By AFP
July 7th 2009 @ 7:44am
View The Roar's top rugby union writers.
New podcast from RuggaMatrix, with Munster Assistant Coach Laurie Fisher as guest. Listen now.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
South African rugby chiefs in hot water over Botha
A weekend protest by players resulted in the South Africa Rugby Union being charged on Monday for alleged breaches of the International Rugby Board Code of Conduct.
The Springboks wore armbands during their defeat by the British and Irish Lions on Saturday as a symbol of solidarity for suspended team-mate Bakkies Botha, out for two weeks [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
© 2008 AFP
(46)
Yikes said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Excellent. The SARFU should get a hefty and crippling fine.
Armbands for Bakkies? You wear armbands for Mandela, or an oppressed people, or for a charity cause that has had something horriffic happen to it.
But Bakkies? Personally I don’t think that he deserved the 2 week ban for the particular clean out he performed. BUT I can tell you that there have been plenty of other times in his career where he got off lightly or got off at all such that he can’t complain about a measly 2 weeks when the decision goes against him.
It’s the same swings and roundabouts you see in rugby with the referee’s decisions, in cricket with the umpire etc etc.
For the Boks to treat this as some huge miscarriage of justice, when it was in reality a feckless thug getting two weeks more than he probably deserved, deserves significant censure from the IRB.
Harry said | July 7th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
The armbands were the funniest thing to come out of SA rugby since the nude training camp pre RWC 2003.
Brett McKay said | July 7th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
No doubt Yikes, they deserve everything coming to them for this open and public display of dissent, and you can only hope that they get the book thrown at them. However, just as I’ve said about SANZAR over time, this is the IRB we’re talking about and the sanction imposed could just as easily fail to move a fly as it could fund rugby in several developing countries…
Arky said | July 7th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
And what armband are they wearing for Schalk? Can’t have it both ways boys!
Jacks Dad said | July 7th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
The Coach has to go……..he is a nutter
Wally James said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Yikes
Well said
Jameswm said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
In the third test – must check replay – a Lions player did the exact same thing Botha did. this sort of thing happens in every match and is rarely, if ever, penalised.
The suspension was a disgrace. Good on the players for sticking up for their mate.
Nird99 said | July 7th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Well done SA, by wearing the armbands you have taken the focus away from the real issue, the charge from Botha! whether or not he deserved the ban, You have now made a public political statement that players or coaches should not make. These issues need to be left with the administrators.
sheek said | July 7th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Yikes… ditto Wally James… well said… very well said!
sheek said | July 7th 2009 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
James,
We all agree the penalty may have been undeserved, or unnecessarily harsh, but there is a right way & wrong way to go about things.
And Gawd, if I should be the one saying this??? (I’m usually the first to get stuck into any snooty, full-of-themselves establishment).
Wally James said | July 7th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
James
You may well be right as to the actions of Botha being undeservedly punished but, as Sheek correctly points out, that is a different issue to the one raised by the IRB. The issue is, did the SARU allow the discontent at the percieved incorrectness to be expressed properly. That is a question which can only be answered according to the standards of the person answering.
Rugby standards have always been to accept the decisiosn of the ref and move on. The Laws of the Game say so. Dissent on the paddock is a penalisable offence followed by heavier sanctions if repeated. It seems to me the same should apply to the Judiciary. It must be remembered that it was not only the Canadian Judicial Officer but also an appeals tribunal which judged Botha.
Great disrespect was shown to those men and the system by the Boks. Not one iota of dissent when Burger only got 8 weeks because that suited them. Different for Botha. It should not be tolerated and I hope the IRB comes out with a meaningful penalty.
Jameswm said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:02pm | Report comment
I’m not suggesting the SARFU should have let them do it if it knew in advance the protest was going to happen.
But the suspension was absurd. I still can’t believe it.
Ben J said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
It amazes me how posters on this site hates SARFU, the bile coming out here is indicative of a deepseated resentment and probably a bit of jealousy. So what if a team stands up for a mate, since when did rugby players lose the right of expression? The IRB is a gentlemans club that cannot stand these “Africans” actualy giving them the finger.
Having said that, it did nothing for the Boks performance, that is where the “protest” would have had the most effect, the Boks are unpredictable at best and this does not bode well for the Tri Nations. There is an air of undiscipline creeping in in their general behaviour and this can only be the fault of the idiot in charge Peter de Villiers.
