Springboks might use Call 99 this time around

Sean Fitz literally poked a stick at Johann le Roux (and got half his ear eaten... oh boy... too funny !)

Don't hate us because your not us Viscount, Dan some of you guys have a very self righteous and high opinion of yourselves. It's all like a little kids argument in the playground. I can understand Patriotism but some of you blokes seem to have lost touch with the real world :-( Instead of dissing each others countries how about talk about the game. all our countries have bad points so don't sit on a pedestal and claim holier than though status its laughable a best seem the common theme in here is the Boks arguing with the Lions fans and them both hating on NZ and Aus funny that

I'll revert to the 'national psyche' explanation for Johan le Roux. (Although unjustifiable & Bok fans universally shut up quickly at it's mention) - in terms of the 'national psyche' situation ... Johan le Roux was oddly a hero. He personified a certain 'frustration' which non-South Africans cannot grasp. To those frustrated South Africans (and ito that 'national psyche' set up) if Sean Fitz was violently & mercilessly slaughtered in public - he'd have got what was coming to him in the eye's of the South African public. I like this 'national psyche' explanation - to me it explains a lot of things outside of the 80 min game which undoubtedly have an impact on the field. (I similarly have always wondered about South Africa's isolation period, mainly the late 70's & 80's which were WAR years in South Africa ... most 18 - 60 year olds were military conscripts and soldiers with rifles in hand in a complex 'defend your women & children' mindset) It's just as well no international rugby was played against those lads. I think allcomers would have been literally murdered and the physical condition of young men put through army bootcamp hell was unmatched by any nation at that time) Small mercies, eh ? The lesson - don't play 'games' with brainwashed soldiers or poke a dog in a corner with a stick while it's eating.

A toast to the deluded South African fan, past and present. In the immortal words of Johan le Roux: "For an 18-month suspension, I feel I probably should have torn it off. Then at least I could say, 'look, I've returned to South Africa with the guy's ear."

Yeah... Kevin Skinner is famous in South Africa (1956) We call that 'clear intent' !

That's utterly laughable, JohnB.

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.

@ 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 !?

That's the chap. He was a tough man himself by all accounts.

Sandy Carmichael.

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.

Congratulations, Greg. Hope you enjoyed the game.

Greg Greg Greg... i actually like the your mob play old skool. But if you think your boys arent dirty, you're mistaken.

@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.

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.

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.

Greg I've long been a fan of South African rugby but you could not deny they are natural brawlers, and their global reputation is written that way. I played schools rugby against a touring South African team and they were without doubt the dirtiest, most dangerous mob I have ever come up against. Their skills were sublime and their physicality fearsome (which was great) but their appalling conduct in the hidden world of rucks and mauls was shocking. '99' was a response to dirty tactics by the Eastern Province at Boet Erasmus, the Lions were sick of cheap shots and thought they would take matters into their own hands. It was simply drawing a line in the sand. Apart from that Greg it's just another truly bizarre post. Nothing's changed then.

Greg Somerville is missing one of his toes, or part of. Jono Tawake had a finger amputated (Or did he?). Can't think of anything else, Bonza. I didn't know that about Crowley. What's the story?

KO - an interesting point you make about Botha and his hands. You could probably reason that he does his best work on the field with his teeth and his boots. They rarely use him in the lineout ! I remember Daniel Herbert was deaf in one ear and he played 60 odd tests which would have been interesting from a communication issue. Dan Crowley has his toe amputated so he could play in the RWC - Does anyone know of any other physical limitations that have had to be overcome to be a top rugby player?

True. I think this selection could be a mistake, however. As fit as Jenkins and Vickery are they aren't that powerful or dynamic. Mtawarira and du Plessis are pure power athletes and that may tell at the ruck contest across the hard grounds. The same applies to the second row participants. That said, Jenkins and A.W. Jones fared well against SA in the Autumn so I have hopes of parity being gained. I'm not quite sure why a bigger figure like Hines or Shaw hasn't been included on the bench. What will O'Callachan achieve if the Lions are on the back foot? I hope that Croft is more involved in the lineout and he jumps at the front as he did versus France, but I doubt he will. I tend to err on the conservative side, and if possible I would have selected this pack: Sheridan, Mears, Vickery, Hines, O'Connell, Ferris, Wallace, Heaslip. The tour has seen some real selectorial disasters: Ford, O'Connell, Worsley, Blair, Earls, Halfpenny. It would have been nice to have players like Dwayne Peel, Mike Tindall and Rory Best involved. My simple worry is that the pack lacks variety and anger. I'm quite happy with the backs, nonetheless.