Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: Schalk Burger suspended for wild tackle

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Schalk Burger suspended for wild tackle

South Africa have suffered a huge blow after losing star flanker Schalk Burger for the next four matches.

Burger last night received a four-match ban after being cited for a dangerous tackle on Samoan scrum-half Junior Polu during the Springboks' 59-7 Pool A victory in Paris on Sunday.

It means Burger, who has 48 hours to appeal the decision, will miss his country's remaining pool games against England, Tonga and the United States.

He is also set to sit out a potential quarter-final against either Australia or Wales in Marseille on the opening weekend of October.

Schalk is a robust player who gives 120% every match. This means the tournament will be without the former IRB Player of the Year, until the semi final stages anyway. Four matches is harsh in my opinion, especially considering neither the touch judge or ref viewed this as a yellow card offence.

The IRB are clearly laying down the law on dirty play though, which at the end of the day is a good thing.

Update: Burger and the Springboks appealed this decision, and this morning it was ruled that he will only be suspended for TWO matches, not four. So he will miss the crunch match against England tomorrow, but will be available should South Africa make the quarter finals.

Labels: Schalk Burger, World Cup 2007

There are no words left to describe the debacle that is the Rugby Judiciary....Boths players had their eye on the ball, one kept his footing the other lost his and fell...if Schalk had got the ball first would they have cited the Samoan - I think not!

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 9:44 am
I cant believe you guys do not have footage of Tuilagi taking on the entire SA third row (and winning)..

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 10:43 am
what a huge bonus for england the loss of firstly de villiers and now burger gives england half a chance. the last times burger didnt play for SA they lost the next 5 games. Forget about vickery he's not that good or that much of a leader any way.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 10:47 am
Nothing wrong with that.
He went for the ball.
The other guy unfortunately got hurt, but that shouldn't be a ban for Burger - and I'm English

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 11:49 am
The USA- Player got for an realy dangerous spear-tackle just one week more than Burger for that!

Cheeting!!!

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 12:18 pm
There is no consistency in the judiciary - two weeks for a deliberate kick, five for a deliberate attempted-murder spear tackle, and 4 for a honest, even if ill-timed, challenge for the ball. I'm well pissed!

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 12:44 pm
guys look at it, he had him round the neck, that isnt legal, get over it, he cheated (cos he thought he could get away with it) as most players will do! and unfortunately for him he was caught! that attempt could just as easily break a neck!

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 1:13 pm
It looks as if Burger wraps his arms round the guys neck after missing the ball, tho it could be he had his eyes shut.. Guess only Schalk knows, i reckon it was probably a bit of both.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 1:14 pm
He hit a player who did not have the ball, in the air, around the neck. He managed to commit three penalties for dangerous play in one move, that's almost impressive. The ban is harsh, but not unjustifiable.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 1:24 pm
I think the ban is insanely harsh.. to be fair it was dangerous.. but to be banned for 4 matches is as gd as kicking him out of the world cup.. it wasnt as deliberate as the trip by the english.. i feel the IRB has screwed up the system with the lack of consistency on punishing the players.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 2:50 pm
slightly harsh punishment but that was illegal and he clearly realised he wasn't getting the ball so tried to take the guy out. You guys who say it wasn't foul play are clearly SA and we all know you're insanely biased!!

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 3:38 pm
That is insanely dangerous play by Burger! Standard. Fully justifies a 4 week ban. Yes, 4 weeks is as good as kicking him out of the world cup. His fault. He has no regard for his body or those of others. I respect him as a great player, but he can't complain when he gets caught

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 3:49 pm
It was a dangerous contact situation and Burger showing his 150% commitment as usual did his best to try and get hold of that ball. The Samoan simply jumped before he did and Burger’s arm came down at a bad angle. There is now way this is a 4 match ban or even a yellow card at the time!!! The Hulk cant help it if he is stronger and bigger than the little Samoan.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 4:01 pm
All this punishment so far in the RWC is well and good.. But how come none of the Kiwis have been brought up???

