Springboks might use Call 99 this time around
Roar Guru By Greg Smith, 20 Jun 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Battle of the Boet, british & irish lions, Lions, Phil Vickery, Rugby Union, South Africa, Springboks, Willie John McBride
In South Africa, local fans are literally reliving a siege thanks to touring Brits and Irishmen. The British and Irish Lions and their fans have opened up plenty of wounds, not only of the Great War of 1900, but also of 1997 and 1974, in particular.
Back in ’74, Willie John McBride and his touring Lions bruisers launched the most vicious attack (probably the worst ever seen on a rugby field) when they used the infamous call to arms known famously as Call 99 in the dirtiest game in history, aka the Battle of the Boet.
Since then, South Africans have had to endure a near eternity of “brawl talk” as smug Brits and Irishmen have savoured any and every opportunity to revel in its memory when you’d think most decent fans would hurriedly bury the incident in their skeleton closets.
No chance!
And possibly to add insult, the standard operating procedure for the British & Irish Lions and their fans when in South Africa is to maximize antagonism. Thus, a full military kit is an ever-present reminder of the Empires’ triumphs.
Fans in red coats and pith hats waltz around like they’ve just captured Pretoria.
In 1974, McBride and company claimed that the Springboks threatened them with physical dominance, which resulted in a co-ordinated punch up led by the captain himself.
Now, in 2009, Phil Vickery and his pack of forwards present the same physical menace to the Springboks. And I’d argue that if the Boks were ever entitled to Call 99, this would be it.
Get the brawling out first and put the Lions on the back foot, then start an aggressive game with huge hits.
With a 3-0 series victory on everyone’s lips in South Africa, wouldn’t you consider this route?
Recommend this story.
June 20th 2009 @ 1:32pm
Loftus said | June 20th 2009 @ 1:32pm | Report comment
Aauw Guy!!! Didyou lose against the SA school’s team then? It looks like you re scarred for life.I bet you think your knighted hero Martin Johnson was not a dirty player at all? Go and check his discipine record.Leave Bakkies alone please,you all know you would love him in your team.
June 20th 2009 @ 4:16pm
Guy Smiley said | June 20th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
On the contrary Loftus, Bakkies would be an asset to any team and I would love to have him in mine. Not the point though. Greg was implying the Boks were ‘victims’ of thuggery. Ha ha, good one. We know those dark skills are practised everywhere and by virtually all teams to certain degrees, but South Africans lead the way, closely followed by French and Argentinians. Hey even my own Alan Quinlan got ruled out for eye-gouging for this tour. I guess the secondary point is that Greg and to an extent yourself are unable to see both sides of the coin. Credible viewpoints/criticisms do not arise from those who cannot see their own sides’ weaknesses and admit to them.
June 20th 2009 @ 4:38pm
Greg Smith said | June 20th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
@Guy – ha, ha… You know, I agree and disagree about that global perception. Perceptions can be deceiving and I think South Africans have generally harvested a lot of negativity historically. It runs deep & starts in 1795 with clashes with the English army, hostile locals, wars, revolutions, crime, HIV/AIDS, global condemnation for racism and having the burden of global racial segregation (Apartheid) dumped almost in it’s entirety on South Africa and such and such and such…
South Africa historically carries an ‘evilness’ label which is by and large exaggerated for extra effect by those with an agenda.
In rugby union – this adds to the global perception that we are DIRTY and incapable of fairplay.
You’d be surprised by the reality.
And that ‘cheap shots’ theory doesn’t fool me either, going onto a field with the pre-planned notion that collectively you’re going to take the Law into your own hands (in a Test) is extreme. Dr Hannes Marais was the Springbok captain that day. He’s a gentleman (an old boy from my alma mater & has done plenty for our school and local community). I cannot imagine a scenario where this gentle soul (a Doctor in Philosophy) coming out of retirement as he did for that Call 99 Test would dream of such a devious plan. Yet, he and his team were eternally branded as roughians.
A serious misjudgement by McBride & company – I wouldn’t rush to defend the Call 99.
A black day for rugby union all round… but significant for furthering the global perception you talk of.
