The South African way.

The environment I grew up in South Africa in the seventies had no gangs, crime, drugs or anything that you would call untoward. It was an environment that was pretty normal.

I went to 7 primary schools in my life, my Mother only settled when I went to Standard 7 (grade nine) where I managed to complete my last four years of schooling at one school.

I guess most of us grow up in a school environment where bullies reign supreme and run most playgrounds, so I don’t think South Africa in the seventies were much different from any other place, at least not in the environment I grew up in.

So very early on in life I came to realize when you are the new kid on the block you need to stand your ground when the local school bullies come knocking.

You then have rugby, a sport revered by Afrikaner fathers, when your son is born the first thing you do is buy him a rugby ball, no matter what it is made of, a little rubbery one filled with the stuff they make Teddy Bears from, or these ones you get at supermarkets and Garages, they have a thin plastic or latex covering and have a type of sponge in the center.

The next thing you look at when he is born is how big is his …….well you know what I mean.

When the family visits, or the neighbor comes visiting, even when the Uncle that comes to your house to fix the plumbing, they all ask the same question when you are a boy.

Do you play rugby, what position?

If you are a wing, they want to know how many tries have you scored, and most importantly how many big blokes have you tackled.

At camp fires and family get-togethers , rugby is the one subject that doesn’t get neglected, yeah sure they talk about work, Cars, women etc. but it is the rugby that gets heated, it is a way of life you see, little else carries the same importance.

So as you grow up you learn one thing pretty early on in life. Don’t show fear, don’t run away and hopefully that will get you through life without a fight.

There are however times when showing no fear or smooth talking don’t have the required result and you realize the time has come to put up or shut up. You see the weak or sissies or whatever you want to call it suffer at the hands of the bigger and stronger kids, it is merely a way of life, (well it was back in the seventies).

I am not trying to paint a picture of South Africans being uncouth, uneducated ruffians, but the mentality that goes with growing up in the seventies.

So at school I was fortunate enough to walk away without fighting most times, but there were a handful of times when those fights were necessary to establish your pecking order at school.

The same applied to the rugby field in those days. When I went to high school, my captain who was a year ahead of me told me before a game, “When a bloke hits you, mark him, so we can all take him out.” That is how it worked.

Many a time I would come off the field with a jersey full of blood (often mine as well) but you walked proudly back to the school bus because you manned up.

Looking at my son and his first year of 15’s rugby I don’t think much have changed, the same principles apply, even if discipline and foul play is officiated more strictly these days.

The point I am trying to make is that each country have their own traditions, culture etc.

For an Afrikaner things are simpler, man up, respect your elders, respect your wife, love your children, make an honest day’s living and care for your family.

Discipline your children and give them the opportunities you can, but make sure they are always safe.

Rugby holds many of those values, respect, honor, honesty, hard work, love etc.

That is why we associate with rugby, the physical battle , the intimidation, the collisions, all comes naturally to us. It isn’t all to our benefit though, as we tend to run at the defender rather than the gap, we have this inbred mentality we are physically superior and the defender will yield.

Yeah, not the smartest players on the pitch are we? So if you want to taunt us to get retaliation it is likely to happen, only the most disciplined like Juan Smith, John Smit etc have been able to go through their careers without being called for thuggery.

Remember Brad Thorn up ending John Smit in front of the referee in 2009? John went for neck surgery and the next season got Thorn back with one of the most perfectly executed driving tackles you’ll see in rugby.

So we aren’t all brutes who can’t discipline ourselves, we’ll get you, even if it is a year later and as legal as can be.

You see showing you are tough and being tough isn’t about elbows in the face, fingers in the eye, head butts or any other illegal dangerous transgressions, it is about facing your opponent head on and manning up.

Everything else is just semantics.

Great stuff Biltong ...lovely piece .

...oh and did I mention how tough NI Grammar Schools were in the 90's.... ....

Taking this in conjunction with your other thread, if your young lad had someone poke their finger hard into his eye at the bottom of a ruck where no adult could witness it, what would you have him do?

Would you hope that he would just retaliate against the closest opposition player?

I know I'm only a soft Ulster mother and not a macho SA dad but I'd hope my lad would draw the incident to the attention of both ref and coach!

MrsP, there is a difference in physical intimidation and something that may cause you to lose an eye.

In other words it is fine to do the "gentlemanly" fisticuffs, however eye gouging is not very sporting is it?


It is like someone challengrs you to a fistfight with a knife in their hand.

