Bakkies ruling could change game - Smit

03 July 2009 (11:51)

John Smit © Gallo Images

Springboks captain John Smit hopes Bakkies Botha was being victimised when he was hit by a two-week ban after the second test against the British and Irish Lions. Otherwise the game of rugby could be changing, he said.

South Africa lock Botha was suspended for a dangerous charge on Lions prop Adam Jones in the second test that left the Welshman with a dislocated shoulder. Botha lost his appeal against the ban and will miss the final test on Saturday.

Springboks flanker Schalk Burger also received an eight-week ban after the game for gouging.

"We are deeply saddened and angered more than anything else by the outcome of the Bakkies Botha appeal," Smit told a news conference in Johannesburg on Friday.

"I hope and pray it's just a case of Bakkies being victimised. If it's not, then it could change this wonderful game we play."

South Africa took an unassailable 2-0 lead in the series after winning a brutal encounter in Pretoria 28-25.

Smit said the incident that led to Botha's suspension was part and parcel of every rugby game and suggested the decision could set an unwanted precedent.

"Sanity did not prevail at the appeal and I've had referees phoning me, and support from the Lions management and players that it is very concerning for the future of the game.

"Unfortunately Adam Jones got injured purely because his arm was stuck in the ruck. If Bryan Habana is running down the wing as fast as a cheetah, it would be really poor for the game to make him slow down in case he hurts the tackler."

BAD BLOOD

Smit, who captained South Africa to World Cup glory in 2007, said he expected Saturday's test to be an excellent contest and hoped it would be played in a good spirit.

"I sincerely hope there's no bad blood between the two teams. Rugby's all about running into each other at a million miles an hour and tackling each other at a million miles an hour, stitching oneself up afterwards and sharing a beer," Smit said.

"There is still a massive amount for us to play for because we don't get the opportunity to play against the Lions for another 12 years.

"It's been a phenomenal series, although it's probably easier for me to say that as the captain that's won."

Smit acknowledged the difficulties the Lions face on tour but said the concept was one envied by other teams.

"The challenge the Lions have is far greater than any other team we face because they have a limited amount of time to gel," he said.

"They spend the Six Nations smashing each other and then they have to come together and create a brotherhood. They've created that camaraderie on this tour and I think the Lions are really envied by other teams."

Read more on the British & Irish Lions page.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

by Tim_79 July 3, 2009 10:05 GMT

I couldn't agree more! There was nothing wrong with Bakkies' charge - it's not like he was eye gouging or anything like that. Just looking at the poll on this website (80% saying that it was a harsh decision) it would appear that the vast majority agree.

by Pieter Gildenhuys July 3, 2009 10:09 GMT

Yeh...rediculous outcome for Bakkies. It was a textbook cleanout!

by Gideon July 3, 2009 11:17 GMT

80% vote was south african ! can we just play the ball!

by Robert Szabo July 3, 2009 13:42 GMT

You have to ask yourself where this is all leading. Are we headed toward Rugby League here?

by Brian Jardine July 3, 2009 14:55 GMT

Rugby is leading down a dangerous path in the refereeing too. If you recall, when the ref was asking the TMO about Jacques Fourie's try in the second test, Bryce Lawrence (who annoys me to no end), actually came in from the Assistant Referee (touch judge) role and basically told him (Berdos, who's even more annoying) how to ask the question. He said something like, "you must ask him if there was...". In the first test, a similar, but far more embarrassing thing happened. Bryce Lawrence, the referee this time, went to Berdos, the TMO this time, to confirm the Monye try. When seeing that Jean De Villiers had dislodged the ball in the in-goal area, Berdos' responded "Bryce, I have a decision. The ball was not touch in-goal." Then, Berdos proceeds to tell Bryce Lawrence it should be an attacking scrum! Ha, ha. The TMO tells the ref what the result of the play should be? No, I don't think so. The best part is...Bryce Lawrence begins to argue with him. "Why scrum 5 red, though?" - Lawrence "Because, zah, zah, green player, played the ball after (couldn't hear the rest) dead line." Berdos "The green player played the ball here or in in-goal?" - Lawrence "Yah, it's a scrum 5 red" - Berdos "Why, though?" - Lawrence "Attacking scrum" - Berdos "You need.." - Lawrence "Attacking scrum" - Berdos "Yeah, you need to tell me why it's a scrum 5" - Lawrence "Because, zah, zah, green player on the floor played the ball...an ah" - Berdos "In the field of play or in in-goal?" - Lawrence "No, it was in-goal" - Berdos "Ok, it's a 22 then" - Lawrence

