Peter De Villiers DEFENDS Burger Eye Gouging

thomond2006

What a undignified, spiteful guy.

Even all the Springbok fans on Boards cannot defend this. The guy should be banned from coaching. :mad::mad:

Sorry for the rant, but it had to be said.

From rugby365.com

<H2>

<H2>De Villiers defends Burger gouging

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:56

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers left a media ensemble at Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria on Saturday stunned, when he suggested flank Schalk Burger should not have been carded for his act of eye gouging in the 28-25 Test victory over the British and Irish Lions.
Burger was yellow carded in the first minute of the series-clinching Test - which gave the Boks an unassailable 2-0 lead, with just the Ellis Park encounter next week remaining.

The Bok flank was sent to the sin-bin for gouging Lions wing Luke Fitzgerald, in the first minute, and will most likely face a judicial hearing next week.

Most observers felt Burger should have been red-carded, but the assistant referee suggested only a yellow card.
Television replay showed clear evidence of gouging, but the Bok coach stunned the media with his post-match response.
"I don't think he should have been carded at all," De Villiers said, adding that he didn't see the "evidence" that caused the flank to be sin binned.

De Villiers then went on the offensive, suggesting there was "lots of niggle" in the match.
"If you dissect the whole game, you will see [all] the yellow cards that were missed [by the match officials]," De Villiers added.
The Bok coach said they will "wait for the judicial officer" to decide if Burger should be cited.

He added that he doesn't care much for other people's opinions.
"What people say, it's their opinion. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them," he said in response to repeated suggestions that Burger was guilty of gouging.
Lions coach Ian McGeechan tactfully declined to comment on what Burger's punishment should be or whether it should have been a red card.

He said it was up to the citing officer to decide.
"A decision was made [by the touch judge and referee]," McGeehcan said, adding: "Hopefully the citing officer will have a good look at it and decide what should happen next."
By Jan de Koning, at Loftus Versfeld

</H2></H2>

Depp

The man is just Scum, gouging is not acceptable. Any player found guilty should be given a mandatory lifetime ban.

Profiler

Hang on now, if we are going to be consistent, it was a Leinster player who was gouged so we should cite such memorable defenses for Burger as...


"God only knows what Fitz was up to, because he isn't an angel either "

"Burger is "innocent" until proven guilty - then you can get out the hanging party"

"Burger is innocent until all the evidence is gathered. We should wonder what Fitz was up to!"

"Anyone ever tell you never kick a man when he is down, Burger may get up! Old country saying and all of that"

None of us can properly judge what went on as "We're viewing this on a YouTube/Sky Sports video which is a couple of inches wide"

budhabob

Profiler wrote: »

Hang on now, if we are going to be consistent, it was a Leinster player who was gouged so we should cite such memorable defenses for Burger as...


"God only knows what Fitz was up to, because he isn't an angel either "

"Burger is "innocent" until proven guilty - then you can get out the hanging party"

"Burger is innocent until all the evidence is gathered. We should wonder what Fitz was up to!"

"Anyone ever tell you never kick a man when he is down, Burger may get up! Old country saying and all of that"

None of us can properly judge what went on as "We're viewing this on a YouTube/Sky Sports video which is a couple of inches wide"

Although a munster fan, i have to agree, you make some excellent points. and now to get slated, although i think quinlan was wrong, and deserved his ban, i think the severity of burger (from the match and replays) was on another level, and deserves some serious punishment.

Profiler

Truth be told Burger should get a minimum of 12 weeks and if justice is seen then it will be longer.

On this bit however "Most observers felt Burger should have been red-carded, but the assistant referee suggested only a yellow card."

The assistant ref actually said something like "minimum of a yellow card" or "at least a yellow card"

The ref bottled it in my view, if he had been strong enough he would have sent Burger off

thomond2006

Burger played sh1te today overall, along with the sinbin and subsequent citing.

