For my sins, I was seated a few rows from the touchline at Eden Park when Ireland monstered the Wallabies in their pool round of the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament. James O’Connor was one of the few Wallabies that day who did not stop trying to take the attack to the rampant Irish.
It was raining and a woman, in her 30s and wearing a huge, green Dr Seuss-type hat, kept on shouting out to O’Connor, “Justin, Justin, look over here… Justin, Justin I’m here, look at me…”
Being at ground level you could see and hear the smacks and thuds – that muffled sort of sound of a baseball bat smashing into a water melon – as the players collided into each other with their shoulders, arms and sometimes their heads.
The sound of the mayhem on the field, the punishment being meted out by Irish players with the glint of battle in their eyes, gave the interested onlooker a disturbing insight into the world of a professional rugby player.
Rugby is probably beer off the field. But it was certainly skittles, with the Irish being crazed bowling balls crashing through the Wallaby runners, on it.
The rugby field is no place for the faint-hearted. And anyone who accuses a player of cowardice just does not appreciate the courage required to even take the field in the first place.
So in discussing the case of James O’Connor, we have to acknowledge he has been brave and effective on the field for the Wallabies.
He hasn’t, unfortunately, transferred the same braveness and effectiveness to his behaviour as a Wallaby off the field.
There are compensations, obviously, for players like O’Connor off the field, as the annoying behaviour of the Ireland supporter sitting behind me demonstrated.
And the problem for O’Connor, who has behaved like a bimbo off the field, is that his best games in terms of being a Wallaby superstar have been played far away from the Test arenas.
It was quite clear from Nathan Sharpe’s comments on Rugby HQ that O’Connor has lost his teammates.
They want him out, and out for a considerable period of time. And Ewen McKenzie has rightly dropped him from the squad to play the next two Tests in The Rugby Championship.
But what should be done as a follow-up?
A regime of tough love is required. O’Connor must be assessed by psychologists and then given a treatment regime to address his problem – which may be an extreme form of narcissism, the same sort of syndrome that afflicts Kevin Rudd.
If O’Connor agrees to a rehab program, he should be signed up by the Western Force. But he must not be considered for the European tour by the Wallabies at the end of the year.
If, and it is a huge if, O’Connor can rehabilitate himself with the Western Force, and he has apologised to his Wallaby teammates, and the apology is accepted, then, possibly, he could be considered for selection for the Wallabies in the June Tests of 2014.
Underlying this tough-love approach is the notion sport can play a redemptive role in the life of troubled young players.
But the player has to be willing to be redeemed by his own action rather than any words. That is the challenge facing O’Connor.
*****
During the week there was a fascinating discussion on The Roar, Sinbins, red cards, foul play, repeated infringing and the like, which was written by the well-informed, combative supporter of South African rugby, biltongbek.
The writer of the article, a Roar Guru, often gives me a hard time. But I applaud his insights, his knowledge and his passion for the positions and the teams he supports.
One of the great things about The Roar and the discussions (even the somewhat heated ones) we have is that this verbal artillery is an essential part of sport.
There is a saying in Welsh rugby I love and live by as a journalist: ‘The game begins after the final whistle.’
In this spirit, I’d like to discuss the arguments put forward by biltongbek to dismiss or explain away the large number of yellow cards handed out to the Springboks, and why they do not stand up to scrutiny.
Since the card system came in 2000, the Springboks have received 79 yellow cards and four red cards; the Wallabies 52 yellow and one red; the All Blacks 48 yellow and 0 red.
Of the major rugby countries, only Argentina – 58 yellow cards – and France – 27 yellow cards – along with the All Blacks, have not received a red card.
Biltongbek (not too enthusiastically, it must be stated) and most of the lively writers making comments on his article argued the ‘physicality’ of the Springboks and the criticism they play ‘negative rugby’ have created a perception with referees they indulge in foul play.
It is known, too, that Tonga (52 yellows and four reds), Fiji (47 yellows and four reds), and Samoa (35 yellows and five reds), are also teams known for their liking for physicality in their play.