AndyS said | July 7th 2009 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
I’m pretty indifferent to it all, but I’d have to disagree Ben. Had PdV or Matfield criticised the suspension in the press, they would have been censured. Wearing badges on the field is no different, but I would have said the penalty should fall on them rather than SARU as they would have been most directly aware and responsible.
Worlds Biggest said | July 7th 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
What is the IRB going to do to SARFU ?. This is the same organisation that disgracefully suspesnded Burger for only 8 weeks. I couldn’t care less if the Boks wore armbands in protest, teams wear armbands all the time for different reasons although this one is trivial. Botha didn’t deserve to get suspended however his bad boy pesononna didn’t help him. Botha is the bully of World Rugby and must be one of the more unpopular players in World Rugby. If he cut the rubbish out of his game he could be a very good player.
retired rucker said | July 7th 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
The fact that Victor had ‘JUSTICE’ taped to his forehead was both a disgrace and laughable.
When I first saw it I didn’t know what it was about and assumed it must be some very serious political issue or stance WRT African politics and was thinking its nice to see players supporting what must be a just cause to be blown away by the fact it was a protest in support of Bakkies.
It has lowered my respect for the leaders of the team and the sheep that followed. From the outside to me it cheapens the whole Spring Bok brand wrt to Mandella and his history/association with the game.
Was everyone wearing an armband?
Anyway very poor judgement, I wonder if it was all discussed and figured out in one of Spies prayer sessions and ‘Justified” in the eyes of the lord, I hope not because they got poor guidance
Virgil said | July 7th 2009 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
They needed someone like Luke Watson to stand up to the leadership group within the Boks. I have no doubt he wouldn’t have worn the armband. Instead, all the junior members of the team were led astray by the experienced but arrogant senior members … Matfield, Smit and Smith. Oh for shame.
Darryl SA said | July 7th 2009 @ 6:56pm | Report comment
Much as I’ve firmly defended the Boks on this site, as a Saffer I can’t deny that I was disappointed with the protest. If Botha had been charged unfairly numerous times then I could see a point to it, but making such a public display of a first-up incident – something that could easily be handled via the official channels – was to me bad PR and poor judgement by the Boks. Fine for Smit to have just said “we’re unhappy about the Botha ban and will be submitting an official complaint to the IRB to deal with yadda yadda yadda” but now we’re going back to the Straueli days where we were the laughing stock of the world because of the off-the-field antics and on-the-field off-the-ball play.
My enjoyment of our winning this Lions series will forever be sullied by the distraction of the Burger incident, and the wholesale changes and dismal performance in the 3rd test that were a missed opportunity of possibly securing the first ever 3-0 whitewash of the Lions in SA. Not saying we definitely would have won the third test, but now we’ll never know. What a pity.
Spencer said | July 7th 2009 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
Well said Darryl. We all want to be proud of our national team, and when incidents like this occur it is disappointing. I think that this shows that the Bok set-up is lacking guidance, judgement and perspective. The person that really let everyone down is John Smit. Most people know that PDV is a peanut and can’t be relied upon for “better” judgement.
Ben J said | July 7th 2009 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
As much as it pains me I have to agree with Darryl SA. I was at Ellis Park on Saturday and felt no joy or passion for the Boks. They played like a team bereft of ideas, clearly poorly coached and made what was supposed to be a celebration of rugby a farce. The players looked like they did not care that it was a once in a lifetime occurence playing against the Lions. I place this squarely at the feet of the Head Clown Pieter de Villiers who apart from being a incompetent coach is an embarrasment to South African rugby and should be removed. His approach is clearly rubbing off on the players who see him getting away with inexcusable comments and actions. What is probably the most perplexing is the way the players and coach back eachother. Yes we secured the series but will I remember it fondly? I think not.
Greg Smith said | July 7th 2009 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
Oh dear, more persecution from the old boys club … Although I think the armbands were cheesy, I think the important thing is this highlights South Africa’s BLACK SHEEP status within the IRB and the constant raw deal dished out to Africa. Also the relatively weak position South Africa has within the IRB is clearly exposed. I think is all for the good that these realities are exposed !
Negative charges or negative punitive measures from the IRB against South Africa will further breakdown relationships – something that South Africans (with a long list of issues viz a viz the IRB) will maintain is the intention anyhow.
