Once again South African rugby just doesn’t get it
Columnist By Spiro Zavos, 23 Jul 2010 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- International Rugby, Judge Lex Mpati, Oregan Hoskins, SANZAR, SARU, South Africa rugby, Springboks, Tri Nations
157 Have your say
Related coverage
- Tri Nations Tournament news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- South Africa Springboks news
The SARU boss Oregan Hoskins has intructed the South African representative on the SANZAR legal committee, Judge Lex Mpati, to complain about what he sees as a clear bias by SANZAR against the Springboks.
The issues are a ‘lack of consistency’ in SANZAR’s legal committee, and a specific complaint that Jean de Villiers was treated harshly for his dangerous tackle on Renee Ranger when the All Black winger was lifted well above the waist level and then slammed on to the ground.
Ranger was shaken up by the tackle.
As a general argument in support of the complaint, the SARU asserts that the All Blacks captain Richie McCaw was “getting away with too much” at the breakdown and should have been yellow-carded at Wellington. Also, “nothing was done” about Ranger for an earlier ‘no-arms’ tackle against the Springboks full back, Zane Kirchner.
Taking the tackle Ranger tackle first, it is a marginal call to insist that this was a ‘no-arms’ tackle. Replays show that Ranger led with his arms, as a player is legally required to do. His shoulder then hit Kirchner’s chest when the collision was made.
This tackle was penalised, which was the appropriate penalty if it was deemed a shoulder charge that was below the runner’s head. In no way was the tackle comparable to de Villier’s dumping of Ranger.
De Villiers, in fact, was lucky to escape a much longer sentence which would have followed if the tackle, as it might have been, had been deemed to be a spear tackle.
Moreover, the SARU makes no reference to Kirchner’s head-high tackle on Corry Jane which was much worse that Ranger’s tackle and was not even penalised.
As for the McCaw nonsense, the All Blacks captain was penalised three times in the match. He was penalised once inside his own 22 for killing the ball when the video evidence revealed he actually turned the ball over legitimately, as he did later in the match.
After this penalty, the referee, Alain Rolland, gave the All Blacks a general warning that any more penalties inside their 22 would result in a yellow card. McCaw was penalised after this inside the Springboks half.
The New Zealand commentators, who clearly were not listening to the referee, could not understand why he wasn’t yellow carded. The reason was obvious, the offence was not inside the New Zealand 22.
Graham Henry has responded to the Springboks coach Peter de Villiers warning that he will have to coach his players ‘to cheat’ (the first coaching he has done for some time, I’d suggest) with the comment that Rolland was correct in his rulings in allowing a contest at the ruck “which is important … otherwise one side will get the ball all day.”
The basic principles of rugby as written down by the IRB insist that rugby is a game about a contest for possession of the ball. As Henry said, Rolland refereed very well at the tackle.
The problem here for the Springboks is that they have refused to adjust to the new interpretations. Instead of tackling low and sending in second diggers for the ball, the Springboks have continued to pick huge forwards who generally tackle high and are reluctant to release the tackled player as the law says they should.
An observant reader of The Roar has picked up, too, that the All Blacks are going over the top of the tackled player when the tackle is around the legs. This is the old-fashioned way New Zealand teams used to ruck.
The All Blacks won about three turnovers with this legal tactic of getting their upright bodies ahead of the tackled player.
The Springboks, on the other hand, and we will see this again probably at Brisbane on Saturday night, tend to dive over the tackled player.
A ploy that is illegal.
More generally, there is an arrogance about the SARU’s complaint. In the two Tests against the All Blacks, the Springboks had Botha sent off for deliberately lying on the ball on the Boks tryline only about 15 minutes before he had head-butted Jimmy Cowan out in the open.
And then Danie Rossouw in the second Test flicked McCaw’s eyes (a rugby no-no) and then kneed him.
This incident happened at the beginning of the Test, just like Botha’s head-butt, and like Shalk Burger’s eye-gouging against the British and Irish Lions last year.
When you look back at the Springboks, there is a pattern of taking out a player early on in a Test. The wonder is that they think they can continue to get away with this thuggish play.
If the referees are so hostile to them, too, how does SARU explain that Botha’s head-butt and Kirchner’s head high tackle were both missed by the referee and the assistant referees?
SARU should also explain why they allow coach de Villiers, who is becoming a buffoon who disgraces the great South African rugby tradition, to support Burger’s eye-gouging and Botha’s many acts of thuggery, including his latest head-butt.
And while we’re at it, how do they allow de Villiers to continue to select Botha as soon as he comes back from one his frequent bans, and puts Butch James, another serial thug, into his match 22?
James was on the field for about 5 minutes in the first Test against the All Blacks. He threw Brad Thorn out of the way, illegally, and then gave Jane a facial massage that went very close to choking and eye-gouging.
If the SARU were serious about bias in the judicial system, they would issue an instruction that Botha and James are never to play for the Springboks again. And that coach de Villiers will stop from supporting his players when they are blatantly guilty of foul play.
Last year, the Springboks, with the support of SARU, wore black arm bands in support of ‘Justice4Bathies’ when he banned for charging illegally into a maul and breaking the arm of a Lions forward. Botha head-butted an All Black in the opening seconds of a Test, an action that even Victor Matfield concedes was ‘unacceptable.’
The fact that the SARU and the Springboks can’t see the link between their bizarre ‘Justice4Bakkies’ demonstration and Botha’s continued thuggish play is an unacceptable proof that South African rugby just doesn’t get it.
If you continually condone thuggish play and select players who have a history of thuggishness, you’ll get the deserved reputation of being a dirty team.