Biltongbek asked whether all this confirms ‘whether there is a common denominator towards physicality/aggression/foul play or simply repeated offences?’
My answer to this question is that the Springboks were repeat offenders on foul play because an over-emphasis on physicality, borderline aggression degenerating very quickly into foul play, has been part of the Springboks game plan for over a decade.
How can I be so sure of this assertion? I refer readers to the South African website Super Sport and an article written by Brendan Nel titled: Discplined Boks no longer ‘bullies’ (20 September 2013).
Nel is an experienced and well-informed rugby journalist in South Africa and when I met him many years ago he was, and no doubt still is, an insider on Afrikaans rugby politics.
In his article, Nel points out that Heyneke Meyer identified the accusation the Springboks used ‘over-the-top tactics’ and ‘brute force to try and bludgeon out a victory’ as the reason they were too often on the wrong side of the foul play law.
“Too often in the past,” Nel writes, “they have blamed the referees and officials for their own failings. It isn’t Meyer’s fault the world sees South Africa as a dirty nation who rely on foul play when they don’t get things right.
“There is statistical evidence that backs this up…
“The Boks have been their worst enemies and have deserved the tag of a brutal, bully team at times, one that goes outside the bounds of the law when they don’t get their way.”
The statistical evidence, Nel points to, is the yellow and red card numbers cited above.
Nel further points out that Meyer has appointed a technical analyst, Chean Roux, who is in charge of analysing the card data and putting in place ‘the inward change’ the Springboks need to clean up their game and to make their robust play (which should always be a feature of Springboks rugby) into a 15-man game.
Nel has then provided a fascinating statistic, which suggests the inward change might be taking place. In The Rugby Championship this year, the Wallabies have conceded 45 penalties, the All Blacks 44, the Pumas 44 and the Springboks 31.
This brings us to the Eden Park Test and the Bismarck du Plessis red card.
Clearly du Plessis hasn’t got the message about the Springbok’s new approach to foul play, which equates with Punch magazine‘s famous advice to people getting married: ‘Don’t!’
After the first yellow card, as he came back on to the field, du Plessis was told by the referee Romain Poite not to get another yellow card, as this would turned into a red card.
Only 15 minutes after this warning, and two minutes into the second half, du Plessis ran at Liam Messam with a raised forearm.
He elbowed Messam in the face, slipping down to the chest. Messam reeled away in pain.
The assistant referee Jerome Garces flagged the incident. Poite then gave du Plessis a yellow card, which he converted to red.
An apologist of du Plessis has suggested to me he raised his elbow to protect himself from the Messam tackle. My answer to that is Richard Loe used his forearm to protect himself from Paul Carozza’s charging nose.
The suggestion, in other words, is nonsense.
Steve Hansen, the All Blacks coach, has made the point that the way du Plessis used his elbow, which could have cause significant and possibly permanent damage to Messam’s eye if it had struck centimetres higher, could have warranted a red card in its own right. This is a valid point.
As for du Plessis’ first yellow card offence, I find it incredible that the IRB and SANZAR’s judicial review officer ruled the tackle on Carter was ‘legal’ and, therefore, the yellow card was rescinded without discussing why this was so.
There are two points here.
First, there is no clear-cut evidence the tackle was not high.
Justin Marshall’s initial reaction in the commentary box, which he took back after the replays, was that it was a high tackle.
The referee who was standing only metres away was also sure it was high and reckless as he immediately decided on a yellow card and told the TMO he was only interested in seeing whether there were cards on offer from the melee that followed the tackle.
Dan Carter, too, tweeted the tackle was legal.
There is another context to this which the Twittering and reviewing has failed to address: the tackle was made from an offside position.
To say it was legal in these circumstances is like saying it is OK to drive on the wrong side of the road as long as you are keeping below the speed limit.
A tackle from an offside position is actually an illegal tackle. It is clear, also, from Mr Poite’s reaction, he considered the tackle to be reckless in these circumstances.
A reckless tackle that causes injury is always a yellow card offence.
But was du Plessis offside?
Many Roarers have claimed that he wasn’t. But it was a long pass back to Tony Woodcock and then a short pass to Carter.
When Carter got the ball the nearest Springbok to him, he thought, was about 10m metres away, coming from the pass-play to Woodcock. Then he was clattered by du Plesssis charging in from a couple of metres away.
Du Plessis was clearly offside. He was metres in front of the ball and because he was so offside he was able to blindside Carter before the champion could even spot him.
Let me introduce to readers Maurice Heemro, a rugby figure of stature in Cape Town who was a gifted player in the apartheid days when ‘coloured’ players had their own leagues. In 2001, Heemo was made an honorary Springbok.
Here is what Heemro (and not Spiro) says about the incident. Listen up Roarers:
“Bismarck is a bully and, regardless of whether he used his arms or not, he went into that tackle from an offside position with the intention of injuring him. It speaks of a cynical and a dirty style of play the Springboks have espoused for a long time.”
As a postscript to this, Brendan Nel has reported Du Plessis won’t start against the Wallabies at Cape Town. He says this is part of a rostering system with Adriaan Strauss.
But it is a sort of punishment for breaching the new Springboks protocols regarding foul play?
*****
Getting back to James O’Connor and the Wallabies, the one thing that really amazed me about the incident was that the team had been given the week off, which allowed O’Connor to contemplate a trip to Bali.
The way the Wallabies have been playing this season, and their record of two wins in seven Tests, didn’t deserve any time off at all.
They should have been sent to a boot camp, as the Wallabies were during the Rod Macqueen era.
In the boot camp they should have put down dozens of scrums a day. The backs should have done drill after drill to open up gaps for runners.
In general there should have been an emphasis on toughening up the players and getting them harder, hungrier and more effective.
I am not a fan of teams taking a holiday break during a tough tournament.
Montpellier was the home base of the Wallabies during the 2007 Rugby World Cup tournament. In the last week of the pool round, many of them were given permission to go and see parts of Europe before the quarter final in Marseille against England.
I remember being at Montpellier Station and seeing Berrick Barnes returning from a trip to Barcelona and having misgivings.
For in the 1999 Rugby World Cup tournament, the All Blacks had done a similar thing, with the entire side flying from England to the Cote d’Azur for a few days of ‘R and R’.
There were photographs of the team frolicking in the sea on the day the All Blacks arrived back in cold, dismal Edinburgh for the quarter finals.
It’s history now that the Wallabies were unexpectedly beaten by England in their quarter final in 2007 and that the All Blacks were beaten in their semi-final against France in ’99.
The moral of this story, and the story of James O’Connor, is that fun and games off the field generally don’t help teams to play their real game on the field.
And that is my fear for the Wallabies when they meet the new clean-skin (perhaps!) Springboks at Cape Town on Saturday night.
Rugby is Life
Guest
Absolutely Strums, I am with you. Utter tripe.
Strums
Guest
I actually cannot for the life of me believe you have written this article. I doubt very much any respected journalist would agree with this so quoting Brendan Nel is an insult to that man's career and legacy as a professional. You are no more than a keyboard junkie trying impose your warped views on the general public. Enough is enough I fore one cannot take you seriously any longer Disgraceful and petty
Eric
Guest
Rugby is a wonderful game and played in many different styles.
Paul from Melbourne
Guest
Thanks Ribald, I stand corrected.
supertrooper
Guest
hahaha why is it that the only comments coming from the bokkie supporters is whining about du plessis high tackle from an offside position,yes right bok fans the tackle was hich and was from an offside position i know this because that's what my news paper says, news flash the honourable salt of the earth ABs won and the despicably uncouth boks got caned again....read it and weep cry babies
Mike
Guest
Glad you found it interesting. You are reading too much into my comments if you think I am suggesting that all disciplinary infractions should be ignored. Also if you thought I was suggesting that the only "more important" issue is aggression levels. Rather, that was just one example. There are many more things that are more important than O'Connor having an argument with counter-staff.
Nabley
Guest
Spiro on your stats for Red Cards in which you claim the ABs have no Reds. I thought Jona Lomu got a Red Card from two Yellows, for deliberately knocking on in his own 5m area, trying to intercept passes and thereby spoiling try opportunities.
Greenbok
Guest
Late to this party... But I've been fascinated by the different views/observations about BdP's actions - and how they demonstrated "intent". Please note - I'm not arguing for or against the yellow card and the merits thereof - this has been flogged to death already. What I am interested in, is how little has been said about the actual technique, or lack thereof... By this I mean - has anyone tried to mimic BdP's action? Place your right arm in a diagonal position in front of your body, with the tips of the right fingers just touching your left breast/chest area. I recognise this is not a natural position - but its placing the right hand in the vicinity of the bread basket, where the ball was being held by the left hand. Now *quickly* extend the right arm up and forwards, away from your body. If you are conscious about what you are doing - it is possible to *quickly* extend your arm in a perfectly horizontal fashion - with no part leading or jutting out. This is what BdP no doubt should have done - was possibly trying to do. However - if you get that wrong and "lead" with your right hand, you will end up with your balled fist of your right hand more or less in line with your head, and in front of your body. Not very effective as a fend - and could almost be seen as a type of punch. Alternatively, if you **quickly** repeat that move, but this time "lead" with your elbow, your right shoulder pivots forward, and your elbow basically ends up just to the right and in front of your head.... but here's the thing - assuming you want your arm to end up horizontally, in front of your body - your hand and forearm are a split second "behind" the elbow. Seriously. Try this, and you will see what I mean... You snap the elbow out, and the forearm follows, it's 'catching up' with the elbow that "led" the movement... It could even extend past the elbow point fractionally... Whether one "leads" with the elbow or fist, I think would largely be dependent by the positioning of the arm in the split second you start moving the arm forward... I honestly think this was a timing issue, more than anything... If the contact had happened a split second later, the forearm and fist would in all likelihood have been aligned with the elbow, which would then not have taken the impact - which obviously makes things much worse... In the clip - the angle from the front, looks a lot worse than the view from over BdP's shoulder... In the latter angle - you can gather that the forearm and fist were following up in order to align, but the impact happened before they could... I'm not excusing his poor technique - but if you were to believe some of the reports of "leading with the elbow", it sounds as if he put up his elbow and charged... A close inspection of all those camera angles, does not provide any merit for such an assumption. If the contact had happened a split second later, it would have been a standard fend. Even if the elbow had still connected, the force would have been better spread out along the rest of the forearm. It didn't. It came off far worse than I believe it was intended, and he paid the (justifiable) price for the mis-timing and poor technique. What cannot really be denied - if one is prepared to look closely at the clip - is that his right arm was still moving in an arc. He hadn't "set" his fend, for lack of a better word. That makes all the difference, from an 'intent' point of view, in my opinion. As a final aside - the angle from the back, over his shoulder, also suggests that the initial contact was in the clavicle area, and slid up to the throat area. Again - that doesn't make things any better - but still does not hold up the claim that he "aimed" for the neck, or any such like statements... I guess it really depends on what side of the fence one sits. As a Bok supporter, I would like to give the benefit of the doubt to BdP. Not saying it should not have been a yellow - but rather that he did not intend to hit Messam in the throat with the elbow - it was purely bad timing and one of those things. As an AB or neutral supporter, depending on your personal value-system of what is deemed legal/acceptable/accidental, and possibly - your preconceived ideas of "thuggish" Bok players etc., I can equally understand why one would wholeheartedly disagree with everything said above... Which again, fascinates me. As a Solicitor - here we have the classic example of "one set of facts - being argued two different, mutually exclusive, ways..." And it's precisely because of this, that I love Sport. And Rugby. My 2 cents. Cheers.
sesenta y cuatro
Roar Pro
Dear Spiro, I don't think you are right about Bismarck's tackle. I would say there was no offside as there had not been a tackle or a knock on after the restart. Moreover, it looked perfectly legal to me. Strong but not high by any means. I think Bismarck was hard-done by the ref's mistake of judgement. And it is an All Blacks fan saying it.
