Schalk Burger got dragged into the “Bloodgate” scandal at Harlequins club this weekend. Harlequins Director of Rugby was slapped with a three-year ban for his involvement in the faking of blood.
Richard’s lawyer Mark Gay argued on Sunday that his punishment was “disproportionate.” He cited the eight-week ban given Burger following an eye-gouging citing in June.
“I think it is excessive in the context,” Gay told BBC Radio 5.
“You have to look at what the offense was. What the player was involved with was feigning injury and, to my mind, feigning injury is less serious than causing injury and Schalk Burger got eight weeks for gouging.
“To my mind, it’s a very savage sanction, disproportionate, and really is one which in all conscience, ERC (European Rjg by Club) should not have imposed,” Gay said.
“He has taken full responsibility for what has happened,” Gay said. “I really do think the committee should have taken account of that.
“Of course the cover up really hurts you more than the offense itself, but even in the context of that it’s a savage ban to impose – a ban which could in all intents and purposes have been a life ban on a person like Dean, who has given his life to the game.”
Some of you may not know the exact details of the scandal as we don’t always follow Northern Hemisphere rugby as we do when our local teams are involved. Below is an article on what happened that day.
Fake Blood Used In Harlequins Rugby
Total Pro Sports – It is amazing how far some will go to help lead their team to victory. While some would be willing to take a few punches in order to change the momentum, others have shown that they have no problem with cheating. Look no further than Boston’s beloved franchises.
In England, the notion of cheating was taken to a whole new level.
It was all part of a plan put together by Harlequins’ director of rugby Dean Richards, and club physio Steph Brennan. Richards ordered Brennan to purchase a pack of blood capsules from a Clapham joke shop. The capsules were to be used by players in order to fake injuries during a Heineken Cup match against Leinster.
The player they used as their subject was Quins full-back Tom Williams, a young but promising player who obliged when asked to commit the act.
Willliams admits that when he was handed the fake blood capsule on the pitch by Brennan he put it in his sock and then pulled it out after a contact situation and tried to bite on it. The capsule fell out of his mouth, forcing him to pick it up and and try the whole process again in full view of the sold-out stadium and television cameras. [ThisIsLondon.co.uk]
When officials of Leinster began yelling that the blood was not real, Williams asked the club doctor Wendy Chapman to cut the inside of his lip with a scalpel.
The pantomime nature of the incident continued in the medical rooms under the stand with Williams and Dr Chapman initially having to avoid the gaze of doubting officials and find a room where they could cut his lip. A picture was taken of the cut which was neatly done and did not require any stitches.
In a hearing on the incident, Williams claimed that he was given a lucrative offer of compensation by club chairman Charles Jillings, and chief executive Mark Evans if he agreed to hide the complete details of the situation by making a “limited” appeal. The offer included compensation for a 12-month ban, a new four-year contract, and an offer of employment with the team following his retirement. This move was made in a effort to prevent the team from receiving a Heineken Cup ban and relegation.
Williams had refused such offers and has come forth with the complete details, which were uncovered during the hearing. He was given a 4-month ban for his involvement in Bloodgate, while Richards has received a 3-year ban, Brennan got a 2-year ban, and the club was fined £259,000.
What may have initially seemed like a good idea for the Harlequins rugby club has turned into a costly one. Next time Harlequins are looking for blood, they should consider just asking their players to bite his tongue during the game, rather than later on at the hearing.
Cheating like this is unacceptable and I am sure we all agree. But what punishment is really fair? Was Schalk lucky to get only 8 weeks? Is a three year ban too much? Do other teams also cheat, with Quins just stupid enough to be caught? Is faking a blood injury to get a kicker on the field different than faking an “injury” to a prop to force uncontested scrums?
What are your thoughts?
Cheating is not Jan-like!
I cant believe he actually carried the fake blood in this sock during the game!
