Rugby Union

Partly Sunny with Showers 13° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

James Lawton: Authorities must blow away stench of Burger

The posturing of Bakkies Botha was also a travesty of sportsmanship

There were reasons to believe the Lions tour would end in tears, but it was hard to imagine that they would be quite so filled by such a toxic combination of rage and disgust. This is only an overwrought sentiment if you believe that it is acceptable anywhere in international sport, even among its very dregs, its sleaziest corners, to allow a player to remain on the field after a psychopathic act that caused him to defile everything and everyone he subsequently touched.

Schalk Burger happens to be an outstanding flanker, the winner of 50 caps and, no, perhaps he isn't Hannibal Lecter, but if seeking out and gouging the eye of an opponent not much more than half your size who is lying on his back at the time is not evidence of psychopathic behaviour, not stripped of all conscience or awareness of consequences, it is hard to know what is.

The world saw Burger do this and so did a touch judge, who behaved admirably in all but the uttering of a sentence, which should haunt him and the rest of the game until another such outrage comes along, but of course won't. The offending words of advice to the referee were: "At least a yellow card."

What do you have to do to stitch on a red card? It is maybe just a little too easy to heap all the blame on the perceived moral cowardice of French referee Christophe Berdos, who settled for that least possible punishment for reasons he alone knows but at which we can only speculate, because surely there is nothing logical, or moral, to support his decision.

No doubt he was aware that to reduce the Springboks to 14 men so early in the Boer temple of Loftus Versfeld would have made him the least popular man on the highveld – and bring serious imbalance to a much anticipated Test match. Whatever the reason, Berdos failed both the game and himself, but then how seriously did he let down a rugby world which, like it or not, sees some degree of institutionalised violence as an integral part of the game's appeal?

Here we wade into rugby's moral vacuum. The cavern was dug even deeper by the South African coach, Peter de Villiers, whose appointment many saw as having limited virtue beyond an affirmation of a new South Africa – and a new South African rugby where skin colour, theoretically but not practically, as we saw in his landing the job, was no longer of significance. But then after Saturday what has De Villiers come to represent? Is it a bold new day for South African rugby or, in his sickening dismissal of the significance of Burger's behaviour, a tolerance of some of the worst sins of rugby's past and present?

Here was De Villiers on the Burger affair: "I don't think he should have been carded at all. If you dissect the whole game you will see yellow cards that were missed. This is sport. This is what it is all about. People have their opinions and we will honour whatever is decided, but we don't have a problem with it." Not least shocking is the idea that the South African rugby authorities will fail to indicate that they have a problem with a coach capable of such a statement.

No doubt the Lions did not behave entirely in the way of the angels and it is difficult to argue with the suggestion that Brian O'Driscoll might have received 10 minutes in the sin bin if he hadn't already consigned himself for a stint in La-La land with a hit on Danie Rossouw that did not seem to be distinguished by any obvious attempt at a legal tackle. O'Driscoll has had a magnificent tour and fully vindicated those who said how dull it was of the selectors to hand the captaincy to his Irish team-mate Paul O'Connell. But then in the Rossouw matter he crossed the line, albeit out in the open as a full-blown hit man, not some big snake lumbering in the grass. Lawrence Dallaglio described the collision as awesome, and so it was. But legal? Almost certainly not.

The Test was certainly thrilling if you could get the stench of Burger out of your nostrils and it confirmed the belief sown in Durban the week before that, as a force of imagination and style, the Lions had had no reason to be sheepish in Pretoria.

And nor were they, with inspiring performances from Rob Kearney at the back and Simon Shaw almost everywhere. We know all about the virtues of the world champions and their victory, while cruel on the Lions, was another example of a superior competitive streak. However, if ever a triumph demanded a huge asterisk it was this one. Whatever anyone did, it was contaminated by the action of Burger.

The posturing of Bakkies Botha was in a different category but it was also a travesty of sportsmanship, a leering, bully-boy performance that fully justified his disciplinary citing alongside Burger.

