Schalk only gets 8 weeks

jimmybeige

Shocking decision I think. As bad as the referee's decision to not red card him in the first place.

It was a lot worse than the Quinlin incident and deseved at the very least the same length of a ban. It seems certain players can get off lightly. It really is not a good advertisment for the sport to only get an 8 week ban after attempting to blind someone.

copacetic

appears set up to allow him back for the second half of the tri nations.

Absolute joke,he should have gotten 24 weeks at least.

Depp

How in the name of our good lord could he only get 8 weeks when quinny got 12 weeks, im actually fuming here.

mink_man

i think there should be a set ban length for gouging. none is worse then the other. they are all equally bad!

corny

JDV is a genius. Down playing the incident obviously worked a treat for him.

Burger should at least get 3 months. Absolute minimum. I'd give him 6 months. It was premeditated and not in the heat of the moment, not that matters much i suppose but a blind man could recognise his intention "i'm gonna tear one of this b******* eyes out".

ScrubsfanChris

jimmybeige wrote: »

Shocking decision I think. As bad as the referee's decision to not red card him in the first place.

It was a lot worse than the Quinlin incident and deseved at the very least the same length of a ban. It seems certain players can get off lightly. It really is not a good advertisment for the sport to only get an 8 week ban after attempting to blind someone.

This is an absolute fu*king joke, 8 weeks is what you get for a dangerous tackle or something, not for trying to blind someone.
Quinlan showed us that no-matter what you have coming in the weeks to come (Lions), if should have no affect on the lenght of the ban. He will be able to paly in 3 of SA's 6 tri-nations ganes.
Joke

chupacabra

Is there anyway Lions Rugby can appeal that decision? If not then there are some serious problems with the disciplinary system in this game. For Quinlan to get 12 weeks for what was clearly a gouge with perhaps no intent to harm and then for Burger to only get 8 weeks for what was a clear attempt to hurt the player is just unacceptable.

MG

What a joke. Quinlan must be raging. Raises serious questions about the whole disciplinary process. It's a farce, the amount of politics involved.

bugler

The recommended ban for an offence of this anture at the lower end of the scale is apparently 12 weeks, so how they came up with 8 weeks...well we know why. If he was heading into a quiet summer he'd have received 3 times that. Utter corruption.

sandleman1979

Different rules for the Tri nations teams is the rule of rugby!!

Remember a certain incident in 2005?? No ban for either player involved in that tackle either...

The fact that there is a minimum ban setup for gouging and he didn't get that goes to show how corrupt the system is, I wonder what would have been the length of ban if say David Wallace gouged one of the Saffers!!

Has anyone seen the incident that got Nathan Hines banned? I deleted the game off sky plus before it was announced so haven't yet see the "incident".

twinytwo

i said this a few weeks ago that they pull the bans out of their arse... i mean a gouge is a gouge surly there are set bans??..... not that it matters for the last game both welsh props are gone with a fractured cheek bone and the other a dislocated shoulder, Drico is concussed, Roberts has done his wrist in, Bowe his elbow and Rog had to get stitches around his left eye

Amabokke

I'm very surprised but not relieved. I'm angry and dissapointed with Burger. Like some poster said here why would you want to poke another player's eyes.

ironingbored

Eight week ban for Burger is an absolute disgrace.

How can Quinlan get 12 weeks.

The IRB seem to be getting progressively lenient as regards gouging. I see Parisse has also received an 8 week ban.

It appears to be the case that the more famous a player is (Burger, Parisse) the more lenient ban applied.

This is completely the wrong message to be sending out regarding a particularly heinous infringement.

Eoin

That's the same ban that Parisse just got for gouging. The bit below is from planetrugby.com - look at the bit put in bold, which is the difference between the two offences:

Italy captain Sergio Parisse has been suspended after being found guilty of eye gouging New Zealand's Isaac Ross.

The loose forward was cited for "making contact with the eyes or eye area" of the All Blacks lock during Saturday's 27-6 defeat in Christchurch.

International Rugby Board (IRB) judicial officer Paul Tully then handed down an eight-week ban following a hearing on Sunday.

He ruled the offence had been reckless rather than intentional, with mitigating factors including the fact that the contact was brief, occurred in the open, there was no injury to Ross and the initial contact was with Ross's cheek and slipped into the eye.