Stev_o

thomond2006 wrote: »

Burger played sh1te today overall, along with the sinbin and subsequent citing.

Least he kept Burssow at bay for 70 odd minutes and gifted us something like 9 easy points.

Profiler

budhabob wrote: »

Although a munster fan, i have to agree, you make some excellent points. and now to get slated, although i think quinlan was wrong, and deserved his ban, i think the severity of burger (from the match and replays) was on another level, and deserves some serious punishment.

Yep, 100% agree. If he sees so much as a seconds play in the Tri Nations then it is a disgrace.

He should have to wait a long time for his 51st cap.

thomond2006

The IRB should make an example of him. Can you imagine this happening to kids? I'm thinking of banning him from international matches for a year/2 years as well as a 4 month ban across the board.

It was at the highest level, therefore making an example of Quinlan after the HEC SF would not have the same effect.

thomond2006

Stev_o wrote: »

Least he kept Burssow at bay for 70 odd minutes and gifted us something like 9 easy points.

Good point Stev_o

Himself and Ruan Pienaar should have been given red jerseys. :p

Profiler

thomond2006 wrote: »

The IRB should make an example of him. Can you imagine this happening to kids? I'm thinking of banning him from international matches for a year/2 years as well as a 4 month ban across the board.

It was at the highest level, therefore making an example of Quinlan after the HEC SF would not have the same effect.

Will Burger have to go before the IRB like Quinlan did? I know he won't face a hearing in Dublin but is it still the same governing body who will hopefully apply the same standards

thomond2006

Profiler wrote: »

Will Burger have to go before the IRB like Quinlan did? I know he won't face a hearing in Dublin but is it still the same governing body who will hopefully apply the same standards

He and Bakkies Botha are facing a disciplinary hearing (most likely IRB) tommorrow in Pretoria.

Fishtits

fishtits has several buddies who are Saffers, all who have been in contact so far wish to see SB done big time. I suspect its more to do with having HB take his spot than punishing SB for his apparently despicable act though...

PdeV is ridiculed in SA, its widely known that he's a political figure head, others train, organise etc.

Chucky the tree

Profiler wrote: »

Truth be told Burger should get a minimum of 12 weeks and if justice is seen then it will be longer.

On this bit however "Most observers felt Burger should have been red-carded, but the assistant referee suggested only a yellow card."

The assistant ref actually said something like "minimum of a yellow card" or "at least a yellow card"

The ref bottled it in my view, if he had been strong enough he would have sent Burger off

The assistant ref should of had the balls to say "definite red card" which it was. Leaving it up to the ref who didn't see the incident and had no idea how severe it was very poor of him. If a linesman says at least a yellow then most refs will just give a yellow I'd say.

nacho libre

give Peter De Villiers a length ban from coaching- or some sort of punishment- for bringing the game into disrepute too. seriously what sort of example is he setting for youngsters who play the game.

thomond2006

nacho libre wrote: »

give Peter De Villiers a length ban from coaching- or some sort of punishment- for bringing the game into disrepute too. seriously what sort of example is he setting for youngsters who play the game.

Not sure youngsters will listen to him, he speaks like a toddler to be fair. :D

mink_man

burger should be fried!
he's past his sell by date!

stupid blonde didn't even do a good job gouging!
:rolleyes:

anonymous_joe

Burger was poor.

Brussow looks frighteningly good.

[Jackass]

Quinnys was far worse, but Burger should get a lengthy ban.

Make gouging a mimimum 12 month ban and see if it happens again.

It's the scum of the sport and who'd miss them anyway.

mikeruurds

The wife and I are both Saffas and we couldn't believe what Schalk did. He should have been sent off.

In saying that though, I am glad that we saw a game of 15 v 15.

mikeruurds

thomond2006 wrote: »

Not sure youngsters will listen to him, he speaks like a toddler to be fair. :D

He's regarded as a clown in SA. Unfortunately due to the politics of the sport in the country we don't really have a choice in who coaches our team.