Well this clown’s argument falls straight out of the bus as Schalk was NOT found guilty of eye-gouging in the first place, his ban was for having his hands in the facial area of the player but he was found NOT GUILTY of gouging.
Get your facts straight Gay plonker.
As for cheating, it is quite simple.
Do not get caught!!!
I mentioned this when this so-called ‘scandal’ broke, cheating in rugby has been going on for bloody years, fake blood is no different than faking a knee injury with no blood. Players and teams will look to manipulate the laws to their advantage every single bloody time they get a chance to.
As coach I did exactly the same as a coach.
And funnily enough, it was also a case of uncontested scrums.
The prop that played for us was not 80 minute match fit, but we did not have a choice, as we had no-one else who could play prop.
The guys just about collapsed at one time and could not even walk off the field so tired was he, we did not have another prop but he was not injured either, end result, I instructed our doctor to get the player off on medical grounds that he could not continue, and we had to move to uncontested scrums.
The opposing team opposed this, citing we could use our 2nd team prop, but this was a 19 year old kid who was supposed to go scrum down against a 30-odd year old veteran in a 1st team game after completing a full 80 minute game only 30 minutes ago??? I said not-te-fok, ain’t going to happen and the ref agreed with me.
End result, uncontested scrums, in which we got murdered throughout the match btw, and we scored a try in the final move of the game and won the match. Needless to say, the opposition was fuming.
Cheating, maybe, manipulating the laws (not actually breaking them but using them to your advantage) can be cheating, but we did not get caught.
Quite simple.
Simply not cricket, old chap!
As dit nie bloei nie is dit nie seer nie-ma dan moet dit rerig bloei…
For the record, if anyone thinks Jannie did not fake an injury to get John back on the the Durban B&I test then you are living in cuckoo land. And as far as cheating goes, it is no different from the Quins bloodgate saga.
3@Morné –
Interesting! Is this “forcing of uncontested scrums” a Cape thing? 😉
@Morné –
So do you think the punishment of three years is too harsh? When a coach get caught forcing uncontested scrums, should he get three years as well? It is basically the same thing!
3@Morné – 😯 🙄
Farking Cheats…
Hehehe
@grootblousmile –
Se ek ook mos, ons Bulle is te eerlik! 😆
If the Bulls forced uncontested scrums this past weekend we wouldve won with a bonuspoint! 🙄
@Supa Die Bloubul – @Supa Die Bloubul –
This was in Namibia!!!
Look I think if you as a supporter believe that most rugby teams, players and coaches are squeeky clean then you are in for one hell of a surprise.
You constantly look how to manipulate laws in your favour covering your weaknesses and enhancing your strengths.
I think the difference or distinction needs to come in when an attempt at cheating was planned or preconceived before the game started, i.e. they plan to use fake blood is in my mind a deliberate, premeditated move to bring the game into disrepute or to cheat before the kick off takes place, and that I have a problem with.
If something happens in the game, like props getting injured I have no problem using the laws to your advantage.
Premeditated cheating is going too far, but in the game itself, you are stupid if you do not use the laws to your advantage.
Here is another example.
There was one team with one specific player we knew had a short fuse. We also knew exactly what set him off and let me just say, it was not nice…
So the players were instructed to niggle this guy, within the laws but still niggle him, you know jersey tugging, pulling back, the odd comment about his mother and girlfriend and so on.
Banked!! Every single time he would lose it, do something stupid, and get yellowed…
Is that cheating? or manipulating the laws and situation?
@Supa Die Bloubul –
As jy dom is moet jy k@k!!
Maar uncontested skrums sou julle nie gered het nie. Om die waarheid te sê, die score vlei die Bulle…
Om terug te kom na “bloodgate” skandaal, hoekom het hulle die ou nie net gesub nie?
@Morné –
Offcourse teams are not squeeky cleans, thats why I mentioned it in the article. Good point regarding when cheating is planned and when it is done in the spirit of the moment.