I’m looking forward to the Springboks proving me wrong at Brisbane that they can play an important Test without someone disgracing the jersey with unacceptable play.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
July 23rd 2010 @ 7:19am
Trevor DeAngelo said | July 23rd 2010 @ 7:19am | Report comment
Wow really angry reaction from the SA Supporters to Spiro’s well written unbiased and accurate article. Where there is smoke there is fire. As Spiro said South African players have a history of thuggery and ‘quick snap’ aggressive moments. As rugby viewers we all know it…regardless of where we live in the world. The reputation isn’t a ‘fantasy but something born from South Africa’s habitual pattern of behavior on a rugby field.
The last 2 games against the AB’s had 2 such unprofessional and unintelligent moments that displayed that tendency again. Both of course which resulted in long bans for the players involved.
Of course SA players will be ‘noticed’ and watched by the ref – just like the naughty boy in the classroom who gets constantly disciplined by the teacher (maybe even when he didn’t deserve it). If SA cleaned there act up and played professionally without the brain snaps and thuggery…things would be completely different. It’s simple while SA have the reputation they have there will be the tendency for refs to be watching them like a hawk and the rugby powers will want to come down hard on the offending players to send a strong message as to their views of this type of play (As they should).
What really intrigues me is the level of denial that appears to be shown by many South Africans regarding their rugby. Instead of owning their weaknesses, such as thuggery or playing poorly, they prefer to blame outside forces for their losses – outside forces that include the governing bodies, refs and anyone else they can blame – the latest one being PDV’s assertion that the Refs let the AB’s win so they could sell more tickets to the RWC.
Denial has never led to winning sporting teams or businesses for that matter. Reading many supporters responses to the last 2 losses and listening to the SA coaches for years deny the real reasons for their losses gives one an insight to why SA have not always delivered on their incredible potential consistently and more often than not have punched well below their weight (Based on player numbers, genetics, size, the brains trust, mongrel attitude etc I believe SA should consistently be the worlds number one team which they are not).
Change starts with ownership of the problems – denial has never helped anyone create a winning culture.
July 23rd 2010 @ 8:43am
Vincent said | July 23rd 2010 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Indeed the Springboks don’t get it. Illiegal play is just that, once or twice could be seen as mistakes, more than that is an attitude!!
July 23rd 2010 @ 8:44am
katzilla said | July 23rd 2010 @ 8:44am | Report comment
There is only one group of people that can clean up this supposed bias. And it isn’t the Referees or Tribunals.
July 23rd 2010 @ 8:57am
Happy Hooker said | July 23rd 2010 @ 8:57am | Report comment
South Africans arrogant. Who’d have thought?
July 23rd 2010 @ 8:59am
CK said | July 23rd 2010 @ 8:59am | Report comment
It was only a little headbutt. What seems to be the problem? Come on people, they’re not out there playing tiddly winks! What’s a friendly little headbutt or punch in the face to remind you where you are and whom you’re playing?
Bring back the boots, the biff and the booze! Spear tackle? Only if you drive him into the ground like you mean it… and you’d better mean it or it’ll be extra laps after training for you!
Lying on the ball? Give him some tram tracks to remind him that’s not in the spirit of the game. Won’t release on the ground? Squirrel grip him and let him know that there’s more important balls to hold onto!
Bunch of namby pambies!
July 23rd 2010 @ 9:06am
Winston said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Spiro this up there with your best work. Spot on
July 23rd 2010 @ 9:14am
Rickety Knees said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Great post Spiro – spot on.
July 23rd 2010 @ 9:35am
Taniwha said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
It all swings in round abouts. I didn’t hear to many Saffa complaints about the referee in the Bulls vs Crusaders final pool game. In fact, I remember Victor Matfield saying all the decisions the ref made in that game were right. Now Matfield feels that Carter or McCraw are untouchable in regards to trangressing.
The Wallabies must be loving how much energy PDV and company are spending complaining, rather than focusing on this weekend’s game.
July 23rd 2010 @ 9:38am
TembaVJ said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I completely agree Taniwha, if your team is winning the refs and the system works but change it around?
The author is a perfect example.
July 23rd 2010 @ 9:46am
MM said | July 23rd 2010 @ 9:46am | Report comment
Spiro – I truly didn’t think you’d embelish a performance – let’s be safe and say two just for the entire picture, quite this much?
Seeing as a famous saying engineers mostly use which is very applicable to all life situations is: “where does one draw the line?”
How many warnings does McCaw need? How many has he had over years and years – is he royal game? Seems so eh?
Let’s chat on Bakkies Botha… No action was taken against the overtly apparent slamming he got when the Boks wore arm-bands – examining the tapes and seeing the head butting action from the front does not make what he did right – it was deliberate – but – and here we come to drawing lines again, if Bakkies wanted to badly or mildly injure, he would have done a real job of it – that was a mere warning – nonetheless he was wrong. To that Graham Henry climbed on his wagon (at last – whew!) jabbering on about the sentence being too short. Hello? What’s the sudden fright about when all along there has been no consistency by various refs leaving many countries wondering where to lay trust – that’s if they’re honest about similar concerns which there are more than thousands of pieces of data?
I don’t dress up in my All Blacks jersey et al for nothing – it’s because I’m mad about them – they play brilliant rugby and are really coming to the fore – they are demonstrating that they’re willing and want to win and that’s great – fits with myself and many others very well.
Where a ref messes up – and it’s happening too often – that team can and may lose a lot and not rightfully. If the tables were turned – the shouting would be a lot louder.
Even if the ref is a consistent negative – at least everybody knows what to expect. It’s as clear and simple as that.
Nothing more to say – no comments to reply on – however, must say Spiro – you and the team at The Roar know how to encourage the crowds and the mix makes for interesting reading.
Tks