The escalating debate over the suspensions of Springbok flank Burger and lock Bakkies Botha took an intriguing twist on Monday when the South African Rugby Players Association (SARPA) raised "serious concerns" over the two-week suspension of Botha.

Burger was banned for eight weeks for "an act contrary to good sportsmanship" – by making contact with the face in the eye area of Fitzgerald during the Boks' series-clinching 28-25 win over the British and Irish Lions at the weekend.

Botha was banned for two weeks for "dangerously charging into a ruck without binding on a player" in the same match.

The Springbok camp has already indicated that they are considering appealing both bans - even though they are more likely to succeed with Botha than with Burger.

And the SARPA bosses, who obviously represents the Springbok players, hit out at what they felt was an injustice done to Botha.

"The two week suspension handed down to Bakkies [Botha] for dangerous rucking has caused concern and uncertainty amongst our members," SARPA CEO Piet Heymans said in a statement on Monday.

"South African players are coached to hit and attack rucks in a similar manner and fashion as was executed by Bakkies on Saturday and therefore this ruling is a cause for serious concern," Heymans added.

The statement went on to say that rugby is a contact sport and it is unfortunate that in a contact situation players will and do get injured and therefore it is of the utmost importance that players be coached and be prepared to deal with the contact situations.

"It is unfortunate that in the Bakkies instance a player got injured but at the same time during the match a number of other players cleared rucks in a similar manner and fashion as Bakkies did with no consequence.

"This leaves serious questions about what should players do in future when entering a ruck? Should players now be afraid of contact and taking each other on at rucks?

"South African players are known to be fierce contesters at rucks and do not shy away from contact and collision.

"Players are worried that this could be the beginning of a serious attempt to make rugby a less contact and physical competitive sport and in the process diminishing one of the strengths of the Springboks.

"The injured British Irish Lions player's body position was also not ideal when he was at the ruck and therefore it is important that players should always be alert and have the correct body position when they are defending a ruck," continued Heymans.

"Rugby is a professional sport and this decision not only prevents Bakkies from participating in a once in a life time final match against the B&I Lions but he is also losing a substantial amount of money in terms of his match fees and win bonus.

"We are of the opinion that the IRB should have an urgent and serious relook at Law 10.4 (j) as clarity is required by the players otherwise it will become an enormous problem area in the game and it will certainly lead to a situation where South African teams will be negatively affected as they are not scared of contact, but enjoy taking on the opposition and attacking rucks which have been used very successfully by South African players," concluded Heymans.

  • What do you make of the Bakkies ban? Comments below!

    365

    RSS
    Digg
    de.li.cious
    facebook
    LATEST FEATURES
    Vintage start to the Open Written in a castle with limited connectivity, Dan Nicholl talks up the Scottish experience.
    Is the Tri-Nations needed? (c) AFP iafrica.com columnist Jon Harris is struggling to get excited about the 2009 Tri-Nations.
    How to beat the 'bonk' (c) AFP With riders burning 10,000 calories per day, the right fuel is essential to avoid the 'bonk'.


    Print this page
    Send this article to a friend