After a few days reflection and viewing the footage of the incident again, I can’t say my opinion on the two week suspension given to Bakkies Botha for a dangerous charge has changed. That said, I think if the Springboks and the SARU had handled the situation better then the players and South African fans wouldn’t feel like they are quite the victims in this situation.

First here’s the footage again.

Now compare this with Jamie Heaslip’s hit from the third test.

Obvious differences are that Heaslip did not come through the gate and Botha joined with his head below his hips, both of which are illegal in addition to not binding onto a ruck as the player hits it.

So why is one worthy of a suspension and one is not? The unfortunate answer to that is the damage done, had Heaslip dislocated someone’s shoulder he would likely be facing some time on the sideline, but he didn’t so he got off lightly.

The fact that the damage caused by foul play is being taken into account for citings is a disturbing trend, perhaps it would be relevant when dishing out a suspension but not simply for the decision to cite a player.

Players joining a ruck without binding is rapidly becoming a blight on the game of rugby and needs to be stamped out before another player suffers a serious injury. This is not a South African thing or even a Northern Hemisphere vs Southern Hemisphere thing, most teams do it and they virtually all get away with it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal and dangerous.

So Botha sits out two weeks while other such as Heaslip and All Black Adam Thomson incur nothing but a penalty against them. But moaning about it, then donning arm bands like petulant children to express your displeasure is not the way to handle this from a public relations stand point, especially when your coach is all but claiming eye gouging is part of rugby.

Perhaps the first thing the SARU should have done is taken the ban on the chin, Botha missed a dead rubber test against the Lions, which he may not have played anyway given all the changes. Perhaps a press release could have then been issued that reads something like this.

Springbok Bakkies Botha has expressed his regret that his illegal hit on Lion Adam Jones has left the Welsh prop with a dislocated shoulder. Bakkies has already spoken to Adam on the phone and apologised for the act, saying that it was never his intention to cause and injury. Adam accepted Bakkies’ apology saying that it was an unfortunate incident in the heat of battle and he realises that these things can happen in a body contact sport.

However the SARU, in conjunction with the South Africa Rugby Players’ Association (SARPA), will be making a submission to the IRB that this suspension seems to be a case of selective enforcement. Many times during the course of a game players hit rucks in the manner Bakkies did, but without causing injury and are rarely even penalised.

Perhaps it is time for a clear directive from the IRB as to the legality of this type of clean out so that players, referees and fans can have a clearer understanding of our game.

We would also like to take this opportunity to say that South Africa has a long tradition of playing tough, physical but clean rugby. We in no way condone foul play and have accepted the suspensions handed down to two of our players for their action.

So you apologise, point out that you feel your player may have been unfairly singled out and ask the game’s governing body to clear up what could be perceived as a grey area in the laws. Suddenly it’s very hard for even the British press to spout their self righteous indignation from the roof tops because you’re agreeing with them.

I wonder if the Boks are looking for a new PR man…

In the third test against the British and Irish Lions the Springboks all wore white arm bands with the slogan “Justice 4″ as a protest over the suspension of lock Bakkies Botha, who was given a 2 match suspension for a dangerous clean out on Adam Jones which left the Welsh prop with a dislocated shoulder. Unfortunately for the Springboks, this is just another example in a long line of incidents where they view themselves as victims of the system, rather than taking responsibility.

Botha is hardly a player to be held up as a paragon of virtue who was hard done by in front of the judicial panel. Botha is one of those players you love to have on your team and hate when he’s in the opposition. Physical, abrasive and always in the action, some would call Botha dirty, others would argue he just plays hard.

His record, I think, speaks for itself. He began his test career by picking up a yellow card on debut against France for stamping, received an eight week ban for “attacking the face” of Wallaby Brendan Cannon who claimed he was both eye gouged and bitten, and was suspended for three weeks earlier this year for punching Phil Waugh during the Super 14.

The reason given for the protest by South African Rugby Players’ Association CEO Piet Heymans was perceived inconsistencies. “Bakkies hit a ruck just before the one in question in a similar style and was not penalised. The inconsistency has upset the players and they want to send a clear message that they require the IRB to have an urgent look at the law. We will be consulting our legal team next week to consider all our legal options available to assist Bakkies Botha and provide him with a sense of justice,” Heymans said.