International rugby unions governing body (the IRB) manhandling a large member (RSA) would be a fair representation of how the IRB is currently underperforming in comparison with FIFA, the ICC or the IOC.
Give them hell South Africa – push this up a notch – we’re playing brinkmanship… lets go over the brink.
Is this Black Sheep status a mirror of current international relations (on a political level) ? Why is South Africa the ONLY country unhappy with the IRB ?
AndyS said | July 7th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
That is a shame, and hopefully just a function of it being a dead rubber? Fingers crossed the Trinations is better.
Yikes said | July 7th 2009 @ 7:39pm | Report comment
Ben J,
You say the outrage here is indicative of a deepseated resentment and probably a bit of jealousy. And that the Africans are giving the gentleman’s club IRB the finger. Sounds to me like you’re the one with a chip on your shoulder!
I’d like to think I’d be equally critical of any country’s team that tried to pull this kind of wholly inappropriate stunt. Especially in a week in which another of its players got a ridiculously LENIENT sentence for eye gouging. One can hardly claim the team is being victimised by judiciaries.
If this incident is indicative of anything, it is that the SA players are self-obsessed and lacking perspective, and there appear to be no adults minding the store, either within SARFU administration or the Boks’ team management itself.
mcxd said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
perhaps Botha got the two weeks for charging shoulder first into Mortlocks head in 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBKpcM9l7M
He may not have recently deserved it but theres plenty of other times he should have and gotten away with it. Cheap shot merchant.
Brett McKay said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
Can any of the NH Roarers comment on how much press or reaction this is getting? I’m surprised there hasn’t been more of an international uproar about the South African team’s actions. It’s been acknowledged as happening in the match reports, etc, but apart from this report and perhaps others noting the charge, there’s been little opinion or editorial expressed.
Likewise, can South African Roarers add if there’s been adverse reaction in the Republic?
Darryl SA said | July 7th 2009 @ 8:56pm | Report comment
Brett, nobody really cares here in SA, at least that is amongst the circle I move in. We kinda all feel the better ‘protest’ would have been if they’d actually put in a convincing display on the field. It’s just impotent to wear the armbands, and suffer a complete lack of composure, will and concentration on the field.
Photon said | July 7th 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
There’s pleanty of Kak here,most people seem to agree that the Boks should never have been allowed to wear the protest bands. Must say I agree with Ben thought there is definately plenty of anti South African sentiment on this site, you just have to read the bile Zavos wrote on Rugbyheaven to know that. It’s a little hard being called arrogant by Aussies or Englishman though, pretty much the hight of hypocricy actually. I suspect that Zavos’ is angry caus a bunch of what he thinks are primitive Boere and natives have more world cups than his blessed All Blacks, who actually only have an invitational to their name, inspite with our vulgar style. As for the ban to Bakkies, it was laughable, and to those of you crying about supposed past offences being responsible for the an that only serves as additional evidence of a witch hunt. MCXD, just caus when a Aussie hits a Saffa Mnet doesn’t spend the rest of the match showing re runs of the incident like Fox, doesn’t mean that that your blessed Wallabies are angels. There are very few angels and demons in this life, violence is usually a two way street on a rugby field, with both parties contributng to whatever fight materialises
OldManEmu said | July 7th 2009 @ 10:09pm | Report comment
Look – I can understand the Boks players doing what they did. BB is a talismanic figure in the team, from all reports a hell of a nice bloke, a devoted Christian, a truly intimidating player, and above all a proven and renowned thug.
I reckon BB is the best lock in world Rugby. He is exaclty the sort of player I wanted to be when I was playing and he is exactly the sort of player I coach young back five players to be – minus the dirt.
No question the clean out was one that is seen twenty times in a game and no question the suspension was bogus.
In saying all of this though, I think that the senior Boks players could have been a bit smarter in their protest. One of the loveliest memories I have of RWC 03 was the Scotland team winking and blinking at the camera a la Marty Leslie (who I once tried to recruit back to SH Rugby) in respect of Marty’s involuntary tick. Marty had been quite unfairly rubbed out for an incident in the last game of the round robin matches and the Scotland team sent a good message through their pre match tribute. Notably not all the players ion the team participated.
How shold the Boks have expressed support for their fallen comrade? Dunno; but not in the way that they did.