So what happens to the Lions now? They go to Johannesburg no doubt in search of a little revenge, but what they will not be able to dislodge is the idea that perhaps the very concept of their existence is all played out. They went to South Africa insufficiently rested, prepared and respected. They were obliged to knock over second-rate, if sometimes vicious, opposition, while the cream of the world champions rested up for their visits to the big stages.

The impression that the current Lions are the remnants of a once great tradition can only be underlined by the fact that for a second successive tour they go into the final game with nothing to play for but their pride.

Players like O'Driscoll and Stephen Jones deserve something more than such long-odds experience. If the Lions are to live, and perhaps roar again, they have to be once more regarded as an adornment of rugby rather than an inconvenience, albeit a money-spinning one.

As it was, in Pretoria they were the victims of an appalling mugging. A great Test? Maybe in some respects but, still, pass one of those aerosols that sweeten the air.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Names Names
[info]tonz10 wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 02:57 am (UTC)
Wow! Savagery, brutality ... what other words do you want to throw in? Yes what Burger did was not professional and should be eradicated. Good thing he got done for 8 weeks. Now the Boks have a replacement for him - Brussow. It is not as if the Lions were little angels - Adam Jones got away with more if his share on the day. For the rest get hard. The Boks and for that matter any team playing the Loins are playing a combination team made up of four Nations! Can you imagine a combination side beween Boks, All Blacks and Wallabies playing individual countries. Which shock words will you use then - barbaric, bullies and any other words you can think of to make derogatory remarks. We don't hear the Wallabies or All Blacks complaining when playing the Boks or the other way around. Rugby is a hard game so just play it out or start playing netball. Poor little Lions Tsk Tsk
One sided point of view.
[info]vabond wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:02 am (UTC)
Firstly, I don't want to condone what Burger did, it was disgusting. What is the authors viewpoint on Sheridan punching Bekker in the groin, or O'Driscoll's 2 high hits with swinging arms, which ended 3 players game (Jenkins, Russouw and his own). Or what about Shaw's continuous high tackles, or O'Connell's stranglehold on Smith. Look rugby is a physical game and tough, and what Burger did was completely inexcusable, and he will be punished. But to label SA rugby as savage and brutal, and the whole Springbok team as thugs is just one-sided and biased.
[info]afrehley wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC)
Oh get over yourself. And off your high horse at the same time.

Would YOU have dished out a red card under the same circumstances - right at the start of a test match, without the benefit of a replay? And if the offender was O'Dricoll?

Speaking of BoD, this is what you wrote: "Lawrence Dallaglio described the collision as awesome, and so it was. But legal? Almost certainly not."

Almost certainly not? Almost? How long after the test did you write this article? Did you have the benefit of replays, discussing with your fellow journalists, listening to the commentary? And you still don't know whether the tackle was legal or not?

You are either dishonest or a coward. At least the referee made his decisions right there and then according to the best of his ability.
Just stop moaning and except defeat
[info]damascuswil wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 09:42 am (UTC)
Is this tennis, no this is rugby, I agree we all want a fair ref and fair play , I don't think what Burger did should be condone nor any illigal tacktics , but by complain all the time you take te shine of the lions team. The where great , best backline play I have seen in a long time, or the way the props came back after last week but all of this is shrouded in bitterness, complaining and sadness. The Boks wasnt the best team, they look rusty , but they still beat you and by saying Burger should have been sent off with a red you are acctually saying that the lions can only win with 14 players on the field. Rugby isnt always how you win , but also how you loose and I knew if the boks lost they would excepted gracious defeat and be ready next week. Take off your red sunglasses and get you some contacts please. It wasnt ballet it was war.
yellow card
[info]indieme1 wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 10:27 am (UTC)
The SA coach's comments were made immediately after the match before there was a citing. So dont try and vilify him and paint all of SA rugby ina bad light - of course the SA coaches and management do not condone gouging or off-the-ball stuff. The Lions are not innocent either and they should've received 3 yellow cards for persistent infringements and some off the ball stuff - Sheridan for example.