What I am trying to say is one on one face to face, sort it out yourself, both men or boys know what is coming, a headbutt, an eye gouge, a dangerous tackle round the neck are entirely diiferent. That is not manning up. You do that you must get the full letter of the law.

So.... he should....?

No not when it is an eye gouge, nor headbutt, nor dangerous tackle.

MrsP wrote:Taking this in conjunction with your other thread, if your young lad had someone poke their finger hard into his eye at the bottom of a ruck where no adult could witness it, what would you have him do?

Would you hope that he would just retaliate against the closest opposition player?

I know I'm only a soft Ulster mother and not a macho SA dad but I'd hope my lad would draw the incident to the attention of both ref and coach!

Can I wrap myself in your warm, comforting and voluminous Edwardian skirts MrsP?

Just for protection?

I feel that Biltong is mouthing off way too much these days.

And as a moderator, is he not a bit too immoderate?

I don't think that is what Biltong is saying at all MrsP, at least I don't read it that way.

Biltongs example about Thorn and Smit illustrates what he is talking about. Smit got Thorn back with a fair tackle.

Think of the SAs we've had in Ulster ...Muller, Pienaar, wannenburg, BJ, Terblanche - hard men (well not Pienaar) but gentlemen off the field and excellent sportsmen. Hard but fair.

rodders wrote:I don't think that is what Biltong is saying at all MrsP, at least I don't read it that way.

Biltongs example about Thorn and Smit illustrates what he is talking about. Smit got Thorn back with a fair tackle.

Think of the SAs we've had in Ulster ...Muller, Pienaar, wannenburg, BJ, Terblanche - hard men (well not Pienaar) but gentlemen off the field and excellent sportsmen. Hard but fair.

Thank you Rodders, that is exactly what I mean. Hurt the man legally.

I was pretty sure that would be your advice and hope Biltong. Your son is a fortunate young man.

That's the bit that confuses me though given that I suspect what prompted this article.

Surely investigating a possible incidence of "contact with the eyes" in an International match is exactly the correct thing to do too, no?

I'm with you Bilts. Keep the chin up mate .

MrsP yes, I suppose in fairness that is the properthing to do.

However prudence is also necessary.

Watch the video, then decide whether it is necessary to investigate.

In this case, to me at least it is pretty clear in was not intentional and based on what I have seen not close to an eye gouge, but then I am seen as a biased SA supporter.

I just wonder how and what this officer saw that warranted this investigation. laidlaw didn't moan at the time, didn't report it to the referee, so how did that particular 3 seconds of video become this?

MrsP wrote:I was pretty sure that would be your advice and hope Biltong. Your son is a fortunate young man.

That's the bit that confuses me though given that I suspect what prompted this article.

Surely investigating a possible incidence of "contact with the eyes" in an International match is exactly the correct thing to do too, no?

Investigating it is fine...we'll see what the outcome is though. Unfortunately for Etzebeth, even if found not-guilty, the allegation will still taint him, esp. seeing as though he's a bok no.4 (which comes with 'taint' built in)

greytiger wrote:I feel that Biltong is mouthing off way too much these days.

And as a moderator, is he not a bit too immoderate?

I'd like to know how and what I have been mouthing off about?

I have carte blanche to "mouth off" or provide my "opinion" as freely as any other poster, regardless of being a moderator.

As long as I follow house rules.

I see exactly where you are coming from Bilt and I hope you don't feel I was trying to imply that you would encourage or endorse any retaliation in kind!

I also know that you have unfortunatley suffered from many folk who have labelled your countrymen as "thugs" based on a few isolated incidents. I hope you know that I have strenuously tried to refute that sort of thinking when I have encountered it. It is nothing short of racism and should not be tolerated.

I just think that the citing process can be used both to catch and punish offenders but also to help clarify what is and is not acceptable on a rugby pitch.

I would hope that there would be no stigma attached to any player who was cited but was "acquitted" by the disciplinary process. As I said before, I'd rather have the panel see a few "innocent" cases and declare them as such than have another case like Rougerie escape punishment.

Biltong wrote:MrsP yes, I suppose in fairness that is the properthing to do.

However prudence is also necessary.

Watch the video, then decide whether it is necessary to investigate.

In this case, to me at least it is pretty clear in was not intentional and based on what I have seen not close to an eye gouge, but then I am seen as a biased SA supporter.

I just wonder how and what this officer saw that warranted this investigation. laidlaw didn't moan at the time, didn't report it to the referee, so how did that particular 3 seconds of video become this?