Parisse, who plays his club rugby in France for Stade Français, is now in his five-week off-season following the one-off Test and his suspension will start on August 2.

MG

eoin wrote: »

That's the same ban that Parisse just got for gouging. The bit below is from planetrugby.com - look at the bit put in bold, which is the difference between the two offences:

He ruled the offence had been reckless rather than intentional, with mitigating factors including the fact that the contact was brief, occurred in the open, there was no injury to Ross and the initial contact was with Ross's cheek and slipped into the eye.

I don't think this applies to the Burger incident as it was prolonged with no evidence of movement of the hand away from the facial area. All these factors (and more) were present in the QUinlan case but he got 12 weeks.

I find the Burger incident and the disciplinary inconsistancy appalling.

Eoin

MG wrote: »

I don't think this applies to the Burger incident as it was prolonged with no evidence of movement of the hand away from the facial area. All these factors (and more) were present in the QUinlan case but he got 12 weeks.

I find the Burger incident and the disciplinary inconsistancy appalling.

That's my point MG - I said this was the difference between the two offences.

smog

absolute joke ... particularly after PDV's comments .. This blatent gouging should have been made a serious example off.

This should not be what they want in the game .. IRB are going to have more and more of these cases to deal with if they cant punish the very obvious

Eoin

JdV or PdV?

MG

eoin wrote: »

That's my point MG - I said this was the difference between the two offences.

I was agreeing with you.

MG

eoin wrote: »

JdV or PdV?

PdV I assume. I hope JdV didn't say anything given that he's coming to Munster next year.

dandy_warhol

Was just going to post the same as "eoin"....

How the hell can two players get bans equal in length for infringements that are the opposite end of the spectrum, granted I didn't see Parisse's but I don't think ANYONE of any nationality would call Burgers "reckless rather than intentional" or "brief contact"....

Shocking stuff!

Stev_o

Who was on the citing committee?

smog

Canadian - Alan Hudson

SpAcEd OuT

I thought it was bad enough that Quinlan got off so lightly for his thuggery against Cullen (though because Cullen didn't want Quinlan to miss the lions tour and defended him I suppose it was slightly more understandable) but this is a disgrace. It's funny Quinlan and Berger should of gotten much, much longer setences and Neil Best in my eyes shouldn't of even been cited as his was clearly an accident!

corny

eoin wrote: »

JdV or PdV?

My bad. PDV.

themont85

My faith in the IRB is gone. Changes need to be made in the whole process.

Joke

chupacabra

Well think back to the Tri-nations last year when Bismarck Du Plessis was cited for gouging and only got 3 weeks when people were calling for a 6 - 8 week ban. Saffers get off easy it seems.

walshb

themont85 wrote: »

My faith in the IRB is gone. Changes need to be made in the whole process.

Joke

Absolutely!

They have no loyalty whatsoever to the players and this has
been the case from day 1. It doesn't surprise me at all and nor
dose De Villiere's defending the act.

Happens in soccer too. Managers come out ranting and raving
when one of their players gets badly assaulted, yet when one of their
players is the assaulter, they are defending the situation.

The whole system stinks and until they get damn
tough, it will never be fixed!

IrishCathal2008

copacetic wrote: »

appears set up to allow him back for the second half of the tri nations.

The is a disgraceful home town decision.
Fair is fair, the guy was totally out of order.
I cannot understand how SA management team would not do the honorable.

funky penguin

First he only gets a Yellow, now this absolute Grade A BULL****!

How anyone can justify giving someone a two month ban after trying to perform optical surgery with his hands on a rugby pitch is beyond me! The evidence was completely and utterly undeniable!

d'Oracle

What the **** has rugby become......?

This is soccer territory. All this hyperbole and sensation.

1) No damage was done.
2) He has been banned at the peak of their season.
3) He is one of the key players in the side and will now miss 2 AB matches.

Granted it should have been 12, BUT ITS NOT LIKE HE KILLED SOMEONE.

Would it be too much to leave the blood baying, calling for cards and general soccer-esque damnation out of it?

walshb

d'Oracle wrote: »

1) No damage was done.

So, would you prefer that Luke's eyes were ripped out?

The act itself is despicable and this is what should be
heavily punished, damage or not, the act is the problem and
the IRB must send a clear message that eye gouging, whether or
not it results in damage:rolleyes:, is not going
to be tolerated.