Bakkies is now made to look like the guilty party, but he was goaded throughout the match by at least 3 Lions, and he kept smiling and playing the game - taking it and dishing it out. Seems the Lions only want to dish it out. If a team tries to play hard against SA, you need to make sure you can stand the heat - or get out the kitchen.

Besides all that though - the ref was terrible and spoilt the game. I dont think O'Gara's challenge was worth a penalty. Unfortunately for the Lions, that one dodgy refereeing decision went SA's way for a change.
????
[info]greigp wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 11:30 am (UTC)
Why oh why do the NH celebrate mediocrity and failure, you lost. It was a collosal meeting of two powerful teams but unfortunately or fortunately depending on who you support the Boks are 2-0 up.

Is Burger the first person to do eye gouge, didnt the sainted Martin Johnson get pinged for a similar offence? What he did was not right but to infer you should have won by a numericasl advantage is pathetic!!! Was this in the game plan? If it was who is the dirty team? The facts are the ref was crap, yes but not to the Lions detrement as you stated BOD should have been carded, what about Sheridan punching to the groin, or is that ok?
Face it the Lions came to try and bully and bash SA around and came off second best to a team playing hard but not dirty, big difference!!!!!

Edwards forgets to mention the 2 tries scored from phase1 set pieces, not a regular occurence in test rugby? Isnt he the defense coach?

When Aus lost the 2003 world cup by a last minute drop goal they accepted it and congratulated the winners. If the boks had lost either of the last 2 matches no one would have called us heros we would have faced the cold hard facts and analysed what we did wrong not to close the match out.
Test rugby is not charity and no one deserves to win, winning is earned through 80 minutes of rugby played right up until the final whistle.
Grow up people and have some dignity instead of making your selves look like fools, SA would have been the first to shake the Lions hands and say well done, fair play if the results had been different.

Greig
Not your best
[info]bsolan wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC)
I have the utmost respect for James Lawton - superb sports journalist, great articles and insight. I reckon someone ghosted the article above. Nobody will disagree with the condemnation of Burger's action although even the likes of ex-Lion John Robbie wants to hear Burger speak about it as it was totally out of character. That said the pictures don't lie and he should be treated as Alan Quinlan was (didn't see any 'stench of Quinlan' articles after the Heineken semi though but then again, you can't eat a 'Quinlan').

The Lions had a gameplan to intimidate - how else can you explain how a shrewd experienced player like O'Driscoll took on the normally mild-mannered Matfield early in the game? Totally out of character for the Irish captain so obviously some thought had gone into it. It made for great entertainment I thought and almost worked with the Boks only getting their composure back in the 2nd half.
Cheese anyone?
[info]frazer123 wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC)
James - would you like a little cheese with that whine? Journalists like you - not to mention the Lions players and coaching staff - are the reason the Lions will be remembered as bunch on whingers after this tour. What Burger did has no place in rugby and he has been duly punished, but the Lions came to Loftus for a war and a war is what they got. They came off second best and now the Boks are labeled dirty? Just face the facts - you lost to a better team - you threw the kitchen sink at the Boks and it caught up with you big time in the second half. The Lions can only match the Boks physically for 40 minutes, but what you all have to realize is that the Boks can keep taking it and dishing it out for 80. One last thing - I would like to thank that fool O Driscoll for taking Danie Russouw and himself out of the game with that 'AWESOME' illegal-no-arms-shoulder-head-high "tackle". An absolute stroke of genius that brought on Brussouw and lost you the game. Lawrence Dallaglio was spot on - it was awesome indeed!
Jaundiced Eye
[info]ruggajugga wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 05:38 pm (UTC)
This has got to be the most vitriolic, sensationalist drivel I have yet to read. Get over the loss Lawton, you moron! If this is what it takes for you to get over it, so be it, but your editor should be fired! By implication, no I do not condone what Burger did. What everyone fails to comment on is this: The punishment should match the crime, and the severity of the crime should be judged by the injury sustained. Sure it didn't look good, and Fitzgerald possibly gave it a lot of mileage infront of the touch judge, like your footbalers typically do, but what of the injury itself??????? No comment on that, Lawton you moron. The player looked absolutely fine shortly afterwards and there is huge difference between gouging and a bit of a sliding finger pressure over the eyelid. Nuf said....

