it stop?

Des Egan

I think that Vickery’s ban is ridiculous, what was the impact? OnA one match ban would have been too much, but understandable…..but two? I also think Schalk Burger’s ban is ridiculous- Why wasn’t Lima sanctioned for Samoa in the South African game for his murderous tackle? Yet another example of the massive inconsistencies in the officiating of this world cup so far. Ruck rules aren’t being adhered to and infractions are not being penalized (Argentina against Georgia last night blatantly took a ball out of a ruck), and, in the same game, the Georgians stood off a maul, and Nigel Owen the wise didn’t penalize the Argentineans for obstruction, when blatantly, two of them were obstructing. It’s these little things that completely ruin the game of rugby; little things that can decide whether or not 4 years of planning for the world were a complete waste of time because of bad officiating. It gives the impression of favoritism. Whether there is or is not favoritism is a moot pint- poor officiating and inconsistency will continue to undermine confidence in the game of Rugby, worldwide, just as it did in last years Magners league.

Joe Sullivan (Dublin, Ireland)
Terry Willis has turned the Judicial Committee into a circus, clearly he has no understanding of the rules or how the game is played. How can he determine a player 3 foot of the ground with his hands above his head and eyes on the ball is trying to ‘tackle’ a player. He is clearly competing for the ball. Yes as he comes back down to ground he brings his arms down to balance his decent and unfortunately he makes contact with the Samoan. So was this a dangerous tackle, no it was not a tackle therefore can not be deemed to be dangerous. Did he play the man in the air, there was contact but when you are both jumping for the ball there will always be contact. Burger did not deliberately take him out therefore did not play the man he was trying to catch the ball. Terry Willis has got this wrong is he man enough to admit this, unlikely…..

Roydon Bailey

Let’s be plain about the matter: what we should be looking at in rugby is consistency (in refereeing and in subsequent disciplinary actions). In the NZ-Italy game there were several “spear” tackles, and no citings or bans; in the England-US game, there were cards, citings and bans; in the SA-Samoa game there was only one citing and one ban. The citing in this instance warranted a penalty and a talking to, which the referee administered; but was this worse than Brian Lima’s flying attempt to decapitate Andre Pretorius (flagged by the linesman but ignored by the referee who seemed to say “…but he came off worse..”)? Was it worse than Vickery’s cynical trip/kick?

Was it worse than those spear tackles in the NZ-Italy game? When you are looking at key players in key teams, it seems that certain countries are held to a higher standard than others…this example suggests that there is more to it than a paranoid conspiracy theory…

Boz

Too harsh – what the officials up to this world cup as this is not the only unreasonable punishment – are we playing with Barbie dolls or playing rugby!!!

Craig Truter

I think the four match ban for Burger is completely unjustified. It seems all sense of judgement was disposed of when his ‘offence’ was taken into consideration. If he had been yellow carded by Paul Honiss, I would have considered that to be a fair decision. Considering it happened in full view of the referee and touch judge, I find it completely incomprehensible that such a severe sentence be given for what was a borderline dangerous tackle. This is rugby, and I believe all things need to be taken into consideration, and things need to be kept in perspective. Why on earth did match officials decide that Brian Lima’s tackle on Andre Pretorius was not considered to be dangerous? Where is the fairness in that? I truly believe that the four match ban on Burger (who, granted, has a reputation for being unruly at times) is outrageous. I do hope SA Rugby appeal and do not back down. This smacks badly of prejudice against a player and nation with a reputation for being physical in a game that is typified by physicality! Where is the justice in that?

Marcus Janssen

I suggest that you tell Burger, Mr Yeye and the Boks that they should just cop the 4 match ban sweetly and stop whinging.

Burger tackled a player in the air, and hit him high, also. That is two infringements in one tackle. If he were a Samoan player, i have no doubt Mr Honiss would have reached into his pocket for the red card It happened right before his eyes, but pretended he did not see it! The 4 match ban reflects the seriousness of the tackle and Honiss’s poor judgement.

But it, also, shows the appallingly biased attitude of top referees against “small” teams. Honiss still has not explained how Tekori could have been offside when he scored a legitimate try for Samoa. It could have been a very different match had he allowed the try.

