Get Newsletter

Bow your heads in shame

Jan de Koning takes a look at the South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) judical system after Griquas lock Johan Ackermann was cleared on a charge of head-butting this week. He asks if it is too much to expect some consistency?

It has come to our attention that England fans are copping a fair amount of abuse for their team's less-than-glorious record over the last few months.

While following the whole Johan Ackermann citing saga this week, I thought of something which that great American novelist Mark Twain once said. "Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to," the former journalist said.

For the record: Ackermann was charged to appear before South African Rugby Football Union (SARFU) judicial hearing this week, after independent match commissioner Andrew Prior reported an incident in the Sharks' 33-30 Currie Cup victory over Griquas last Friday.

Ackermann reportedly head-butted Sharks lock Albert van den Berg.

But the SARFU hearing decided that "it could not be proven on the balance of probabilities" that he (Ackermann) had in fact head-butted an opponent.

The wording of the finding did not exactly say he was "not guilty", but it was articulated in such a fashion that you just could not help getting the feeling that this was another one of those "technical" decisions.

Now citings, by nature, are very emotional issues and added to that the legal web of "rules and regulations" that governs these incidents make it a perilous path to tread when you want to add your opinion.

It was also to be expected that the two teams involved – Griquas and their opponents, the Sharks – would have vastly different views on the outcome.

So when the Griquas hierarchy said they always knew he was "innocent" it was not surprising. It was also very much routine reaction when the Sharks cried foul after he was cleared.

I'm not going to attempt to judge the merits of this particular case, but rather the inconsistencies – yet again – of these judicial hearings.

They say you can't compare apples and pears. Which means we have to look at other "head-butting" incidents handled by SARFU's judicial system.

Which means my only real point of reference would be Sharks utility forward AJ Venter's recently completed eight-week ban for "head-butting" in a Super 12 match against the Reds.

(And before anybody says that incident was handled by a SANZAR judicial hearing, may I point out that in Venter's case the hearing was handled entirely by SARFU appointed officials who were all South Africans – as was the case with Ackermann's incident. Thus we compare "apples with apples".)

In both cases – that of Venter and Ackermann – an "independent" match commissioner cited the player. For the citing officer to take such action, there must have been some kind of incident that was visible on television.

He would always base his report on television evidence and would forward said evidence to the hearing.

Again, without going into the merits of either case, it remains astonishing that in one incident the player is suspended for eight weeks and in another the player is let off the hook.

It can mean one of two things: at one of the hearings a major injustice was done, or one of the citing commissioners made a monumental blunder in forwarding the case in the first place.

Which one it is, I don't know. But judging by the noise coming out of Durban this week, one would suspect that an injustice was done at a hearing.

Sharks CEO Brian van Zyl, who has been very vocal in his objections to SARFU rulings recently, said he was astonished at the ruling in the Ackermann case.

"Having seen the incident on video in slow motion there appears to be a case of double-standards," Van Zyl said.ted that he was going to discuss the matter with Koos Basson, Chairman of the SARFU Judicial Committee."

The Sharks boss went on to say that on the basis of Venter having received an eight-week ban and Ackermann being cleared for the same type of incident they will be writing to Basson, highlighting their "dissatisfaction" with the decision.

This would not be the first time that a judicial hearing was under fire for what appears to be hypocrisy in the manner in which they handled these incidents. It probably also won't be the last.

And this column, no doubt, would also come under fire for daring to question SARFU's standards.

All I can do is repeat the words of John Greenleaf Whittier:
'Shoot, if you must, this old head,
But spare your country's flag,' she said.
'A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
Over the face of the leader came.'

In closing I want to ask if it is too much to expect some consistency?

Do you agree or disagree with Jan's view? E-Mail us!

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 6

Sam Warburton | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

Japan Rugby League One | Sungoliath v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Japan Rugby League One | Spears v Wild Knights | Full Match Replay

Boks Office | Episode 10 | Six Nations Final Round Review

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | How can New Zealand rugby beat this Ireland team

Beyond 80 | Episode 5

Rugby Europe Men's Championship Final | Georgia v Portugal | Full Match Replay

Write A Comment