The vast majority of rugby supporters in SA wanted Heynecke Meyer to get Jake's job.

Amabokke

thomond2006 wrote: »

The IRB should make an example of him. Can you imagine this happening to kids? I'm thinking of banning him from international matches for a year/2 years as well as a 4 month ban across the board.

It was at the highest level, therefore making an example of Quinlan after the HEC SF would not have the same effect.

I thought it was disgracefull too. However, I'm intrigued as too know how that was the highest?? Did you look at the replay, did you look at Quinlan's gauging?? Did you look at Best gauging?? Why should there be a severity at all? There should just be one punishment for gauging and what's good for your two Irish players should be good for Burger = 12 weeks.

.....or wait SH players and referees are far worst and wrong than NH ones so yes I agree he should get 12 months :rolleyes:

ironingbored

[Jackass] wrote: »

Quinnys was far worse, but Burger should get a lengthy ban.

I reckon Burger's gouging lasted about three seconds more than Quinlan's and was more serious due to the fact that it took place away from the point of action and was while Fitzgerald was on his back.

ironingbored

Amabokke wrote: »

I thought it was disgracefull too. However, I'm intrigued as too know how that was the highest??

I think by the highest level he means the occasion itself. In other words, International Test Match vs. HC semi final.

thomond2006

Amabokke wrote: »

I thought it was disgracefull too. However, I'm intrigued as too know how that was the highest?? Did you look at the replay, did you look at Quinlan's gauging?? Did you look at Best gauging?? Why should there be a severity at all? There should just be one punishment for gauging and what's good for your two Irish players should be good for Burger = 12 weeks.

.....or wait SH players and referees are far worst and wrong than NH ones so yes I agree he should get 12 months :rolleyes:

I meant that the incident took place at the highest level in rugby terms i.e international level (Lions Series).

Amabokke

ironingbored wrote: »

I reckon Burger's gouging lasted about three seconds more than Quinlan's and was more serious due to the fact that it took place away from the point of action and was while Fitzgerald was on his back.

Did you actually time it? Quinlan's eye gauging was same as Burger, right next to the action. Cullen also had his back to Quinland when he eye gauged him from behind. Poor argument.

Amabokke

thomond2006 wrote: »

I meant that the incident took place at the highest level in rugby terms i.e international level (Lions Series).

ironingbored wrote: »

I think by the highest level he means the occasion itself. In other words, International Test Match vs. HC semi final.

I'm on your side regarding Burger....BUT my point is I fail too see why eye gauging on test level is worst than HC level. Hands around the EYE area is a no no, does not matter if it is club, provincial, european, S14 or test rugby. The HC final was pretty big

The HC final had 66500 spectators while Loftus can only accomodate about 50 000 people.

thomond2006

Amabokke wrote: »

I'm on your side regarding Burger....BUT my point is I fail too see why eye gauging on test level is worst than HC level. Hands around the EYE area is a no no, does not matter if it is club, provincial, european, S14 or test rugby. The HC final was pretty big

The HC final had 66500 spectators while Loftus can only accomodate about 50 000 people.

My 1000th post. WOW!!! :D:D

The gouging is not worse because it's at a higer level, I totally agree.

My point was that Burger should be made an example of because it's at the highest level and would be taken more seriously by the rugby world.

Aidric

thomond2006 wrote: »

My point was that Burger should be made an example of because it's at the highest level and would be taken more seriously by the rugby world.

I'm sorry but I'm failing to see the sense in this post. Gouging is gouging, no matter what representative level you are at. A standard lengthy ban should be in place making it detrimental for any player to attempt it.

Amabokke

thomond2006 wrote: »

My 1000th post. WOW!!! :D:D

The gouging is not worse because it's at a higer level, I totally agree.

My point was that Burger should be made an example of because it's at the highest level and would be taken more seriously by the rugby world.