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 4:30 pm
I'm sure the english coaching staff had a long talk with the irb after the samoa match to try and get burger out of the world cup.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 4:52 pm
There is just no way you can excuse the fact that Schalk put the Samoan in danger of injury that was needless and a two match ban I can totally understand. But to take one incident by the player in a match of that temperature in the detachment of an office and come to the conclusion that it merits a four week ban makes a joke of the process and undermines what the IRB are trying to achieve. To my mind you can only come to the conclusion of a four week ban if you impute a motive of deliberate intent and that isn't apparent in the video. Pathetic judgment call by the IRB and out of all proportion I say.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 5:17 pm
How about showing the Hayman punch I've heard a bit about?
And apparently Simon Shaw put his knees into someone.

I don't know what happened with Schalk but I think all us South African's are asking for is a bit of consistency, there were so many incidences, but they only pick a few, and probably some of the lesser ones at that.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 5:42 pm
being a kiwi. i could say yeah burger deserved it, but to be honest he got a rough deal. Habanas takeout of percy ( i think it was ) in the super 14 final was of about the same calibre but no probs. It could be argued that he was going for the ball. I feel for ya bro.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 6:19 pm
4 games! too much...
With luck he should get 1 game

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 6:52 pm
oh cmmon, SA will go to the next round, with burger in or not. In my opinion he wrapped his arm around the samoans neck without thinking, after he realized he couldnt get the ball.

By Anonymous, at September 12, 2007 10:49 pm
the samoan who head highs percy gets one week. lima doesnt even get cited. a trip gets 2 weeks, a well publicised spear tackle gets 5 weeks, and a dangerous contest for the ball in the air gets 4 weeks?

even my jerry collins himself is clear that this is a BS suspension.

By Anonymous, at September 13, 2007 12:49 am
We may be biased, but how biased is the commentary - that guy didn't even watch it again before he labelled Burger a cheat. I reckon these citings commisioners listen to the commentary too much.
Also think Limas tackle was a lot worse than Burger but he hasn't even been cited - bias? HMM! not just Saffa trait...

By Anonymous, at September 13, 2007 1:12 am
i'm not wholly unbiased, being an saffro-canadian, but i thought the penalty call was even a bit harsh the first time i saw it but i accepted it. the citing was garbage and the four game ban is a decroded piece of crap!
given the worldwide outcry over inconsistent judiciary this RWC, does anyone think they may lessen the sentence at the appeal today to appease the masses or will the powers that be stick to their evidently inaccurate guns?

By Unknown, at September 13, 2007 7:59 am
Hayman should be banned as well, haven't seen the shaw thing, if the irb are stapping down they need to do so across the board, and for once the same rules apply to NZ, disgraceful how they get away with these things!!

By Anonymous, at September 13, 2007 11:47 am
The ban is reduced to two weeks (or two games)! Fair enough imo!

By Anonymous, at September 13, 2007 11:59 am
What a load of bull. Two weeks for that? You must be joking! A normal high tacle is way worse than that. Most of his momentum was coming down, not forward. Give the penalty thats ok, But ban him for two games. Man, the IRB are crazy! All this banning players are not good for the game. Give them a hefty fine and let them play. The whole team musnt suffer because of one insident.

P.S Good acting by samoan player.

By Anonymous, at September 13, 2007 5:29 pm
Hey Hey guys i just want to say im samoan and that tackle was high so id say he might have deserved just 1 week not 4 thats what i think but i just think its the IRB who make it look worse than it already does!

By Anonymous, at September 14, 2007 8:28 am
Dangerous play... fair enough, but the commentary is ridiculous. Since when do we want referees "putting their mark on the game" as they put it

By Anonymous, at September 14, 2007 8:51 pm
As Tana Umaga used to say

"We're not playing tiddlywinks"

By Anonymous, at September 17, 2007 2:52 pm
It looked as if Burger went for the ball, saw he couldn't get it and brought the man down.

It was high, in the air and deserved a yellow AT LEAST.

By the way "just a fan", the Samoan clearly didn't lose his footing, he was mid-air clotheslined to the throat and fell, if Nuweinhuis' clothesline to Chabal's throat was a red, this was probably one to

By Anonymous, at October 06, 2007 3:34 pm
burger got punchd after this happend ..did they get cited? NO its bullshit..

By Anonymous, at June 30, 2008 9:21 pm