Bit of a storm in teacup the whole thing really.
mcxd said | July 7th 2009 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
ah cmon photon, you gotta admit that as someone else of the roar posted (sheek i think) “youve got to have a villian to hiss at” and bothas the biggest and baddest of them all.
pothale said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Just when I thought this thing couldn’t get anymoe stupid, I now read the following:
Minister of Sport in SA, Stofile has warned de Villiers to watch what he says next time, or risk losing his job. “The role of coach is to prepare the team,” said Stofile. “I know Peter well and like him, but the more he talks, the more confused he gets. He can get away with making colourful remarks while we are winning, but when we are losing it will be a serious problem. He will be the first to be fired and he has to sober up.”
For the first time in this whole thing, I’m standing on PdV’s side. Who the hell is this politician mouthing off? Are the Boks team under political control?
If I were PdV, and if his team really supported him, then I’d tell Stofile to go stick it where the sun don’t shine. And if Stofile wants to make an issue of it, why doesn’t he come down and sort it out with the boys personally?
Can you believe it? A frigging, jumped up sporting minister tries to tell a sporting coach how to do his job in public, through the media, as if he’s some servant of the state? Tell me it ain’t so.
I really hope the SA public back PdV and give Stofile such a shellacking that he doesn’t appear again until the WC in 2011.
Spencer said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Pothale – you really don’t have any understanding of SA society. I am sure that Darryl, Greg, Ben etc will educate you. The ANC are ready, willing & able to control all aspects of life in SA. They appointed PdV…and they can ‘unappoint’ him.
pothale said | July 8th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Puke-making.
Reminds me of Iron Curtain political sports from the sixties/seventies. An era and time I would prefer to forget in relation to their impact on sport and athletes of all types.
reds fan said | July 8th 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment
Spencer you are spot on. They have long been a one-party state. First the National Party, and now the ANC. They love control in SA.
Darryl SA said | July 8th 2009 @ 6:21pm | Report comment
pothale, this is the reality of SA sport. I’m surprised you haven’t seen headlines in the past where some ministers had chastised Jake White for selecting certain players over others – actually naming individual players as if they were the selector. It’s quite sickening, quite wrong, and quite unavoidable in the post-Apartheid reality of sport in South Africa.
I’m actually quite surprised that PdV didn’t get into a lot of trouble for the game on Saturday when Pierre Spies was brought on for Ndungane at wing. At that moment, I think there was only the Beast on the field as a ‘non-white’ (actually what they term ‘previously disadvantaged’) player, and that’s well below the governments informal minimum requirement for PDA players on the field. The irony of course is that Beast went to a good school in Zimbabwe and didn’t actually suffer as a direct result of apartheid, yet is considered as a tick in the box for PDA players on the field.
pothale said | July 8th 2009 @ 11:56pm | Report comment
Darryl – no I wasn’t aware that it was that blatant. My ignorance – plain and simple. I know there’s always a bit of politics mixed up in sport, but the notion that a politician could come out and say such a thing without getting publicly castigated is incredible. I’ve no problem with someone having an opinion, however as a senior politician with direct responsibility for sport in a country to say such a thing in public serves only to completely undermine PdV. Or any other coach for that matter.
I’m trying to imagine our Minister of Sport in Ireland saying something similar to Declan Kidney in media. He’d have a crowd outside his Departmental door the next morning inviting him out onto the street to dare him to repeat it. He wouldn’t survive.
Anyway, I’m now much more reluctant to comment on the whole Lions test affair, now that I’ve learned this. Trying to coach whilst being effectively politically handcuffed is simply intolerable. If the Boks wanted to come out wearing armbands seeking to highlight this issue, I’d support them and PdV every step of the way.
Knives Out said | July 9th 2009 @ 1:09am | Report comment
I am still confused by the suggestion that SA rugby has been politically handicapped for a long time. If you examine the xvs from the past two World Cups there have been very, very few black players. Jake White may have had to deal with politicking and back room nonsense but apart from the Luke Watson saga his squad was clearly his own squad. I recognise that PdV is a political appointment, as Hoskens publicily admitted, but the current situation seems to be the first period in professional rugby that Springbok rugby has been undermined by politics. Is that incorrect?
Neil said | July 9th 2009 @ 1:27am | Report comment
we love eccentricity, moodiness, angry outbursts … it’s all good fun really.
but seriously the brits n aussies just can’t understand or handle that aspect of our nature.
so they ban our players cos we play too rough.
agg shame.
pothale said | July 9th 2009 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Neil
Are you seriously telling me that you don’t mind that politicians effectively run sport in your country? That they dictate who manages, who plays, etc.?