Julian (yes from SA)
Morons
[info]oomigoolies wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC)
Judging by the quality of spelling, syntax and general lack of awareness of the rules of sentence and paragraph construction, I venture to say that all the posters so far have been the usual neanderthal thumbs-in-their-shoes tunnel-visioned South African dumbos.
missing the point
[info]ruggajugga wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 07:10 pm (UTC)
what he did was reprehensible. on that we all agree. the author assmes the high ground and in doing so is blinded to the misdemeanors of his beloved lions. they came out to counter agression with agression and were over zealous in their futile attempts to beat the boks at their own game. in short they came out second best, and in their bitter dissapointment at losing the battle, sought to find solice labeling the opposition as dirty.

how many spelling errors, oomigoolies? how's the syntax? you remind me of the shool masters roger waters was so fond of
dam, another one!
[info]ruggajugga wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 07:43 pm (UTC)
maybe I are a neanderthal...
The Stench?
[info]jonvuti wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 09:13 pm (UTC)
James, that stench might dissipate if you pulled your head out your posterior and actually did some objective reporting instead of climbing onboard the sloppy spin machine that is churning out 'any story' but the elephant in the sitting room: the failure of the over-hyped British Lions to defeat a below par SA team.

4 more long years before you'll get another chance to march everyone up to the top of the hill and then drop them down again..so I guess the 'toxic rage' is understandable, from a purely anthropological point of view that is.

What a Load of rubbish!
[info]shrek2003 wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 09:21 pm (UTC)
Sick to death of hearing from the South African apologists. What Burger did deserved longer than 8 weeks. Who says so? Well the IRB recommend a minimum of 12 so where does the citing officer get 8 from? Probably the same place the kiwi line judge gets yellow for an offence that is surely a mandatory red. Not going to get into the rest as there were offences on both sides however the reason the test was so brutal is because there was a pathetic set of match officials ho had no idea how to control it. As soon as the players know they can get away with something they will. If South Africa want to congratulate themselves that they have the biggest thugs in the yard then well done sure you are all justly proud.
Lots of sick comments here ...
[info]fredhollows wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 11:47 pm (UTC)
... there is simply no excuse for sticking your fingers in someone's eyes. The number of gouging incidents is on the rise in rugby and no surprise, as the banning periods get shorter. What are the authorities waiting for before banning people for life? Someone to be blinded? Whether it's Quinlan, Parisse or Burger, these thugs are ruining the sport and with the compliance of senior officials will only succeed in young mums steering little Johnny away from the sport. 8 weeks is an abomination for an assault on someone's eyesight. Revolting.
Lions supporters for Nobel Peace Prize
[info]unclebulleye wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 11:46 pm (UTC)
80 minutes of rugby, 70min against 14 men and you lose. You blame the ref, the linesman, the tv ref, kiwis, congested intinery, eye gouge, collisions and the neandethals. Actually you also blamed the ref for the first test, the lack of crowds, illegal scrums and weak opposition. Lions players have also protested, calling their opponents disgusting, implying dirty off the ball play and, ultimately not shaking hands.

Goodness knows what you'll spew forth if you lose the third.
South Africa - Black Hole
[info]finbank wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 05:16 am (UTC)
James Lawton's piece on Burger sums up the whole foul mess perfectly. South African rugby has a stench of about it.

They have a manager who clearly sends his players into a match to use any means to achieve victory, did Saturday's half time talk include a conversation about the need to curb the opposition props, and who was tasked with taking them out of the game ?

Bryan Habana was pumped up in both tests and uncharacteristically confrontational, was this adrenilin or drug induced ?

I suggest the Lions management bring the team home now and make a clear statement that they won't contemplate sending another team until the South African clean up their act.


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today