Why? He's not the first player to do that and won't be the last. You forgot Best, Quinlan and Parrise have all been banned recently for same offence. I fail to see why one player should be the "example" and take the rap for future players

tughfc

what hes trying to say is that its a complete disgrace that a superstar such as burger would perform one of the most frowned upon things in rugby , and have millions of viewers watching and should of been a straight red!! he could be out of rugby for a long while!!!

Tim Robbins

Amabokke wrote: »

Did you actually time it? Quinlan's eye gauging was same as Burger, right next to the action. Cullen also had his back to Quinland when he eye gauged him from behind. Poor argument.

+1.

They were both extremly bad and both deserved minimum 1 year bans.

One can make all these silly points about Burger's being worse... so what if they were on the ground. That's as stupid as saying: it was easier for the Lions players to see Burger do it and kick him on the head. Whereas Quinlan nearly completely got away with it. One camera caught him on a replay.

As a ref, I am very worried about all this. We have no touch judges and TMOs until you at at least AIL level.

This means, it's a lot harder to spot these things as you have one pair of eyes which has to follow the ball. We are relying on the IRB and ERC to make a real example of those caught red handed to deter those who would get away with it a lot easier.

Come on IRB / ERC! Sort it out!

Stealdo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This means, it's a lot harder to spot these things as you have one pair of eyes which has to follow the ball. We are relying on the IRB and ERC to make a real example of those caught red handed to deter those who would get away with it a lot easier.

Come on IRB / ERC! Sort it out!

The top level officials too though. Both Lawrence and Berdos screwed up big time yesterday. Lawrence first off for his ridiculous 'at least a yellow' comment and Berdos for not questioning him on it. There was no question in either's mind that it was deliberate eye gouging, no question as to who it was. Berdos should have taken the opportunity to take a little revenge for how Lawrence spoke to him last week and said "What do you mean yellow you idiot - it was eye gouging - you get a 3 month ban minimum for that - why on earth would it not be a red card - you said you saw it clearly - what's wrong with you?"

Amabokke

tughfc wrote: »

what hes trying to say is that its a complete disgrace that a superstar such as burger would perform one of the most frowned upon things in rugby , and have millions of viewers watching and should of been a straight red!! he could be out of rugby for a long while!!!

Burger now a superstar in the North? He is always laminated as a cheat, dirty and illegal. Parrise was selected by alot of Irish fans as their no.8 in a world team so that would make him a superstar too.

Burger did a disgracefull thing but it's irrelevant if he is a superstar, 50 caps, best no.6 or whatever you want to call it compared to similar players (i.e Quinlann) and not paint them with the same brush. Superstar statis does not mean he should get bigger ban. If someone eye gauged me at J3 level I'd be pissed, worried, dissapointed and def be angry.

thehighground

Profiler wrote: »

Hang on now, if we are going to be consistent, it was a Leinster player who was gouged so we should cite such memorable defenses for Burger as...


"God only knows what Fitz was up to, because he isn't an angel either "

"Burger is "innocent" until proven guilty - then you can get out the hanging party"

"Burger is innocent until all the evidence is gathered. We should wonder what Fitz was up to!"

"Anyone ever tell you never kick a man when he is down, Burger may get up! Old country saying and all of that"

None of us can properly judge what went on as "We're viewing this on a YouTube/Sky Sports video which is a couple of inches wide"

+ Chucky the tree, nacho libre, Stev_o, Tim Robbins, wixfjord, ziggy, [Jackass]

Are you all about 10 years of age - that could be your only excuse for making / agreeing with that post.


Bet young Lukie and some of the less physical Lions would have liked Alan Quinlan around for a while yesterday, particularly with a French ref & Bok team (who have a different take on how the game is played, lets say).

A few wiser old heads like Quinlan around and there might not have been as many Lion's 'injuries' yesterday. There would definately have been a few more Bok's in the bin, thats for sure. Ask Pelous about that one.

