In the first part (Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika in Xhosa, Zulu and Sesotho) he wasn’t singing the melody but he wasn’t exactly “off key” either. What I think he was doing was actually singing a harmony line instead of the melody. Listening with my trained musician’s ears that whole first section fits together harmonically. It’s the kind of thing I might do when drunk to impress a crowd of people singing happy birthday. When added to a group of people singing the melody a harmony line sounds OK. But sung on its own, without the context of the melody, the harmony line sounds utterly “wrong” as it bears no resemblance to the tune people know. If you’re engaged as a solo singer you HAVE to sing the melody. It’s as straightforward as that. He should not be ad libbing a harmony line when he has been employed to sing the melody. He was a silly man for doing that and deserves all the criticism he gets.

A second problem occurred after it went into “Uit die blou van onse hemel” (Afrikaans). The key the band/orchestra played in was not at all suited to his vocal range and you can hear this in the Afrikaans section as he basically starts off singing it an octave higher than you would expect given whathas just come before. This guy basically has a tenor voice and the band was playing the piece in a key suitable for a bass or baritone so that the low notes of “Uit die blou van onse hemel” were too low for our singer’s range. But then when he’s singing the octave up the high notes become too high and he strains to get some of them, and others he just can’t get at ll and then it sounds like he’s singing out of tune and by the time of the final section in English he has lost it and is singing something that resembles neither the melody nor a harmony line that fits with the melody in the key it was being played.

The first problem I have identified was entirely of his own making. He simply shouldn’t have done that and instead should have sung the melody. The second problem was possibly of his own making, possibly also of the band’s making. That’s what rehearsals are for. You don’t just turn up and sing. Everyone has a finite vocal range and as a singer you know what it is and you make sure that you’re not going to have to sing anything outside of your range. Either make sure the band plays the song in a key where you can sing all the notes or don’t take on an engagement that will require you to sing outside of your range.

Oh, and having said all that I didn’t think his voice was much good anyway. Even he’d actually hit all the right notes it wouldn’t have sounded that good. But I suppose few would have complained the way they did.

1. IRB ELIGIBILITY RULES
Under the IRB regulations there are four ways you can qualify to play for a national team and importantly “citizenship” is NOT one of them. As far as the IRB rules are concerned you don’t have be a South African “citizen” to play rugby for South Africa or an Australian “citizen” to play for Australia etc. “Citizenship” is a legal construct peculiar to each country and is not relevant for the IRB’s rules. In fact it presents a particular problem in relation to the Home Nations as there is no such thing in law as “English”, “Scottish or “Welsh” citizenship (there is a single “British” citizenship which covers the people of these countries) and members of the Ireland national team come from two sovereign states with their own distinct citizenship rules (the Republic of Ireland and the UK in the case of those players who come from Northern Ireland)!

The four ways of qualifying for eligibility for an international team are: (1) the country of your birth, (2) the country of a parent’s birth, (3) the country of a grandparent’s birth, (4) three years’ continuous residency. Under those rules a person can be eligible to play for more than one team (although nowadays once you’ve played for one you can’t then switch).

Now assuming the the Beast has lived in South Africa for three years continuously then as far as the IRB rules are concerned he is eligible to play for South Africa, regardless of whether or not he takes out South African citizenship. A Zimbabwean citizen and passport holder living in South Africa can qualify to play for South Africa under the IRB rules. There is nothing in the IRB rules that says you first have to take out South African citizenship to play for South Africa. If the South Africans are happy to have a Zimbabwean citizen play for their national side that’s a matter for them and is no-one else’s concern provided he qualifies under one of the four IRB rules.

Talk of the Beast’s “ineligibility” on the basis that he is not South African is therefore a little bit misleading. Maybe he is “ineligible” but it would not seem that is ineligible because of the IRB eligibility rules (he has in fact lived for three years in South Africa) but because of South African law (he has been living there illegally without a valid visa; in other words he’s an illegal immigrant). I will leave you with one qualifying remark in that respect. There is an argument that could be made about the proper interpretation of the IRB residency rule. Does it mean three years residency *simpliciter* or does it mean three years’ *legal* residency? Are illegal migrants eligible under the IRB rules? An interesting question to which there is no clear answer. Personally I think that illegal migrants would qualify *under the IRB rules*. Obviously there are going to be other factors which may mean they will be ineligible to play (see the next two sections below).

But the gist of the matter is this: As far as the IRB rules are concerned citizenship is completely irrelevant. Having it doesn’t grant you the right to play for that country and not having it is not a bar to playing for that country. What counts is the place of birth (either yours, a parent’s or a grandparent’s) or three years’ continuous residency.

2. SARU SELECTION POLICIES

Now the South African Union (SARU) obviously cannot select players for national duty who don’t satisfy the IRB eligibility criteria. But there is nothing stopping SARU adopting a more rigorous selection policy so that some people who would be eligible under the IRB rules are nevertheless ineligible under SARU’s own tougher rules. SARU is free to adopt a policy of not selecting foreign born players who don’t also hold South African citizenship (such as the Beast) or who are illegal migrants (as is alleged of the Beast,not having had a valid visa for his stay in South Africa). I have no idea what SARU’s own selection policy is. Ask SARU.

3. SOUTH AFRICAN LAW

It is also possible that South African law has a bearing on this. The allegation is that the Beast is an illegal migrant, being neither a South African citizen nor a foreign citizen with a valid visa to remain in South Africa, It is possible that South African law says that he’s thereby ineligible to play for the South African national side. But it is also possible that it says nothing of the sort. Again I don’t know what exactly it says. Ask a South African lawyer (I’m an Australian lawyer).

It should be treated as a chance to build a squad with greater depth going into the next World Cup. What is a couple of losses after all that has been achieved this year?