You say you have a problem when cheating is pre-meditated. But you and the guys planned to make comments about a certain players mom, or tugging of jersey on a spesific player etc beforehand. Surely that was also planned before the game then?
As supporters we shouldnt complain about the Aussies scrumming illegally then. As cheating is fair, you should just make sure you get away with it.
Its a fine line, cause where to you really draw the line between “cheating”, and “part of the game”.
I let my own mind lead me. For me, pulling on someone jersey to upset him, and planning to use fake blood is not the same. Both might have been planned, but the one is alot worse! But where is the line?
@KingPaul –
Die skrums het n helse verskil gemaak, regtig. Al ons momentum was daarmee heen. Bulle het eerst 20min nie so erg gesukkel in die skrums nie en toe goed gespeel. MAar ons kon geen bal daarna kry nie agv die skrums. Maar dis alles “as”. WP het gewen. Geluk!
Oor die scandal. Hulle wou hulle skopper opbring aan en mag jy nie net n speler weer terugbring as dit vir bloed is nie? Dink hulle wou die “fake bloed” speler weer terugbring later en n ander ou laat skop. MAar ek is nie seker nie.
Kingpaul
Ek verstaan ook nog nie lekker nie. Hulle wou die speler opbring om n belangrike skop aan die einde te neem. Mag n speler wat afgehaal is as n taktiese besluit weer opkom later indien dit vir bloed is? Dit sal dan verklaar hoekom hulle die bloed wou fake.
@Supa Die Bloubul –
Yes it was premeditated, but did we actually commit an offense?
No.
The other guy committed the foul and got punished, we acted within the frames of the law throughout.
It comes down to what is in the spirit of the game, and no I do not think you can draw a line saying this is okay, and this is not.
One line I will draw is a premeditated move to cheat, I am against that.
But what the Boks did in the 1st B&I Lions test with John, I see no problem with that.
Moet hul nie vir Rassie ook skors vir al sy skelm ‘uncontested scrums’ deur die eeue nie ? 😉
@Supa Die Bloubul –
Laaaaas week teen die Ozzies het LangBek sy skouer beseer met nog so 5 minute se spel oor. Teen daai tyd het Snorre klaar as sy plaasvervangers gebruik. Ek was onder die indruk dat Bakkies in Bekker se plek kon opkom, want dit was nie ‘n besering nie, maar ‘n taktiese “omruiling”. Tog moes Bekker aanspeel (en natuurlik heeltemal niks beteken nie!!) met sy af skouer.
Sal self wil weet hoe die reel werk? En hoekom mag ‘n voorry dan weer terugkom as hy takties vervang is en die ou wat hy vervang het kry seer? Net soos wat jy nie kan skrum sonder voorrye nioe, kan jy ook nie ordentlik skrum sonder ‘n slot nie!
@KingPaul –
Goeie punt. Ek dink in Bekker se geval. As hy n bloed besering gehad het, sou Bakkies mag opkom? MAar ek is nie seker nie. Ek weet as jy n ou takties geruil het kan jy hom nie terugbring met n gewone besering nie. Maar weet nie hoe werk dit met bloed nie!
13@KingPaul –
dink hulle’t alreeds hulle sub bench leeggemaak
😀 was al wat hule kón doen!!
@Morné –
But why is it right to break the law in the spirit of the moment but not plan it in advance? If they cut the lip of a player on the field during the game to bring a kicker on, does that make it right because it was on the spirit of the moment and not planned beforehand?
I honestly dont know…you can argue this both ways but somehow it just seems wrong faking injuries to players because you are not good enough but its gonna happen.
@Supa Die Bloubul – @KingPaul –
Reel werk soos volg.
n Speler wat afgaan vir bloed mag later vervang word met enige speler op die bank wat as plaasvervanger genoem word in the match 22.
Die speler kan dan weer terug kom op die veld as die bloed gestop word indien dit gedoen word in n spesifieke tydperk, 10 minute wedstryd tyd.