Amabokke

Stealdo wrote: »

There was no question in either's mind that it was deliberate eye gouging, no question as to who it was.

Berdos did not see it as Lawrence pointed it out to him. He listened to what he was told as he did not see it so fail to see how you are so sure what was on Berdos mind.

Berdos should have taken the opportunity to take a little revenge for how Lawrence spoke to him last week and said "What do you mean yellow you idiot

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

anonymous_joe

Amabokke wrote: »

Burger now a superstar in the North? He is always laminated as a cheat, dirty and illegal. Parrise was selected by alot of Irish fans as their no.8 in a world team so that would make him a superstar too.

Burger did a disgracefull thing but it's irrelevant if he is a superstar, 50 caps, best no.6 or whatever you want to call it compared to similar players (i.e Quinlann) and not paint them with the same brush. Superstar statis does not mean he should get bigger ban. If someone eye gauged me at J3 level I'd be pissed, worried, dissapointed and def be angry.

Burger'd be a 7 to us.

thehighground wrote: »

+ Chucky the tree, nacho libre, Stev_o, Tim Robbins, wixfjord, ziggy, [Jackass]

Are you all about 10 years of age - that could be your only excuse for making / agreeing with that post.


Bet young Lukie and some of the less physical Lions would have liked Alan Quinlan around for a while yesterday, particularly with a French ref & Bok team (who have a different take on how the game is played, lets say).

A few wiser old heads like Quinlan around and there might not have been as many Lion's 'injuries' yesterday. There would definately have been a few more Bok's in the bin, thats for sure. Ask Pelous about that one.

Thing about the likes of Quinlan is that he'd have been physically dominated by Smith et al. A nasty cheat is only of use if tehy can also play rugby. Burger was a liability all game tbh.

Amabokke

thehighground wrote: »

A few wiser old heads like Quinlan around and there might not have been as many Lion's 'injuries' yesterday. There would definately have been a few more Bok's in the bin, thats for sure. Ask Pelous about that one.

That makes no sense. Injuries have nothing to do with old wise heads. Few more boks in the bin could be said the same of some Lions players, i.e

ROG dangerous tackle on Du Preez, BOD without arms tackle on Rossouw. I'm not saying these should've been yellow, just saying that there was illegal play on both teams.

Chucky the tree

thehighground wrote: »

+ Chucky the tree, nacho libre, Stev_o, Tim Robbins, wixfjord, ziggy, [Jackass]

Are you all about 10 years of age - that could be your only excuse for making / agreeing with that post.


Bet young Lukie and some of the less physical Lions would have liked Alan Quinlan around for a while yesterday, particularly with a French ref & Bok team (who have a different take on how the game is played, lets say).

A few wiser old heads like Quinlan around and there might not have been as many Lion's 'injuries' yesterday. There would definately have been a few more Bok's in the bin, thats for sure. Ask Pelous about that one.

What? He made a great point and I agreed with it, it seems you're the point was lost on you though.

OldJay

Amabokke wrote: »

Burger did a disgracefull thing but it's irrelevant if he is a superstar, 50 caps, best no.6 or whatever you want to call it compared to similar players (i.e Quinlann) and not paint them with the same brush

Burger is an openside flanker and is actually an entirely different player to Quinlan.

Stealdo

Amabokke wrote: »

Berdos did not see it as Lawrence pointed it out to him. He listened to what he was told as he did not see it so fail to see how you are so sure what was on Berdos mind.



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well - unless he thought that Lawrence might be lying to him?
Just looking at it now Lawrence said - "I could see it clearly, it was clearly fingers in the eye area" Berdos then said "So I should reverse the penalty" and was going to walk away from Lawrence who had to call him back to tell him to give a yellow. It was terribly handled.