by Addi July 3, 2009 15:24 GMT

it's really ridiculous to have a non english speaking ref in such a high level international match! Bryce did the right thing to overrule the TMO decision for the 5m scrum, and I think that's why he intervenend also on last Saturday, because Berdos can't speak english!!! What a dissaster. Instructions like "you goo baak , caus yooou knooow wat I meen!"

by Rugbywinner July 4, 2009 15:12 GMT

The problem with SA are they are over emphasizing the physical encounter. It's key, no doubt but the are so focused on the hit and maiming the man they have no focus left for the skill component. Too much force and not enough intelligence = losing the game against smarter men.

by Jonathan Botha July 4, 2009 21:30 GMT

I have been trying to figure out who this so called citing committee is made of... The one that banned Botha and Burger in the second test. Can somebody please tell me or give me some leads. I would like to read about their findings.

by paddy spanishman July 4, 2009 21:39 GMT

Look the hit was what it was, a nasty charge that Botha thought he'd get away with. It is against the rules, problem is its something that's always ignored by refs, so why wouldn't BB think he could do it? I don't think Rules will have to change like Smit claims, just the interpretation of them. Christ the reffing in the first test was a joke, well pointed out Brian

by Brasileiro July 5, 2009 06:40 GMT

Bad. Bakkies deserved it because he saw an opportunity and went in deliberately to cause harm to another player. He did not go in with arms extended or with both shoulders, just one shoulder dropped. SA have benifitted many times from All Blacks tackling with only one shoulder. If we let Bakkies drop his shoulder into every ruck, will you let Nonu, Toeava, So'oialo, Thompson, Sivivatu and McCaw drop their shoulder when they tackle you?

by Aisea T. Tuikolovatu July 5, 2009 16:14 GMT

Bakkies & the Boks have a history of very cunning dangerous/dirty play. I am surprised Bakkies only got two weeks based on his history. Just watch the way they play super 14 & international. You won't have any problem finding this kind of dirt from them. Watch the way they conveniently rest their knee or elbow on a helpless on the ground during rucks. Look at the #6 getting two hands grip on BIL #9 and just dump him on the ground. It is worse when the Boks go all out supporting it. In lay man's term they are condoning it from fans, players, coches, to the organisation. Let us be a little more civilized about an obvious situation that an injury was the result.

by Steve Gichuki July 5, 2009 21:52 GMT

Watch B Botha on super14 does the same thing and doesn't get penaliesed ... Actually no one gets hurt ... Adams had a sore shoulder and Bakies knock was the last straw on the camels back that made the whole thing look so dangerous .

by Pdivvy July 6, 2009 11:41 GMT

May as well play touch rugby the way its going.

by Patrick Walsh July 6, 2009 16:29 GMT

The law requires that players joining the ruck must bind on their side. One can not bind (on any side) if all they are doing is dropping their shoulder. This is just another example at the top level of play where the laws are ignored. Another example are rucks where players joining rucks are to stay on their feet. The purpose of this is to allow contesting of the ball. So many top level matches allow players to lay on the ground and lay on other players rather than staying on their feet. It becomes embarrassing when new players see these matches and ask why they need to stay on their feet when the best players in the world don't. It's a shame that the top level coaches coach this type of play and the refs ignore these infrinegments to the laws.

by Walter Schuffert July 7, 2009 22:27 GMT

The Botha ruling was a bad one. Perhaps the problem is the way Bakkies plays the game on a regular basis. Bakkies is a dirty thug. He takes cheap shot after cheap shot. In my opinion, he is the dirtiest player in first class rugby. He should not have been suspended for the clean out. However, there are many other situations that should have seen him in the bin and behind bars. I don't want the game changed, but Botha needs to clean up his act.

Name:
Email:
Comments:

	Australia
	New Zealand
	South Africa