Neil said | July 9th 2009 @ 2:16am | Report comment
no it sucks pothale.
but there’s not too much we can do about it really. besides which, it keeps us on our toes, and like i say the south african mentality is very much one of strength in adversity.
we are very proud of the fact that despite this sort of thing, we are world champions of the sport. we love a siege mentality, we love being told we can’t, and then doing it.
but i think this really really irritates the likes of zavos, i’m not sure why though. i’m trying to understand the negativity towards us … greg smith is close with his assertions the other day, but i don’t think it’s quite right.
to quote from an article i read earlier from chris waldburger:
“De Villiers is a bit eccentric. He says some funny things and sometimes he says some silly things. And this kind of thing really annoys the cynical Europeans, whose countries often have to put up with bores like Gordon Brown and Prince Charles for inspiration. But that doesn’t mean we have to join in on the slating. South Africa is different. We aren’t slick and proper. we’re all a bit funny, just like Peter de Villiers. That’s how we play our rugby. We win matches we should never win, and we lose a couple we should never lose. Give me that and a few World Cups any day rather than the slick professionalism of Australia and the All Blacks.”
i think that’s a great description of the reason behind the tension towards the ’south african’ way …
Neil said | July 9th 2009 @ 2:26am | Report comment
I mean really who the hell is Spiro Zavos or Stuart Barnes to tell us who we should have as coach of our side, or what we can or can’t do as a team. His opinion is blatantly biased and I cannot for the life of me understand why he doesn’t just accept South African rugby for what it is.
Imagine how boring Sanzar would be without us? No wonder we contribute over 50% of income.
Sorry for the double posting. This stupid thing seems to be occupying alot of my thought patterns at the moment.
Knives Out said | July 9th 2009 @ 2:31am | Report comment
‘we are very proud of the fact that despite this sort of thing, we are world champions of the sport’
‘I am still confused by the suggestion that SA rugby has been politically handicapped for a long time. If you examine the xvs from the past two World Cups there have been very, very few black players. Jake White may have had to deal with politicking and back room nonsense but apart from the Luke Watson saga his squad was clearly his own squad. I recognise that PdV is a political appointment, as Hoskens publicily admitted, but the current situation seems to be the first period in professional rugby that Springbok rugby has been undermined by politics. Is that incorrect?’
Maybe you would be so kind to answer the above, Neil.
pothale said | July 9th 2009 @ 2:35am | Report comment
I have no comment on either of the journalists you mention.
My issue is still with the political situation. I don’t understand when you say that ‘it sucks…but there’s not much we can do about it anyway.’ Of course you can do something about it. Protest. Take to the streets. S A is not a police-run state – there is freedom of expression.
Why does no-one question this – on a regular basis?
Rather than consign it all into ‘well we’re a funny lot, and that’s part of what we are’, if you genuinely believe somthing is inequitable (rather than something trivial like Botha’s ban), why the hell don’t people get up off their arse and do something about it?
The politicians here made a running assumption that the Irish people would just stand up and vote like lemmings for the EU Lison Treaty. Instead, they all stood up and marched into the No camp. Red faces all round. And the policiticans had to go back to the drawing board. I know it’s not the same thing, but sport should be well above politics or at least outside its control. It belongs on the voluntary side of society, not in the hands of the state. I’ve no problem with state funding following policies that are for the betterment of sport overall such as capital infrastructure, or player development, but there’s a point where a line should be drawn.
That’s my view anyway. Not sure about anyone else on here.
Darryl SA said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:03am | Report comment
Knives Out: This is such a complex subject one doesn’t know where to start. You are in fact correct I would say, in that by and large Jake White got to pick the team he wanted but there have definitely been selections that were influenced by politics. Moreover though the coach constantly has the government looking over his shoulder, and summoning him to justify decisions and actions. This is over and above the many pressures that an international coach already has to deal with. Just read Jake White’s book In Black and White, and you’ll see many such incidents documented. Jake White had to first get his team selections approved by the minister of sport before he could announce them. The World Cup squad had to be approved as well, but while there were selections that were politically inspired, he nonetheless mostly got the team he wanted onto the field. Every year however, the government rattle their sabres and vow to enforce specific limits placed on the number of white and non-white players in any starting team – as documented by the Transformation Act, which I believe will still be enforced in the near future.