Burger is a thug, a dirty player, the most yellow carded player in world rugby, and he should just cop the punishment and stop the bleating

Apelu

This suspension isn’t the right think to do. The right decision would be to sin-bin burger during the match. Now it’s too late. The referee of this match was very bad anyway and i’m still waiting his explanation for not awarding the Samoan try which seemed perfectly valid. Suspending burger now will not attenuate the unfairness of these decisions during the match.

Erik Tesson

Why is it that every playing ban on a South African player after premeditated thuggery is always deemed “shocking and incomprehensible” within South African circles – as Jan de Koning gleefully quotes Zola Yeye on your website.

He then resorts to the villain’s last riposte that “If you look at the match in context, you will see there were a number of very dangerous tackles”. Any policeman will tell you that most criminals, when arrested, protest vehemently about the (worse) criminal actions of others. It’s a textbook admission of guilt.

Most neutrals would find the only fact “shocking and incomprehensible” to be the assertion by the judicial officer that Burger’s “good disciplinary record” was a mitigating factor. The only time Burger has ever had a “good disciplinary record” was the time he was injured and couldn’t play.

Still – keep up the propaganda. It keeps your head-in-the-sand Bok fans happy and the rest of us wryly amused.

Tim

The citing is based on bias and British Press sensationalism to play down the citing on their captain and gain an advantage over their rivals come Friday night – The ref on the night gave the correct sanction namely a penalty which is all that was warranted under the circumstances – citing should only relate to red card offenses – The IRB needs to act before they dangerously undermine their own refs and turn the WC into a farce – Where teams will merely use their press spin doctors to gain the upper hand and reduce the game of rugby to a shambles.

Nolan Bricknell

This is no different from the Tri-Nations and Super 14. One rule for South Africa, and one for the rest.

Fanus Dreyer (Scotland)

The citing lot have lost the plot is it a soccer referee in charge of it ?

I would never support south africa – but feel Mr Burger has been dealt a very raw deal – where was Lima’s citing for a very late very high and no use of the arms tackle – far far more dangerous

Simon Thomas

Could someone please tell me why Schalk Burger has received a 4 match ban for going up and contesting for the ball in the air? The referee was on the spot, saw the incident, consulted his touch judge and decided to award a penalty with a caution and not even a yellow card. How then does the citing commission, typical Australian, decide that the referees decision wasn’t good enough, I thought that if you were penalised for something you did during a game you couldn’t be cited. Could someone please clear this up for me? If he was wearing a black jersey would he still be getting a ban?

Paul Doherty

How come Burger get a 4 week ban? Oh, sorry I forgot – he is South African. Am I just a biased Saffa or do our players usually get off worse in these situations?

Abraham

Absolutely pathetic… no surprises that the Terry Willis is Australian. An intentional and cowardly trip gets a two match ban but a player contesting the ball gets four, pathetic!

Greg Olbe

I’m writing this letter whilst trying to subdue my anger – and not to debate who should be England’s captain for Friday. I don’t really care. I’m more interested in the justice relating to 2 important bans affecting both teams competing on Friday.

Vickery gets 2 weeks for tripping. Schalk gets 4 weeks for a high tackle.

I will be honest and say Schalk’s attempt at catching the ball was questionable, and a poor attempt from a player of his caliber. However, let’s look at the situations in context.

Vickery sticks a foot out to stop an opponent from possibly scoring. It implies a lack of discipline from a leader. It is foul play. It is poor sportsmanship. It is simple cheating. It was blatant! No attempt to even play the ball can come into the argument – and this all near the goal line. It also implies a possible lack of fitness in attempting a decent tackle.

Burger jumps, aggressively, elbow hits the Samoan no. 9 in the head. It appears that the attempt at playing the ball is possibly only an afterthought. But we cannot really tell – he is, however, barely a foot from the ball throughout the incident. Schalk is twice his size. The Samoan crashes to the ground and pulls a “Hollywood” like an Italian footballer. This is overly robust play. (Did anyone cite Brian Lima for his no-arms projectile attempt on Andre Pretorius? Or do they feel sorry for him because the moron took himself off in the process?)

So which is worse? The low-class thuggery of Vickery or the overly robust play of Burger?

According to the authorities Burger is a villain – greater so than Vickery.

While this sort of injustice continues unabated in Rugby Union, the judicial arm, referees included, will continue to come in for some stick.