Where's the doubt to be? They both screwed up big time. Forget the context of the game - it could have been ruined as a spectacle by being 15 v 14, I'm just talking from the point of view of stamping this kind of thing out of the game. You won't get many clearer incidents than this because it's usually not picked up at the time. If the top officials even when they're completely clear about what happened don't issue a red card how can we say that it has no place in the game?

thehighground

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Burger'd be a 7 to us.


Thing about the likes of Quinlan is that he'd have been physically dominated by Smith et al. A nasty cheat is only of use if tehy can also play rugby. Burger was a liability all game tbh.

What santimonious bull you are coming out with (A nasty cheat)

Implying that Quinlan can't play rugby is just a nasty cheap shot.

OldJay

Amabokke wrote: »

ROG dangerous tackle on Du Preez, BOD without arms tackle on Rossouw. I'm not saying these should've been yellow, just saying that there was illegal play on both teams.

Yes thats true. Both teams were definitely well stewed up by the time they hit the field.
Burger will probably cop the maximum ban.

Amabokke

Justind wrote: »

Burger is an openside flanker and is actually an entirely different player to Quinlan.

Really want to get technical now. If he is a 7 to the north that is fine. It's pointless what type of a player he is or who you compare him too.

My point is straight lenghty ban for any player doing eye gauging.

Stealdo

Justind wrote: »

Yes thats true. Both teams were definitely well stewed up by the time they hit the field.
Burger will probably cop the maximum ban.

The maximum ban is 2 years, I'd be amazed if he got that, and it would be a serious double standard considering the lengths of the bans Quinlan and Neil Best got. He'll miss the tri-nations I'd expect, and possibly the autumn.

I don't think this kind of thing is dealt with harshly enough - we all say we think it's disgraceful but when it's one of our own there's always mitigating circumstances.

Amabokke

Stealdo wrote: »

The maximum ban is 2 years, I'd be amazed if he got that, and it would be a serious double standard considering the lengths of the bans Quinlan and Neil Best got. He'll miss the tri-nations I'd expect, and possibly the autumn.

I don't think this kind of thing is dealt with harshly enough - we all say we think it's disgraceful but when it's one of our own there's always mitigating circumstances.

As a bok and Burger supporter I hope he gets the normal 12 weeks ban.

anonymous_joe

thehighground wrote: »

What santimonious bull you are coming out with (A nasty cheat)

Implying that Quinlan can't play rugby is just a nasty cheap shot.

Cheating's an art form. Some are good at it, some aren't. Bakkies Botha and Schalk Burger looked crude and out of their depth.

Were you able to have the power, skill and talent of Ferris and the cheatiness of Quinlan you'd have the perfect blindside. After Rocky obviously. :pac:

OldJay

Stealdo wrote: »

The maximum ban is 2 years, I'd be amazed if he got that, and it would be a serious double standard considering the lengths of the bans Quinlan and Neil Best got. He'll miss the tri-nations I'd expect, and possibly the autumn

Ooops.
I meant the minimum ban.

thehighground

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For years Irish fans have hyped O'Gara as the "second best fly half int he world".

I have never heard any Irish person claim that O'Gara is the "second" best fly half in the world (including O'Gara himself saying that he thought no one really knew who he was outside Ireland in interview on Sky Sports). I have heard Sky pundits (who I don't take seriously) like Will Greenwood rate him highly.

I've come across many posters like yourself though, who claim that we have supposedly claimed that he is the "second best fly half in the world."

Stealdo

Amabokke wrote: »

As a bok and Burger supporter I hope he gets the normal 12 weeks ban.

Yep - while I disagree with that being an appropriate amount of time, based on the precedents of Quinlan and Parisse he probably won't get any more.

That would keep him out of the 3N.

anonymous_joe

Stealdo wrote: »

Yep - while I disagree with that being an appropriate amount of time, based on the precedents of Quinlan and Parisse he probably won't get any more.

That would keep him out of the 3N.

That'd be great news for the Boks if they had a real coach. Brussow would be a fantastic replacement, but they'll lash in Dani Russouw.