Unfortunately the winning record today is more important than success in the future. This attitude applies to the all three of the Trinations sides.

I take that back, Dingbat.

What is disturbingly absent is that albeit the embassy was mandated to select, who was in control over the preparation and validation of the performance. Obviously there is great doubt that it was South Africa for they simply take rugby too seriously to allow for the vocal mess.

Spiro does mention the possibility of a deliberate upstage as well as many other factors regarding preparation.

Good stuff, Dan. Clever, funny and profound. Praise be Australian schools.

This weekend we shipped in a couple of props and a hooker and all of a sudden they are better than any of the one’s alreaddy on tour. Adi Jacobs is also a ‘quota’ player that makes it into the regular squad all the time. Chilliboy Ralapele is not his province’s first choice and now that Gary Botha’s coming back he won’t even be the second choice, but he’ll be on the Springbok’s bench. The Beast is an absolute joke, but aye he’s the right colour so the quota is being filled(but now it turns out he doesn’t have the right passport, so I don’t know what kinda quota he’ll be filling now). And then theire’s our coach! SARU openly admitted he was chosen on more than just ability, because if it was down to ability, Heyneke Meyer would’ve been the coach and then we wouldn’t have lost last year’s 3N either, which might have been a bit much for old Spiro to swallow, and made him gone into early retirement or hiding…what a blessing that woulda been.

So you guys should actually count yourselves lucky, not having to face the full might of the Springboks.

As for the one track pony horse manure you and Spiro is spouting. That pony’s been galloping along merily for the last five years or so at the Bulls. Which brings me to another point. Did you know that the Bulls are the youngest union of the SA franchises if I can put it that way. The really interesting fact though is that the Bulls have won the Currie Cup most, bar one province, which is WP, or the Stormers as you would know them. From 1946 onwards the Bulls have dominated the Currie Cup, winning it 23 times.

And the Bulls play rugby to SA’s strenghts, and in times past, we’re talking before re-admission we beat everybody all of the time except for the AB’s. OK that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but you can go look up the stats and see how dominant we were. Way back then we played the game Bulls style for the most part, which doesn’t mean that we didn’t have good backs, it is just easier to dominate whith a big pack and then feed of mistakes, because you cut down the risk factor significantly. This doesn’t neccisarily mean that you can’t play, it just means that your pack of forwards gives you an advantage that means you don’t have to take any risks and you can, from that platform then dictate proceedings. If you want to know if the Boks can play, well just go watch the second B&I Lions test and then go check out the first test in Aus. You’ll find that if they have to, they’ll play, but if they don’t then they just shut everything down and minimise the risk factor and make you come at them, like in the WC final vs England. But ask the AB’s about World Cup’s, risk and pressure and you’ll understand the logic behind this, and then there’s that little 50% win ratio statistic of WC’s entered by a SA team that also comes to mind.

What but skill is it then to win your set peices, win the collisions and win the kicking game. Now I know it’s flash to run around like a bunch of headless chickens to entertain the crowd, but that you can do at Super 14 level. Tests are holy ground for those who truly understand the game and winning, especially against NZ is everything, well for us at least. But if you ask most Rugby players from Europe and Aus, they’ll all say that winning against the AB’s or SA is someting very special, and for the most part someting that they enjoy more than any other win. And you could also see how much it meant to the French.

Test Rugby is hard, is supposed to be hard, and is filled with pressure, because as I think Chris Koch or it could have been Jan Ellis put it in one of his team talks, rugby is war and the honour of the country is at stake

The Vid is a hilarious one though looking at the facial expressions….

That is the difference between the great all black teams and the great boks teams consistency… Every single test match is important and if u want to achieve true greatness u ahve to sweep all before u! We should have been fired up for france, we have not won there since 1997!

DIV and all South Africans had a right to be offended – but as Spiro said, there was amusement from the Bok Team which is rather typical considering they’ve had far bigger issues to face before. That it may have affected their performance is merely speculative. So other countries would have lovingly embraced a failure of their own anthem? That’s the implication – especially when many can’t even get history to where it belongs…

1.”Damned near lost the Lions Test…”. Actual result?
2.”He knew full well if justices had been served…the Lions would have won against 14″. Actual Result?

Without making mention of opposition blunders – but what you further state – your comments represent those of a missing gem of knowledge that should be heading the IRB rather than procrastinating in history.

DIV stated clearly – there has not been transparency regarding penalties etc.

Frankly – not taking away anything from the French – these tours hold little interest other than to give space for an abundance of chirping. If there’s going to be criticism, during a test where there was absolute reason to defeat the French – the All Blacks go and lose it…. It happened, they got over it and continued without the ifs and buts.

P.s. please do not refer to that mid week game as a ‘test’ that was at best an emerging bok team.

Much like the games leading into the tri-nations, these autumn internationals have less meaning than a nun in a gay bar.

French played well, they got in our faces and rattled us. I want to see them try and play the same game next year when they tour us, might be a diffrent story.

Many of us have commented that the Bok running attack has been sorely lacking this year (and perhaps camouflaged by good lineouts and kicking). And it was shown here again. This is the area that needs to be addressed. The Bok managed to roll over the ABs this year, but it was noticeable that when they tried to apply a running game, they often ended up going backwards and losing territory before resorting to kicking and it happened here again.

To suggest that the Boks drop games because they have no tangible value (or have low bragging value) is ridiculous and utter rubbish and supporters do their team an injustice to suggest otherwise.

The Boks need a Plan B if they want to maintain their IRB ranking

On the other hand, it was great to see the French starting to rediscover their flair, I was worried that they might have lost it after Laporte did his best.

Springboks have traditionally had issues with playing the French. I thought it was a pretty good test match overall.