Glen Elferink

We need a bit of consistency here…..some of the blatantly late and dangerous tackles that went in on Sunday from the Samoans deserves a citing; and not even a sniff of a penalty given by Honiss! Maybe Mr Hunter was watching a different game. If Burger is cited then I guess several of the Samoans are candidates, including Lima who possibly regrets his attempt at a late and illegal tackle.

Brian Lambert

The fact that the citing was only made today speaks for itself. Clearly ‘someone’ is trying to weaken the Boks. Burger had both hands in the air going for the ball, yes he made contact with the Samoan in the process of trying to catch the ball, but he certainly did not deliberately ‘take out’ the player. The penalty itself was harsh enough as it looked worse than it was, helped by some football style antics by the Samoan. Question has too be asked WHY is Brian Lima not cited for his tackle on Pretorius and Burger is cited for something he has already been penalised for. Answer: Lima is not playing against Eng this Fri. A little consistency from the RWC Officials PLEASE!!

R Bailey

Burger cited yet Lima is not? Thick Scottish citing commissioner or something more sinister?

David

This is complex.

Honiss the ref is always under fire for his unfair handling of the Boks. So this time he seems to be pinging the Samoans – maybe to prove that he is not biased against the Boks. In the meantime there are numerous off-the-ball incidents during the game; mainly from the Samoans it has to be said. Burger, who is not a dirty player, gets cited for a marginal call. Brian Lima deliberately almost severely injures Pretorius and in so doing injures himself. He is not cited. There seems to be rough justice on both sides but it seems excessive to cite Burger considering the rest of the game. Why out Honiss ?

Rex (USA)

This citing is utterly ridiculous and obviously the result of the bed-wetting Pommies overreacting once again to something a Bok does. How about the punch to Monte’s face as he scored or the hit-job that Brian Lima attempted on Pretorius. The problem is the Boks just keep on playing and don’t writhe around like soccer players. So what if the idiot Lima took himself out, cite the SOB anyway. Let’s face it Pommies are simply not capable of rational thinking when it concerns South Africans. This is a pongo reaction to Vickery’s citing but the two cannot be compared if you watch the replays with the sound turned down. This is rugby for Pete’s sake NOT SOCCER.

Highly agitated Anglophobe

Burger’s citing is absolutely fair enough. For years now this guys has been over the top with his aggression. It is a wonder that he hasn’t had more citings. The guys is king off the ball with his jersey-pulling, high tackles and offside rough play. Fair play to the IRB’s citing people.

As for Vickery’s kick/foot trip…. What an absolute wxxker! It is just typical of the mean-spirited and ungentlemanly behaviour that one expects from the England rugby team – devoid of talent and grace as well.

Justin Lindsay (Japan)

I find it absolutely incredulous that Schalk Burger be cited whilst none of the Samoan’s face the same treatment – their tactics were shameful, but it seems they will escape punishment because they are known as a ‘physical side’ What rot! They played negatively and their 4 penalties conceded for discipline issues are testament to that. Hopefully common sense will prevail when the evidence is reviewed!

Bridgitte Brandis (Victoria, Australia)

I have read with interest the citing of Schalk Burger.

In principle i do not have a problem with, but what about the dangerous late and high “tackle” (more of a shoulder charge), by Brian Lima on Andre Pretorius.

If people want to cite, lets have some consistency!

Peter Kruger

Burger was clearly going for the ball not the man, unfortunately he didn’t get the ball he was aiming for. Brian Lima should be cited for his late shoulder charge on Pretorius and I’m sure I saw a Samoan take out Habana while he was chasing a kick. It was a physical game but alot of what Samoa did was more than just borderline. I find it difficult to believe not one of their player’s was cited.

We don’t really need to discuss Vickery’s case – this is not judo.

Mark (Czech Republic)

It would be a shame if Burger was prevented from playing in the crunch game on Friday against England for his tackle on the Samoan.

I am unhappy by the fact that none of the Samoan off the ball incidence like the pulling and holding guys back, not to mention things like pushing Percy into the advertising boards after touching down and the ball was dead, or any of their dangerous, high shoulder charge “tackles”. If Samoa are allowed to continue to play like this someone will suffer a serious injury and it will not be long before something very ugly occurs in one of their games

Gary Clayton

Why should Burger be cited, when tackles like the one on Pretorius are ignored. Is a question again of South Africa against the rest of the world.