So would it be that Botha’s biggest crime was getting caught? Not only does he hit this particular ruck without binding, he also goes in with he head below his hips, both of which are not allowed in the game of rugby.

Springbok coach Peter de Villiers also showed that perhaps the greatest crime committed by Schalk Burger, who was given a limp eight week suspension for eye gouging, when he tried to deflect blame away from Burger pointing out other perceived incidents. “In the first minute already there had been a lot of needle and if you watch the whole game you will see how many yellow cards they were let off,” de Villiers said.

So once again South African rugby is trying to play the part of the victim here, ignoring the fact that Jones will now require surgery on his shoulder and will miss six months of action, and the victim of Burger’s eye gouge, Luke Fitzgerald, could have potentially suffered a life altering injury. Oh no! These are not the true victims here, the victims are the South African players who were caught and punished for their rugby crimes while others are free to continue playing. Yeah right!

After hearing Springbok coach Peter de Villiers’s comments about the Schalk Burger eye gouging incident I am now completely convinced that de Villiers is a dickhead.

The incident has completely overshadowed what was a magnificent test and when fans should be talking about how it was the most exciting game of rugby played this year, instead we are comparing bans for similar offenses and discussing de Villiers’s moronic comments.

First of all I want to look at how the officials handled it, as they have come under a bit of fire. Assistant referee Bryce Lawrence spotted the offense after just 32 seconds and correctly put his flag out and reported the incident to referee Christophe Berdos. Language difficulties meant Berdos, whose English is sub par to be refereeing at this level, was originally going to award only a penalty against Berger. Lawrence then informed him that this sort of offense warrants “at least a yellow card.”

This sort of thing from an assistant referee annoys me because he’s really wimping out, Lawrence doesn’t want to make the decision for Berdos but at the same time is trying to guide him to the right decision. Secondly officials seem to have an aversion to dishing out a red card early in games as it essentially ends the contest but sometimes this is the right thing to do. This is why I like guys like George Ayoub, they aren’t afraid to make the decisions.

Now on to de Villier’s dickheadedness. After the game de Villiers told reporters that he didn’t think it should have been a card at all. Rugby’s three greatest sins are boots to an opponent’s head, biting and gouging, even if unintentional these are all severely frowned upon and to suggest that Burger should have been allowed to remain on the field is lunacy of the highest level.

After watching the footage again de Villiers changed his tune slightly, claiming that Burger didn’t do it on purpose and that he is “an honourable man”. Looking at the footage as a neutral I think you’d have to be pretty one eyed to think Burger didn’t do what he did on purpose, but then again look at what his coach is saying.

De Villiers went even further trying to claim that the Lions were somehow soft or that foul play was somehow part of the game. “It is a contact sport and so is dancing. Guys who can’t take it, let’s go to the nearest ballet shop and get some tutus”, De Villiers said.

Finally, to complete the utterly psychotic circle, de Villiers has issued a joint press statement with SARU president Oregan Hoskins saying, “We would like to apologise to the rugby community for the erroneous impression that acts of foul play are in any way condoned by South African rugby. That has never been the case and is not now, and we support strong action by rugby authorities when such acts occur.”

Really? Because the pathetic eight week ban is a slap on the wrist over what should be a very serious charge. Just for comparison, Italian captain Sergio Parisse was also given an eight week ban at the weekend for eye gouging, but in his case the citing commissioner accepted his defense that it was accidental, Burger’s case had no such mitigating factors.

Before the tour potential Lion’s flanker Alan Quinlan received a 12 week ban for eye gouging, while Fijian winger Seru Rabeni, who plays for Gloucester, received 14 weeks for the same offense. In fact, according to the IRB regulations, the recommended minimum sanction for “contact with the eye or eye area” is 12 weeks.

So it seems we have a perfect storm of incompetence all around, officials getting it wrong on the field, judical officer give an absurdly light punishment, and a coach defending the indefensible.

But perhaps I should leave the final word to Sir Clive “I sucked all the fun out of the last Lion’s tour” Woodward who said, “Eye gouging is usually picked up by the camera. If a referee or touch judge sees an eye gouging incident, you’ve got to go straight off the field, just a red card.” He then couldn’t resist bringing up old ghosts, “In my last tour we lost O’Driscoll after one minute and you should have had the same situation of losing a top player here.”