Ribald Gadfly
Guest
Yeah mate, that's scraping the barrel :-) I find it a bit strange that a lot of Kiwis try and defend the indefencible here. There is no slight intended on them - most South Africans have the greatest respect for Kiwi rugby and their supporters, largely because they're knowledgeable. And yes, David Baker is right, no apology really needed - I'm really over this constantly hammering on the offside thing which is so blatently wrong. I suppose that like a lot of folk I'm truly disapointed that a potentially great game was ruined.It WAS really good, but the question of the Eden Park record remains and how good the All Blacks are remains. The last few moments of the second half when BDP was back on and the power of the maul that led to the try showed a momentum building. I'd have expected the ABs to counter and counter strongly, but now we'll never know. That's the sadness of it. Sipro has form - he's not exactly the most knowledgable journo out there, thank heavens. I don't expect much quality from him; this blog though takes the biscuit. Sloppy and unprofessional.
David Baker
Roar Pro
Dsat doesnt need to apologise at all. He is a learner and at least he has responded to the 'guidance' dispensed by other Roarers. Supporters are allowed to be a little one-eyed. More learners is a good thing because it implies that there are more people entering the game. Mr Zavos on the other hand has made his living out of rugby for many, many years. He knows the rules and as a journalist he has a duty to maintain at least some semblance of balance. I expect him & other journos to be a bit partisan. He has a local readership to appease and his roots are in NZ. So I expect *some* partisanship What I don't expect from Mr Zavos is tabloid style rubbish - The offside thing - He knows he is wrong. I understand that in the heat of the moment one gets it wrong. One commentator called it offside and then got corrected by his colleague (open play) So why does Mr Zavos bang on so (you could ask me the same question ;-) Reason - Because Mr Zavos has written like this before) - Citing Maurice Heemro as evidence - Well he had to go a long way to find someone with an ancient rugby background to agree with him. Maurice Heemro was an excellent player was undoubtedly persecuted by the Nationalist government. The disenfranchised people supported the visiting side in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Many still do and so do some of their descendants (in the Western and Eastern Cape anyway and they support the ABs) Maurice Heemro is a die hard AB supporter with a legitimate axe to grind against rugby establishment. He is probably a salt of the earth kind of guy. He is also no a journo. I expect him to be one-eyed. I don't expect Mr Zavos to be this far off base. He seems to have an axe to grind and maybe he should be more open about his bias (say he has it because of a, b,c)
Buk
Guest
Meads era was totally different. I worked on a holiday job once in NZ with a guy called Muller who played prop for the All Blacks. Very strong. His provincial team was playing Meads team. A scrum was put down (scrums did not push until the ball was in back then). The scrum then opened up in an obvious planned move, and Meads uppercut Muller, breaking his nose. Mullers arms were bound by the opposition prop's, unable to defend himself, & the ref could not see exactly who did it. That, apparently, was how things worked back then.
Dsat24
Guest
It has been a learning curve for me on the rules. However, to flog the donkey one last time, in the knowledge that everyone has likely (and quite rightly) moved on, I maintain that the rules are incidental ion this one because the phase is more to do with perceptions rather than rules at play. I mean the perception of the refs aswell, it is after all his take on the the cards he is dealt. I can see different referees taking different views on this phase, due to its 'special circumstances', and accordingly different carding outcomes. On viewing the tape again, to scrape the barrel for a comeback (:)), I think with my Captain Hindsight hat on, that the greater crimes in the phase in question are Aaron Smiths pass and the Louw no arms cleanout at the ruck. I read the SA refs article, even after wincing seeing Kaplan's mug first up.