I don't think that matters,over the last few years we've seen players banned for making contact with the eye area.Not a gouge just making contact with the eye area accidental or otherwise.It seems to be treated a bit like a tip tackle,the offender is responsible for where his hands go and it doesn't matter if he intended to touch the eye or not,he'll cop a ban if he came near it.

I was a decent player but a vag when it came to the tough stuff at least compared to some guys. However, I was still involved in plenty of fights, threw lots of punches, loads of sly digs etc. Therefore it usually pis$es me off when pros at citings claim the incident they are being cited for was an "accident".

Thanks MrsP, the unfortunate case with Etzebeth is that he recieved a two week ban for a non headbutt, the judiciary found him guilty for making a suggestive motion with his head, yet he never did.

Don't know biltong, round my way, headbutt is perfectly fine in a fight, perfectly fine in Glasgow as well.

Who says that puching someone is fine and headbutting is not.

Back 30-60's think everyone just thought punches 70's headbutts came in and are now acceptable, and where do you stand on kicks? Back in the day kicking was not on, but kicking today, its fine and part of a fight.

Nobody has a set of rules that are acceptable in fights, you may just trade punches but if others consider kicks and head butts fine, you'd better be careful.

And then what about a big guy starting on a smaller guy, thats not fair at start, if smaller guy headbutted (as you count it as gentlemanly) the bigger guy would you blame him for evening it up?

Sure two people are never the same size, only gentlemanly and fair way is pistols at dawn?

Not on a rugby field mate, especially not like Bakkis Botha did on Cowan from behind and that on a much smaller man.

Yes true asore but we've seen our own Kevin McLaughlin get away with what looked a clear gouge (intentional ro not) on McCaw in the summer, without even a citing.

Gouging needs to be punished severly but there needs to be some consistancy in the citing process too.

Thats a general comment though as I haven't yet seen the incident to which Biltong is referring...

Here it is mate.

http://prem0.hiboox.com/images/4712/diapo38402bac6b331dd0754b0868b2389b89.gif

Sorry biltong, rugby field fair enough, I thought you were just talking about rowing in general.

rodders wrote:Yes true asore but we've seen our own Kevin McLaughlin get away with what looked a clear gouge (intentional ro not) on McCaw in the summer, without even a citing.

Gouging needs to be punished severly but there needs to be some consistancy in the citing process too.

Thats a general comment though as I haven't yet seen the incident to which Biltong is referring...

Oh yeah the entire citing process is shockingly inconsistent but I don't see that ever changing unless the IRB employ a team of officials to go through the tape of every game with a fine tooth comb to find every possible transgression.

Biltong wrote:Here it is mate.

http://prem0.hiboox.com/images/4712/diapo38402bac6b331dd0754b0868b2389b89.gif

No way that's a gouge but can see him getting a ban for reckless contact with the eye area.It's unfortunate as that type of thing happens regularly enough in maul situations,especially now that Ireland brought the choke tackle into vogue.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
No way that's a gouge but can see him getting a ban for reckless contact with the eye area.It's unfortunate as that type of thing happens regularly enough in maul situations,especially now that Ireland brought the choke tackle into vogue.

This is the bit that I get a little concerned about: if I guy deliberately gouges your eye, then a ban is fitting, but being banned for reckless contact is a little bit of a grey area, because isn't much of rugby 'reckless contact' and if you want to avoid reckless contact, avoid rugby. I fear that it will, and perhaps has, opened the door to football diving (can you imagine a rugby player from 20 yrs ago doing Nathan Sharpe's whole song and dance to milk the penalty against Etzebeth. It was as close to a football dive as one can get in a maul.). I don't ahve full confidence that the IRB are seeking to prevent that sort of thing....

Very interesting article, and I think it rings true. I've not met many South Africans (including the women) who shy away from confrontation. I guess the other factor is that South Africans simply tend to be big guys.

Without wishing to hijack your thread, I guess if you look at this from an English perspective, I would say that the history of England is very much one of getting results by the most expedient means. I would venture to say that that pragmatism is carried over into our attitudes to sports.

Yeah it can definitely swing too far in the other direction,you want to protect players from foul play but there's a line where it becomes beneficial for professional players to dive or pretend something illegal was done to them.

The 'South African way' does have to be put in the perspective of a century of uncompromising hardness.

I'm aware of half of that time-span and many of my views are clouded not by the hard-but-fair rugby side but by political iniquities.