And 8 or 12 weeks for gouging is far from tough.
A lifetime ban is what should be imposed!

d'Oracle

walshb wrote: »

So, would you prefer that Luke's eyes were ripped out?

No. I wouldn't. I said nothing of the sort, and that sort of conclusion from my post is offensive. If you cant form an arguement without resorting to that sort of ****slinging then don't post.

walshb wrote: »

And 8 or 12 weeks for gouging is far from tough.
A lifetime ban is what should be imposed!

The Claw got 1 year for the much more dangerous act of stamping on someones head. Lifetime ban? Really?
Did you even think before you said that?
Can you even think?

walshb

d'Oracle wrote: »

No. I wouldn't. I said nothing of the sort, and that sort of conclusion from my post is offensive. If you cant form an arguement without resorting to that sort of ****slinging then don't post.



The Claw got 1 year for the much more dangerous act of stamping on someones head. Lifetime ban? Really?
Did you even think before you said that?
Can you even think?

The question mark after my first sentence surely should alert
you to the fact that I was asking you a question. So, that wasn't
my conclusion at all.

You are obviously struggling with basic comprehension.

BTW, I am not the only person who thinks that
gouging is a filthy and despicable crime and that
it should warrant a lifetime ban

So, the question isn't, "Can I even think," it is, "can you comprehend?"

ScrubsfanChris

Sergio Parisse incident, In my mind still deserved the ban but not near as bad as Burger on Fitz.

conf101

Jesus, Parisse's is pretty vicious!! Doesn't appear to cause any damage but he looks pretty determined to do some and looks like he knows exactly what he's doing and exactly where his fingers are going!!

d'Oracle

walshb wrote: »

The question mark after my first sentence surely should alert
you to the fact that I was asking you a question. So, that wasn't
my conclusion at all.

You are obviously struggling with basic comprehension.

BTW, I am not the only person who thinks that
gouging is a filthy and despicable crime and that
it should warrant a lifetime ban

So, the question isn't, "Can I even think," it is, "can you comprehend?"

Look, you asked the question, you made the implication.
Hiding behind a question mark is cowardly.
And its obvious from your posts that you are only interested in arguing and putting words into people mouth.

You know what your implication was, be a man and stand by it.
Or don't, but leave me alone, I have no interest in what you have to say anymore.

Irishdancer

Have any of you emailed the IRB to complain about the arbitrary nature of suspensions involving gouging/making contact with the eye-eye area?

I did. If enough people email the IRB, they might start to take notice of what I think is an increasing incidence of cowardly and despicable thuggery.

irb@irb.com for those with either the conviction or the belief that that eye gouging has nothing to do with :-

a. rugby
b. sport

but has everything to do with

a. cowardice
b. malice
c. mentally disturbed behaviour

Accidental eye gouging should not carry any suspension.

d'Oracle

conf101 wrote: »

Jesus, Parisse's is pretty vicious!! Doesn't appear to cause any damage but he looks pretty determined to do some and looks like he knows exactly what he's doing and exactly where his fingers are going!!

Yeah.

"He is offside ref! Ref Come on!?! Right, I'll do him then."

IMO its actually the worst of the lot, cos its so barefaced.

stephen_n

d'Oracle wrote: »

What the **** has rugby become......?

This is soccer territory. All this hyperbole and sensation.

1) No damage was done.
2) He has been banned at the peak of their season.
3) He is one of the key players in the side and will now miss 2 AB matches.

Granted it should have been 12, BUT ITS NOT LIKE HE KILLED SOMEONE.

Would it be too much to leave the blood baying, calling for cards and general soccer-esque damnation out of it?

Don't know where you played rugby to think that rugby is becoming anything other than what it always was, a physical sport played with hard and fair. Gouging is a cowardly act perpetrated by scumbags and has no place in the game. Hopefully rugby will never become what you seem to want it to be!

BUT ITS NOT LIKE HE KILLED SOMEONE?? wtf sort of argument is that? well it's ok to damage or go out of your way to injure a player as long as you don't kill him, highly intelligent view point that!

stackerman

bugler wrote: »

The recommended ban for an offence of this anture at the lower end of the scale is apparently 12 weeks, so how they came up with 8 weeks...well we know why. If he was heading into a quiet summer he'd have received 3 times that. Utter corruption.

100 % Agree, fcuking disgrace :mad: