KSA Shark ©

POMS, true to form, whinge to IRB

Written by Andre Bosch (KSA Shark ©)

Posted in :In the news, Springboks on 4 Jun 2010 at 19:27
Tagged with : , , , , , ,

Premier Rugby has lodged a formal complaint to the International Rugby Board, over South African Rugby Union statements, as the Butch James saga continues to escalate.

With last year’s Springbok ‘armband protest’ and the IRB’s unhappiness with the Boks’ conduct still fresh in the mind, the possibility of a ban being imposed on John Smit and his team has resurfaced.

The latest complaint against SARU and the Bok camp follows the decision to pull James, who plays his club rugby for Bath in the UK, out of Saturday’s one-off Test against Wales.

Having been recalled to the Bok line-up for the first time in nearly two years, James, unwittingly, now finds himself in the middle of an ugly public spat between his country, his club and Premier Rugby.

Premier Rugby, the umbrella organisation responsible for managing the 12 professional clubs in England, have since won their ‘dispute’ with the South African Rugby Union over the services of the World Cup-winning Bok.

However, on Thursday SARU President Oregan Hoskins and acting MD Andy Marinos expressed their unhappiness with Premier Rugby – which has now resulted in a riposte from the English organisation.

Premier Rugby has confirmed that they will lodge a formal complaint with the IRB.

“Following comments reported to have been made by the South African Rugby Union at the press conference yesterday [Thursday], Premier Rugby will regrettably have to make a formal complaint to the IRB alleging a breach of international regulations by SARU through their actions and statements this week,” the statement said.

“These actions and statements have been repeatedly directed against Bath Rugby and Premier Rugby and seem to have been designed to put unfair pressure on the player and his club, who have acted in accordance with the IRB’s regulations and to deflect attention away from the real causes of the issue.

“June matches in the international calendar are played in the southern hemisphere and the schedule is settled years in advance. Apparently this extra one-off match outside the schedule and in the northern hemisphere was only arranged earlier this year and seems to be primarily a money-making exercise for which SARU is apparently receiving a large fee.

“When arranging a match outside the international window, all Unions should be aware of their regulations concerning player release. On Wednesday, it became clear that SARU had not properly understood these regulations.

“As a result, actions have been taken and statements made by SARU which have been damaging to the interests of the player, his club and Premier Rugby.”

It will be the second time in less than a year that SARU faces a possible IRB disciplinary hearing.

In August last year an IRB disciplinary hearing imposed a fine of £10,000 (ZAR113,000) on SARU, £200 (ZAR2,260) against each of the other players who wore the protest armbands and £1,000 (ZAR11,300) against captain John Smit.

The action arose from the SA national team and management wearing armbands during the third Test against the British & Irish Lions on July 4 – as a protest action, following the upholding of Bakkies Botha’s two-week suspension.

At the time the IRB made it clear that had it not been for the “legal technicalities” (including the fact that the Committee felt it had to take a “necessarily strict interpretation” of certain aspects of Regulation 17), both SARU and the Springbok players and management would have faced much more serious sanctions.

This, according to the IRB, included a more severe fine in the case of SARU and the suspension of the Springbok players and management from the World Cup 2011.

The IRB said at the time that they gave “serious consideration” to bringing an appeal against the level of sanctions imposed against SARU and the Boks.

And they also made it clear that they took into consideration the Schalk Burger eye-gouging case, which saw the Bok flank banned for eight weeks at the time.

Article originally Posted on Rugby 365


  • Aw Shame what did SARU say that upset the POMS other than highlight the fact that Players are released to play for the Baa Baas and England and they are released because they Baa Baas and England have lined Premier Rugby’s pockets?

  • Comment 1, posted at 04.06.10 19:32:28 by KSA Shark © Reply
    KSA Shark ©
  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 1) : The truth hurts 😉

  • Comment 2, posted at 04.06.10 19:52:42 by lostfish Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Competition Winner
  • @lostfish (Comment 2) :

    And hurting a POM is so easy.

  • Comment 3, posted at 04.06.10 20:02:41 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • And what exactly did SARU say that is grounds for sanctions of any sort?

  • Comment 4, posted at 04.06.10 20:03:35 by KSA Shark © Reply

    KSA Shark ©
  • Pomy Pomy oh my you are really scared of our WC holders arn’t you
    aag go to [email protected]# and enjoy it to we are going to kick your bud now matter what we are ready and can’t wait D!(m POMYS

  • Comment 5, posted at 04.06.10 21:16:09 by chaz Reply

  • Would lv to know what the old 👿 😈 troll has to say
    Go SA GO and that WC stays in SOUTH AFRICA for the next 4 years

  • Comment 6, posted at 04.06.10 21:27:18 by chaz Reply

  • @KSA Shark © (Comment 4) : It might have something to do with SARU saying that Premier Rugby had no problem releasing Schalk Brits to play for the Baa Baa’s but then they whine like only the poms can about releasing Butch.

  • Comment 7, posted at 04.06.10 22:41:22 by lostfish Reply
    Valued Sharksworld Supporter Competition Winner
  • Eish! Who do I dislike more, Poms, Aussies, Cheatahs or Bulls 😕

  • Comment 8, posted at 05.06.10 11:46:55 by JarsonX Reply
    Competition WinnerCompetition WinnerCompetition Winner
  • @JarsonX (Comment 8) : I can help you out there! If you`re stuck in a room with a Pom and a Bull and only have 2 bullets left . . . My advise would be to shoot the Bull twice!

  • Comment 9, posted at 07.06.10 12:04:53 by Original Pierre Reply
    Original Pierre
  • @JarsonX (Comment 8) : All of them 👿

  • Comment 10, posted at 07.06.10 12:08:36 by chaz Reply

  • @Original Pierre (Comment 9) : eeeee you are really sth today 😀

  • Comment 11, posted at 07.06.10 12:09:24 by chaz Reply

  • What about New Zealanders?? 🙄

  • Comment 12, posted at 07.06.10 12:19:18 by wpw Reply
  • @Original Pierre (Comment 9) : hahahaha!

  • Comment 13, posted at 07.06.10 12:31:45 by Ice Reply
    Competition Winner Ice
  • @wpw (Comment 12) : 🙄 feed them to the SHARKS 😉

  • Comment 14, posted at 07.06.10 12:32:19 by chaz Reply

  • This BLOG has no age restriction, but parental guidance is advised for younger participants due to the graphic nature of the written word and the actions the authors of those words would like to exact on competitors.

  • Comment 15, posted at 07.06.10 14:22:38 by SandTiger Reply


Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.