Anyway what I'm seeing at the minute is claims that national rugby traits are being filtered by international 'ethical' codes of behaviour.

Personally I'd love to see the old-fashioned AB/Scottish ruthless rucks, the Samoan bosh etc.

And see citings for cheats and fakers made equally alongside the likes of Elspeth.

Rucking should be brought back.

greytiger wrote:
And see citings for cheats and fakers made equally alongside the likes of Elspeth.

I agree in principle. It would be difficult to implement in practice (apologies for sounding like Sir Humphrey Appleby)

GunsGerms wrote:Rucking should be brought back.

It would probably simplify the breakdown laws. Does anyone know what motivated its banning in the first place? Was it due to complaints from players, or did it have its genesis in administrative circles?

So what Biltong is saying, is that life in 70's SA was good. Before, you know who, became the president in the 90's.

Off topic bilt, but I watched a film about Andre Stander the other night. And I thought of you.

I must be the only South African you know then. Surely then there might be a few other incarcerated policemen I remind you of?

No, but you'd be the South African I speak to most regulary.

Stander is a great movie (bit off-topic).

Morgannwg wrote:No, but you'd be the South African I speak to most regulary.

So enlighten me, how do I remind you lf him.

I have a most sunny disposition, he not so much.

Because that's how I always pictured you looking. Generic build, nice suit, nice tan, ray-bans, handsome.... Now you're going to tell me you look the exact opposite right? It was a crap film btw. Left me wondering how accurate a portrayal it was.

I am a prop, nothing stylish about me, I wear the cheapest sunglasses, hate wearing a suit, prematurely grey, missed 6 foot by 1 inch, and built like a brick house.

I don't drive a sleek sedan but either Double cabs or suv's and up until 2 weeks ago (when I sold my cruiser ) look like biker scum on weekends with unshaved facial hair and a leather helemt.

Is this the 606v2 dating thread?



I'm the one with the red carnation.

Biltong

That is vastly different to freinds I know who grew up in SA in the 80's. I'm guessing your reflecting rather fondly in this thread!!!

Your right on the edge of talking about revenge for players you deem to have wronged you. In South Wales thats about 28 kids on the pitch on average, they all deemed to have been wronged by someone and all they want is to focus on that player for a few minutes.

Ive seen coaches give speaches similar to this thread with the ethos of 'if someone does something don't just take it get them back the next time they touch the ball' type thing! I then saw a 6ft 13 yr old what could only be described as assault a kid a third of his size, literally a third of his size!!

There is a huge difference between standing up and being counted, being there for the guy next to you and smashing a guy in the teeth if he does something you deem wrong!!

Regarding the school playground thats a whole different ball game, it isn't a game, it isn't sport and at the time you inevitably feel it's do or die.

However on the pitch you need the respect that you know you will do to the opposition what they will do to you, you know if you get punched you'll retaliate, if your trapped in a ruck getting a finger in the eye/punched/stamped omn you'll react, but the idea that a professional who gets injured decides to attempt legal revenge the year after is ridiculous, legal revenge should be attempted in EVERY TACKLE!!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:Biltong

legal revenge should be attempted in EVERY TACKLE!!!

Absolutely, but there is just that tad more venom in the tackle when it is revenge.

Bluesman, just a note, Smit was out for nine months after his neck injury, hence a year before the next tackle.

At international level? No chance!!!

With todays techniques of focus, motivation etc every player should go into every tackle with the idea of totally legal, totally perfect and most disastrous for the opposing player (I would say barring injury but thats not always the case from what Ive seen)

My point is if at any point Smit was looking for Thorn he isn't doing his job, if at any point he considered revenge he isn't focused on the game, and if at any point he thought about the injury he isn't mantally strong!

Well, we wouldn't know exactly would we. The point is not to play psychologist with John Smit's mind, the point of the story was to show the legal way of hurting a player vs the illegal way.

Biltong wrote:I am a prop, nothing stylish about me, I wear the cheapest sunglasses, hate wearing a suit, prematurely grey, missed 6 foot by 1 inch, and built like a brick house.

I don't drive a sleek sedan but either Double cabs or suv's and up until 2 weeks ago (when I sold my cruiser ) look like biker scum on weekends with unshaved facial hair and a leather helemt.

Ah ha! Now I know why you're in such a pessimistic mood of late...

I might still have one of those little black plastic motor-bikes in my garage if you want to come and borrow it...