Deon le Roux

Schalk was obviously challenging for the high ball and he is perfectly entitled to do. So inevitably close contact is sometimes made and at times is unavoidable. He made contact after the summit of his leap therefore his primary aim was the ball and not the other player. On the other hand Lima’s aim was the head of Andre Pretorius. Lima got off scot free where is the consistency of the citing process.

John Penhall

I think the citing commissioner should watch the rest of the game and see the tackle made by Brian Lima, surely that should be a citation.

If the attack was with malice, then Burger should be cited, if not, let it go and get it over with quickly.

Wayne Bickerton

How about banning the entire Samoan team for high tackles, off-side and over-robust play. This is not a game for sissies. If you cannot take the heat get out of the scrum!

Andre Barnard

And what about the blatant, illegal, repetitive shoulder charging of the Samoans? Don’t tell me the match officials did not see that?!? Why is Burger being cited. Half the Samoan team should be cited. I am not for conspiracy theories, but the Boks do seem to get the short end of the stick time and time again. Imagine if Burger shoulder charged Wilkinson or Carter or Larkham – he would be banned for life!

Timothy Baker

This absolutely stinks of politics. Phil Vickery committed a cardinal sin by tripping the Eagles player – no excuses and a definite citation. Vickery should be banned. England obviously feel exposed and need a helping hand – what a coincidence and how convenient to have this late citation.

I can point to at least a dozen occasions so far in the world cup where worse sins have been committed than Burgers – no citations!

Keep politics and corruption out of rugby please! Can the citation committee put their hands on their hearts and say that nobody has contacted them and pushed for this?

If it was Western Samoa, I suggest that SA point out a few examples of their own foul play. If it was Western Samoa via an English request/deal then how sad!Burger should not be cited or banned – if he is then we will all have our suspicions.

Tony Allen

Brian Lima did his best to decapitate Pretorius with a high level diving tackle without use of arms. Has he been cited, of course not. Lets get those Jaapies!

Mike O’Leary

Absolutely, outrageously harsh. Totally disproportionate – especially in light of Lima’s offence. A shocking decision.

Eugene du Toit

Absolutely ludicrous that Burger and Vickery were cited and suspended, and not a word is said about the number of outright illegal and thuggish late and high shoulder “tackles” by the Samoans. Are the officials applying two different sets of principles? I think so!

Timothy Baker

Does anyone know the nationalities of the citing commissioner and the panel? Yes I believe in conspiracies. Suzy you good thing!!!

Roelie Smit (Dublin)

VERY HARSH! The IRB must remember that this is rugby and not tiddlywinks! We have now been robbed of watching one of the great players, and if you can cite Schalk for that tackle…we may not have any players left come the final! Why the double standards…Brian Lima???

This is a MANS GAME!

Andrew Webb

Way, way over the top. Utterly unnecessary and blatantly biased. Just the type of cycloptic treatment SA get fro officials consistently. Simply designed to wreck Boks crack at the World Cup. So far the officiating has been abysmal and getting worse.

James Ritchie

IRB incompetence and double standards! Look at the photo and tell me that there was intention. The same madness happened with the referees branding yellow cards during the second half of the Tri-Nations games! It seems as if the IRB has decided that referees should not take decisions but that the unknown (face and competency) match commissioners will do the honours.

Hope the IRB brotherhood will proof us wrong.

Bok supporter (Portugal)

Ranking of evil since 1939: 1. Hitler, 2. Burger, 3. Bin Laden, 4. Mugabe

Every supporter fears their team is getting treated unfairly, but this is now ridiculous.

There is a perception in especially the antipodean and English rugby world, reinforced by referees, coaches and the media, that the South Africans are aggressive, physical brutes.

Routinely before every game, the opposing coach and media latch onto the “fact” that the Springboks are going to attempt to dominate physically, even when their opposition is bigger than them. And how many times has a referee wanting to stamp their authority on the game just fallen back on picking on Schalk Burger?

Is this a deliberate ploy to boost the popularity of the sport? The Allied Forces led by Richie “Skywalker” (McCaw – who plays by a set of rules which only apply to him) take on the evil Imperial Storm troopers headed by “Darth” Burger. With IRB referees chief Paddy O’B-Wan Kenobi making sure that the force is with anybody but the Springboks, we can be sure of a happy ending with good prevailing over evil.