There was one incident in a test match where White had initially picked Jacque Fourie, but had to then drop Fourie and choose Breyton Paulse after an objection from the government. How must this affect Fourie, and also how must this make Paulse feel? Of course Paulse did not let himself down, and always deserved his spot, I felt, but there have been many others who didn’t. People like Hanyani Shimange, Lawrence Sephaka, Solly Tyibilika, Owen Nkumane, Quinton Davids, Ricky Januarie (who was in my view anyway not a merit selection this test series). There’s the Ndungane brothers who are ok but not the best. I don’t think PdV would have dropped Adrian “The Sieve” Jacobs if it wasn’t for the fact that he started Chilliboy Ralapelle … and Ralapelle himself is somebody who is backup to Derrick Kuun in his provincial team. When you look at any team selection, the changes will often reflect a balancing act of selection needs and political needs. I think because of the knowledge that there are ‘quotas’ as it is often called, mediocre non-white players are always suspected of being a quota selection, which fans the flames and isn’t fair on anybody involved.
Of course there’s the converse argument which is that because of the racist history of rugby in SA (non-whites excluded from rugby), there’s the belief that SA coaches persist with this and don’t select players to give them a chance, so the government feel they must force selections to give these players an opportunity. Would we ever know about Nokwe if he hadn’t been forced into selection? He didn’t do that well in his one test against the Lions this year, but he’s had some very good games in the S14, and in the tests last year. I however believe that a coach will choose the players that will win them games. It’s why the NBA has far more black players than there are black people as a percentage of the USA’s population, because those coaches know those guys will win them games. Yet this is the flawed statistic that the government uses as a smoke screen to validate their interference in rugby i.e. that a teams makeup should have a direct correlation with the racial makeup of a country. To me any such correlation is purely coincidental.
Fortunately we slowly have players coming through from good schools and clubs who fully deserve their spots without question. Players like Beast, like Habana and Pietersen. Zane Kirchner didn’t have a great test, but he had a very good S14. And there are others. But I don’t think we’ll ever be rid of this political interference while rugby remains important to white South Africans. As somebody here said, the government seem to take special pleasure in interfering or threatening to interfere with rugby, but seem to tolerate the poor administration, poor performances and oftentimes corruption in the South African Football Association.
So I’ve waffled on now, but haven’t even touched on issues like the damage it does to non-white players rushed into national teams for political convenience, the fact that white kids who had nothing to do with apartheid are prejudiced against because of the actions of their parents or grandparents, the effect it has on the team dynamics when some players are obvious political appointments, the effect it has on the players who know they are political appointments, the fact that the government loves to focus on the national team while giving only lipservice and promises to the grassroots levels where the real problem lies.
But hey, this is South Africa, and things are just different here than anywhere else, so by and large we just accept it and get on with it. But read In Black and White and you’ll have a newfound appreciation for what White accomplished during his tenure as Springbok coach. He should have called it Against All Odds.
pothale said | July 9th 2009 @ 3:37am | Report comment
Thanks Darryl. Very useful. Will go read the book.
trophymaster said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:11am | Report comment
‘bringing the IRB into disrepute’ – what a joke !
When you’re rock bottom, the only way is up ! Does FIFA, the ICC or IOC have this type of ‘disrepute’ rubbish ?
I doubt it.
Knives Out said | July 9th 2009 @ 4:29am | Report comment
Thank you for the lengthy response, Darryl. However, I still don’t see why transformation is that much of an actual issue. This may just be ignorance on my part but surely the problem has mostly been bark from the government, and not actual bite. I mean, how many enforced black players are there at Super level? If you look at the various teams there doesn’t seem to be many black players. Likewise, of the players you mentioned only Sephaka garnered more than the odd cap here and there. Is it that much of a stress having to occasionally cap a player in a meaningless test? For example, Davids played against Argentina, Ireland, Samoa, Wales and the Pacific Islanders and managed two sub appearances against Australia & NZ. I fully recognise PdV’s position – as previously stated – and it is abundantly clear that he has persisted with some players due to reasons other than their rugby ability. However, this seems to illustrate another coach getting his way with little outside interference (But more official backing.) just as White seemed to have his squad, and just like Straeuli, Viljoen and Mallett had theirs.