jutsie
Guest
the wayne carey comparison is baffiling. Anyone who follows afl knows carey and many other 80's/90's AFL stars were allowed to do much worse than oconnor/beale/QC. And as sheek says in the above post he led his club to two premierships and his roos are hailed as one of the all time great teams. Carey just proves that you can be a great leader and player on the field despite being a complete tool off the field. he lost the trust of his teammates with a despicable act and was kicked out, thats fair enough. but his teammates were hard and did not care about his previous antics unlike the softc*** that play for the wallabies and support them nowadays. honestly why do u guys care so much what a bloke does off the field, he is not paid to be a saint and role model he is paid to play rugby. JOC trains well and plays hard unlike most of his teammates and thats all that should matter.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
'The reality is we get carded more than other teams.' This really sounds like typical SA fan chat. Apart from the Botha shoulder charge into Adam Jones in 2009 and the BDP red card I can't think of any unfair cardings. As an England fan I can recall Simon Shaw being illegally red carded because of Stuart Dickinson (in 2004) who had no right to involve himself in the way he did. I can think of Bryce Lawrence pulling his usual rubbish against us during the 2011 6N versus Ireland. Happens to every side in the world at one time or another.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
'We need to get hard-headed really quickly – stop worrying about piddling little things like O’Connor having an argument with flight attendants, and instead start concentrating on what matters – producing some real aggression and hard attitude in Australian rugby.' This is a rather interesting comment given that this current incident follows a number of previous incidents and that the player in question is currently unattached to a Super side. Let's just ignore the fact that one of the Australia's brightest talents has a history of unprofessional behaviour - totally forget that - and start worrying about aggression levels.
Ben.S
Roar Guru
That's because JDV didn't get hit in the collar bone/throat. Incidentally, first time I've read any reference to Woodcock. Do you have any video links?
fredstone
Guest
Tony Woodcock can clearly be seen leading with a head clearing a ruck before the AB's fourth try, he didn't get pinged. Jean De Villiers didn't roll around squirming clutching his throat after the Nonu hit. Bismarck raised an elbow, arm or whatever... FFS get over yourself...it happened it wasn't deemed serious enough to get a red, other players did things where intention would be much easier to prove, they didn't get pinged, it's time to flippen move on.
Suzy Poison
Guest
Great videos Biltong. That Brad stayed on the field was a miracle. Now we we all know if Bakkies had done the same thing, he would have got a yellow at least. But it's wrong to look at these incidents in isolation. Sadly the Boks have a long history of foul play. Jake White was the first Bok coach to change this. However I still think Meyer can do more. I am glad Strauss is playing the Wallabies, as I always thought Bismark was a bit of a thug. Sure Bismark didn't deserve the first yellow, but he could have avoided the second. But his play is always borderline. So lo and behold I am actually agreeing with Spiro on this one. I might point out, Nonu shoulder charge was way worse either of Bismark's cards, but that's another story. Also the way the AB's cynically infringe in the red zone, is starting to get finally noticed by Refs. I see Richie McCaw is the most penalised player at the moment in the RC. Stoked the Refs have finally cottoned on to his constant cheating. In Richie's defence it's only cheating if you get caught. I think the Boks are slowly building. I like to see them beat the AB's at Ellis park, but still come second in the RC. I think a close second is a good position to be in come the World Cup in 2015. A win in this addition of the RC will only paint a target on their backs too soon. This team has some maturing to do. For the record I think the AB's would still have won at Eden Park. I reckon Fourie Du Preez is going to shock some people. Boks have only had one home game so far. They won by 60points.
Mike
Guest
Is okay BB, I didn't mean to suggest you were being deliberately selective. And I agree, O'Connor or any of our players could benefit from a season playing Currie Cup. That was the system (at U21s) which produced our last really hard forward, Dan Vickerman. I hope Jake White found a few more hopefuls on his recent trip to SA.