Go through rugby history and you’ll find the Springboks were amateurs (teachers, doctors, policemen, farmers and lawyers – mostly educated gentlemen) and early touring Bok teams were praised while very notably the All Blacks were slated as Professional and prone to some famous dodgy tactics.
Back in 1981, I can honestly say that South Africa clearly held the moral highground over most teams. I’ve personally played rugby in South Africa for 17 years (1976 – 1993). During that time (only not playing nationals or internationals) I played ever type of game you can imagine. Youth, festival, provincial, derby, army, prisons, schools, club, university, development, inter-racial – you name it.
Anyone that claims South Africa rugby at ANY of these levels has a premeditated DIRTY philosophy, is mistaken.
Post 1981 – I’ll admit some very bad incidents have been highlighted but these (although unjustifiable) must be taken in context and teams like Sean Fitspatricks All Blacks were famous for ‘stirring’.
That the All Blacks marketed there brand internationally since 1981 is unquestionable – a part of that globalisation process involved sullying the Springboks reputation. A basic historical fact.
June 20th 2009 @ 10:42pm
matta said | June 20th 2009 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
Greg Greg Greg… i actually like the your mob play old skool. But if you think your boys arent dirty, you’re mistaken.
June 21st 2009 @ 3:17am
Knives Out said | June 21st 2009 @ 3:17am | Report comment
Congratulations, Greg. Hope you enjoyed the game.
June 21st 2009 @ 5:05am
Viscount Crouchback said | June 21st 2009 @ 5:05am | Report comment
Interesting thoughts, Greg. Certainly I think New Zealand have always been rather fortunate to escape the “thuggish” tag. It was in New Zealand, after all, that Jim Telfer took a stand against the outrageous violence of the locals in 1966. One of the Lions props (a Glaswegian whose name I forget) was almost blinded. In 1971, Gareth Edwards said he feared for his life (for the first and only time in his career) in a match against Canterbury. Let us not even mention Mealamu and Umaga in 2005.
I suppose that rugby is New Zealand’s statement to the world. They have an almost deranged desire to see the All Blacks win, and I think this manifests itself in thuggery when their precious team is under the cosh.
One sees a similar dynamic at play in the behaviour of the Australian cricket team. Winning at cricket has become such a test of national virility that almost any means – however coarse or dishonest – can be justified to that end.
Interestingly, both Australians and New Zealanders are absolute gentlemen when they play sports that don’t touch the national psyche so directly.
June 21st 2009 @ 5:41am
Knives Out said | June 21st 2009 @ 5:41am | Report comment
Sandy Carmichael.
June 21st 2009 @ 5:51am
Viscount Crouchback said | June 21st 2009 @ 5:51am | Report comment
That’s the chap. He was a tough man himself by all accounts.
June 21st 2009 @ 6:54am
Greg Smith said | June 21st 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
@ Viscount Crouchback – very well put … ‘absolute gentlemen when …. don’t touch the national psyche so directly.’
It’s difficult to estimate the scope of this national psyche phenomenon. Recently I revisited WAR HERO stories from WWII.
You’ll probably be unsurprised to find colonial ‘bragging’ for WWII like this … Oz, Nz, SA
While I think Oz can often back up the ‘talk’ with fact. Sometimes, New Zealand push the limits a wee bit.
In South Africa … there’s an odd way to trumpet successes… I haven’t figured it out myself, coz some stuff is GREAT, other stuff forgotten (yet the values are all skew)
PS – Thanks, the Boks gave ALL a nailbiter… bet that kept the viewships for the next game
(Crap rugby though) Did you see all those POMS… Jeez, who gives them their visas !?
June 21st 2009 @ 5:08pm
JohnB said | June 21st 2009 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Don’t forget McGeechan’s team going the knuckle in a very premeditated way after losing the first Lions test in Australia in 1989. Again, you’d think they’d hang their heads about that whole distasteful episode. They don’t appear to have the team to try the same thing this time, but don’t bet against it. As an Australian, I can probably add the Kevin Skinner name into the “which of SA and NZ is systematically more dirty” discussion.