Die plaasvervanger wat hom vervang het kan dan weer terug keer na die bank toe en kan later weer gebruik word vir either bloed besering weer (waar dieselfde sal geld as hierbo) of as ‘n taktiese plaasvervanging.
As ‘n taktiese plaasvervanging plaasvind, or plaasvervanging vir ‘n permanente besering mag die vervangde speler nie terugkeer na die spel toe BEHALWE as hy ‘n stut of haker is. Dit is a permanente plaasvervanging.
Soos dit was met Bakkies, dit was permanent en Bakkies mag nie weer terug op die veld kom nie. Die enigste manier wat Bekker vervang kon word sou ook alleenlik deur ‘n permanente plaasvervanger (wat beteken Bekker mag nie terugkom nie) wees want daar was nie bloed nie. Hy mag ook net vervang word deur ‘n plaasvervanger wat genoem was in die 22 as plaasvervanger en beskikbaar (fiks) was.
As ‘n voorry man however vervang word, geld dieselfde bloed reel vir hom, i.e. hy kan afkom en ‘n plaasvervanger kan tydelik opkom. Die plaasvervanger however vir ‘n voorry mag alleenlik net ‘n voorry speler wees, indien daar nie een beskikbaar is nie mag enige speler plaasvervanger gebruik word maar dan is skrums uncontested.
As ‘n voorry takties vervang word met nog ‘n voorry, en die plaasvervanger voorry kry seer, mag die vervangde speler terug kom op die veld om hom weer te vervang indien hy fiks is om so te doen. Indien nie, kan die beseerde plaasvervanger voorspeler met enige ander speler vervang word, maar dan is skrums uncontested.
@Supa Die Bloubul –
and props and loosies manipulate the laws at scrum and ruck time as well. Teams will do whatever they can to get away with it, planned beforehand or spirit of the moment. Maybe PA was right in his first comment: “Do not get caught!”
@Supa Die Bloubul –
If you carry a scalpal and blood capsules around in your socks the shit is premeditated!!!
Cheating is breaking the laws right?
So if you are not breaking the laws but still act in the frame of the laws or what the laws allow you to do, is it still cheating?
@Morné –
Thanx.
Maar soos ek vroeer genoem het, hoekom word voorrye en hakers uitgesonder? ‘n Slot het tog net so ‘n belangrike rol te speel in skrums?
@Supa Die Bloubul –
That is the golden rule, simply don’t be stupid to get caught.
I can higlight 10 000 different areas where people manipulate laws or ‘cheat’.
As a analyst by trade it was my job to study the laws, study the game and the opposition and come up with ways to get an advantage in the game but doing so staying within the laws of the game.
Take my word, it is damn easy to manipulate laws…
@Morné –
Dankie. Ek verstaan egter nogsteeds nie. Nick Evans was op die veld en is afgehaal as n taktiese besluit. Maw, hy mag nie weer terugkom nie want hy was nie as plaasvervanger genoem nie en ook nie n stut nie. Hoekom wou hulle dan bloed vervals om hom terug te bring?
@KingPaul –
Hulle word gesien as spesialis spelers en die skrums ‘n area wat potensiaal baie gevaarlik kan wees as jy nie ‘n spesialis daar het nie. Dit gaan meestal oor die voorkoming van beserings en die voorry is dit meer likely jy kan lelik seerkry as wat jy ‘n slot is.
Met Bekker, die bank was skoon en al die plaasvervangers was klaar gebruik. Dus of die Bokke sou met 14 speel, of Bekker moes af skouer en al op bly.
@Supa Die Bloubul –
Korrek, as Evans afgehaal is takties en nie vir bloed nie, sou hy nie toegelaat moes gewees het om terug te kom nie al bloei die annerman hom dood.
Miskien is hulle reels in die kompetisie annerste gewees, ek sal bietjie gaan lees maar die IRB reels is soos ek hierbo genoem het.
Users Online
Total 219 users including 0 member, 219 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,238,251 Page Impressions
_