Burger’s sin against Samoa was nothing in terms of intent nor impact in comparison to Lima’s “tackle” on Pretorius. Yet the latter was not even cited. The World Cup will now be a poorer spectacle without the presence of the most evil man on the planet for 50 years.

As a fed up Imperial Storm trooper, I am going to boycott the rest of the World Cup and go back to invading planets in a galaxy far, far away.

Toby (Botswana)

Given his ridiculous and clearly unjust banning of Burger, could Hunter please be pushed into the limelight? We need to know who he is and what his experience in refereeing is. Which country is he affiliated to? His use of epithets like such sloppy almost smacks of a grudge against Burger who is one of the top loose forwards in the world. Burger after all has been a key player in the SA line-up. One wonders if corruption or bias towards a particular country is involved?

Are we going to get Schalk Burger or “Skulking” Hunter?

S. Price

Well the old farts at the IRB have really let a wet one loose. They now are wiping their unsavoury arses on MY EFFING SPORT. For too long these fumbling sacks of sh*t have been allowed to dictate the course of a sport that is bigger than even their inflated egos.

I watched the game – I saw the tackle – for heavens sake!!! It was nothing!!!

The real reason that these shady maneuvers are being made to weaken the Springbok line-up is because the English, who makes back-stabbing a national pastime, are facing a pummeling and they don’t have the good grace to take it when it’s their turn. The IRB is in the English pocket – this sickens me and it sours what was promising to be a good tough competition. This is so bad for the game; everyone sees it, everyone knows it to be true, you are a cancerous parasite on our sport – shame on you – RESIGN!!!

Rene Boyer

As ugly as the tackle looked, and as justified as some sort of suspension may be (though it should be 2 games not 4), I’m gutted that Schalk is out until the semi’s (if they make it). Even though I’m a one eyed kiwi, I love watching Schalk play – especially when its against the AB’s. His intensity and skill level are as good as anyone, and he’s by far (Habana aside) the best the Springboks have. I want to watch the best in the world play at the world cup, and unfortunately a dumb tackle and perhaps a slightly harsh suspension has robbed that from me, and everybody. Good luck with the appeal!

Victor (Auckland)

Being from New Zealand, I would normally support teams from the Southern Hemisphere. However in this case I think Burger has got what he deserved. Well done judiciary.

John

This play should have been penalized or even a yellow card. It didn’t look like he went for the ball and how anybody can see it different is beyond me. I never heard of catching a ball with a clothesline sort of move. It looked bad in real time and even worse with a replay. With the precedent they have made with penalties and citings it seems ridiculous to take a chance like that anyway. This game had high tackles missed on both teams and the refereeing was uneven. But the penalty is fair. The tackle on Lima was dangerous but if you cite every dangerous tackle who will be left to play on any team. They scored a try from the move otherwise I believe he would have been penalized for it.

Brodrick

Just crazy! Burger jumps straight up into the air to collect the ball, there is no sign of him going forward in a tackle motion, why is Paul Honiss been made to look such a fool when he did not even deem it a yellow card!

Lima pointed at Andre signaling that he was about to hurt him and then shot in like a missile!,Monty got shoved into the advertising boards, shoulders were being used throughout the game.

Lets just hope they use common sense and realise a four match suspension is nearly the whole tournament. The world wants to see a hard, fast competitive rugby and Burger optimizes that, let the world see why rugby is the best sport in the world!

Rodney O’Neill (London)

Fair, especially as it’s not the first time Burger has done this sort of thing ‘accidentally’ and the Boks had already put in a few late, high ones earlier in the match and got away with them. They’ve have always been keen on strong-arm tactics, which is part of the game and fair enough, but there have to be limits. Lima’s incredible flying tackle rates a citing too, but he got his just deserts by doing more damage to himself than to the player he tackled.

Peter Fletcher

Although in no way a Bok supporter, I feel that this decision borders on the ludicrous. Burger should never have been cited at all – never mind banned for 4 matches.

The incident was clumsy, yes, dangerous, no. Burger was clearly competing for the ball, both were in mid air at the collision point, two officials, on the spot, decided that a penalty was the correct decision. So this sanction seems at best to undermine both official’s position and judgement and assumes a degree of malicious intent that would be impossible to judge fairly on the evidence even if it was indeed so. I am