News

Giteau's great escape!

August 11 2009

The knives are out! South Africa's 29-17 Tri-Nations win over Australia over the weekend will in most parts be remembered for ill-discipline, yellow cards and Matt Giteau.

Never mind the fact that the Springboks recorded their third win in the tournament on the trot, or that the Wallabies - like the All Blacks - talked the talk but then deflated due to unrelenting pressure from their hosts, or even that Morne Steyn or Heinrich Brussow are fast becoming the finds of the year.

No, unfortunately inconsistencies by the citing commissioner were highlighted once again following an incident in the 35th minute involving Giteau, his victim Fourie du Preez and an elbow charge.

The Wallaby pivot got ten minutes in the bin for his malicious hit on the Bok scrum-half, while Du Preez received medical attention on the pitch. Did we mention Giteau made no attempt to challenge for the ball, or try pull out of the altercation?

Giteau's dangerous and blatant 'tackle' was met with a yellow card to match his jersey and little else. End of story.

But hold the phone, while New Zealand citing officer David Gray can close the book on yet another unjust and completely inconsistent chapter in the IRB's book of foul play - we cannot. Instead of being left to enjoy the Cape Town nightlife, had Giteau at least been cited and hauled in to explain his actions, perhaps then the disciplinary committee's decision to dismiss the act would be acceptable.

That Giteau walks free without a 'trial' so to speak, further compounds the fact that the IRB process is hopelessly ineffective in dealing with citings. It's for this reason that South Africans believe their beloved Boks are the targets of the watchful eye of the dreaded citing commissioner.

And who can blame them?

I was fortunate to be at the game but unfortunate to hear the cries of foul play bellowing from Springbok supporters that if it were a green jersey and not a gold one, the penalty and consequences that followed would have been a lot harsher. Just imagine what might have happened if Bakkies Botha went charging in on Luke Burgess? Ten minutes in the bin? No citing? Hmmm.... one does wonder.

There seems to be a conspiracy theory going around the country that acts of foul play involving a green and gold jersey will be dealt with and punished accordingly - no questions asked. Word on the street is that if you have the names 'Burger' or 'Botha' on your back - chances are you will be in trouble before even taking to the pitch.

Ok, of course these two are no angels - but does that mean the rest of the rugby world are? It certainly looks that way.

South Africa have every right to feel hard done by with the IRB's double standards. I would like to think that most level headed rugby fans will agree the citing process (both domestic and international) requires an overhaul.

There are many instances that come to mind that I still struggle to come to terms involving South African rugby players and the citing commissioner: Brad Thorn's spear tackle on John Smit after the whistle had gone (no yellow card, suspended for one week), Andrew Sheridan's punch on Andries Bekker in the groin area (no citing), Sione Lauaki ripping Bryan Habana's head off in the Super 14 (no citing), Deon Stegman makes a spear tackle for the Bulls (six weeks), Bakkies Botha cleans a ruck and accidentally breaks Adam Jones' arm (two weeks)...

All Bok supporters are asking for is a level playing field but at the moment it is though South Africa are playing Russian roulette and every chamber is loaded. It is exactly this type of inconsistency that leads to frustration and it all boiling up on the pitch. The thing that gets me the most though is that this was a blatant incident of foul play and yet the New Zealand commissioner knows that he can sweep it under the carpet and expect no consequences.

Perhaps Du Preez should have stayed down or left the field injured as it appears if nobody gets hurt, no citing is deemed necessary.

Where does it state in the laws that foul play is only illegal if you are effective at it? I always thought that the idea of citing and possibly banning players is to send out the message that foul play will not be tolerated. Foul play should be punished, not the consequences.

Even now, the South African Rugby Union are awaiting a verdict following their IRB misconduct hearing before an 'Independent' disciplinary committee, relating to the alleged "misconduct" of Springbok players for wearing white armbands during the third Test against the British and Irish Lions on July 4.

Their actions were a symbol of solidarity and protest for Botha, following the upholding of his two-week suspension by an appeal committee for dangerously charging into a ruck and taking out prop Adam Jones without binding on a player.

Before, I believed that the arm band protest was perhaps not the ideal way of addressing a very serious problem in the game at the time, but after reflecting on the subsequent events I have changed my mind. The protest was against an unfair system established by the IRB that has led to glaring inconsistencies that impact on match results, individual pay and reputations. This was touched upon in detail by my colleague, so I will avoid going down the road again.

However, if SA Rugby President Oregan Hoskins had come out after the Botha ban and publicly accused the IRB's disciplinary process of being totally inconsistent and said his team were sick of getting the rough end of the pineapple, it's unlikely that there would have been a "Justice 4" arm band protest to begin with.

But following this Giteau incident, SARU would have plenty of ammo to fire at the IRB and their precious citing committee, but it may be too late... either that or the panel, like David Gray, will be wearing bullet proof vests. Untouchables, whereas any Springbok player is not.

By Dave Morris