PERPETUATING THE SPRINGBOK STEREOTYPE With Social Media and the proliferation of rugby websites, any Tom, Dick or Harris with a laptop and spell check feels he can criticise and comment on just about any subject he wants. Yes, this is the right of anyone in a free society and where previously our comment on rugby was restricted to mostly verbal banter, misquoted if ever repeated, nowadays they are almost indelible and there for the World to see. It can be hurtful, as I have personally experienced. It can open one to ridicule, especially at the hands of ill-mannered cowards who feel they can express their honest opinion without recourse. Mostly, it is entertaining, informative and an interesting window to the psyche of different people around the Globe. The red-card debacle of the Eden Park Test between the Springboks and the All Blacks is a prime example of all of the above. Most comments were interesting, unbiased, objective and cognisant that the Boks were hard done by, but more importantly that the rugby public was robbed of a contest of note. If anything, the most inane comments probably came from All Black Coach Hansen when he tried to claim the moral high ground and that his team were unstoppable on the day. Nevertheless, cards and official comments aside, I have found certain comments from our echelon, the man in the street to be quite fascinating. Rob Houwing of Sport24 wrote an article wherein he referred to the Official IRB match statistics from Saturday’s test. It was interesting for him to note that the All Blacks kicked more often than the Boks. Yes, certain statistics cannot be viewed in isolation, and in the case of this one, need to be viewed in conjunction with possession. However, the perception that the Springboks play a kicking game is challenged by Houwing’s article and demonstrates a subliminal shift in the Bok play, perhaps too small for the average armchair journo to notice. What was interesting for me to note was the reaction of a few of the members of a Facebook Group I belong to, Armchair Rugby Critics, and a few comments from some other pals around the World. Ironically, those criticising the Boks game plan are ex-pats, albeit naturalised citizens of their adopted lands. Despite the article clearly stating that the statistics were the official stats, some could simply not accept the fact that the Springboks kicked less than the Kiwis. For your reference, here is an extract from the article: To start off with, it may surprise some that the All Blacks once again kicked more than the Boks, with Sanzar’s own match statistics showing 32 kicks for the men in black as compared to 26 for the Boks. But the real surprise comes in the attacking stats. The general feeling was that the Boks were stunted on attack when Du Plessis went off the field, and that they became a lot more defensively minded. The four tries to two scoreline could be ascribed to the imbalance of players on the field, as three of those were scored when the Boks were down to 14. At the same time the Boks scored their second try when the All Blacks were down to 13 men after receiving two late yellow cards in the game. The statistics quoted were subtly disputed, one respondent denying this as so because it contradicted his opinion while watching the game. Another asked if the statistics were recorded by South Africa as a part of their match analysis, implying that these were subjective at least even manipulated to suit the view from the Boks coaching box. Now guys, this is not a personal attack, my point follows, so I trust I am not offending. Cast your mind back to any time we South Africans feel hard done-by in terms of refereeing and the comments which follow on Facebook. We Saffers are called whingers and our points of contention are reduced to sour grapes and not having sound basis. Almost invariably, those comments are made by Saffers resident in Australia and New Zealand, which leads me to my point. Saturday’s refereeing display lent credence to the claim we South Africans have made for a long time now, dating back to the leaked e-mail circulated between the Anzac officials a number of years ago wherein they vowed to get revenge on the “Japies”. Lest we forget, Bryce Lawrence’s father was chairing the NZ Referee’s Asscociation at the time and was central to the scandal. My question is just how much do South African sides and specifically, the Springboks suffer as a result of perceptions? Using the comments mentioned above by ordinary rugby followers like you and I, the perception that the Springboks are kick-and-charge bullies prevails. It just cannot be accepted despite the facts staring them in the face. No, these gentleman are not bitter, ignorant and biased fans. On the contrary they are intelligent, successful professionals who love the game. They are simply exposed to the media in their respective countries, which promotes the stereotype of the South African rugby player to be a muscle-bound, arrogant, brainless bully who will forsake a gap in favour of running over his opponent. One who employs dirty tactics such as high tackles, eye-gouging and headbutting as a part of his armoury and when players such as Andrew Hoare blatantly punch a man from behind and send him to hospital with severe concussion, the incident is explained away as isolated and a case of brain-freeze. Like in any environment, a diversity of opinion is required to be truly objective and although I cannot comment with any authority, using the myriad comments from friends and foe in Australasia over the last 5 years’ rugby, I can only reach the assumption that the Springboks are not given a fair shake in the media in Australia and New Zealand. Whether that is right or wrong is another day’s debate. Whether the media are fair in this application of partisan support is also open to interpretation. What I can safely say is that while the visiting Anzac team will not be treated with kid gloves when on tour Down Under, the Springboks do suffer a higher level of negative sentiment than they show each other. I am not necessarily talking controversy, rather the perpetuation of stereotypes such as above. And so it beggars the question. Just how much of the performances of the match officials is down to perception? How much influence is subliminally brought to bear on them as they assimilate themselves to the environment in the build up to matches? How much in the case of Mons Poite’s ridiculous first yellow card on du Plessis on Saturday was that there is no way this bully boy could have made such a devastating tackle legally? It was assumption in the worst degree and an even greater degree of arrogance in forsaking the use of video refereeing or even just glancing at the big screen while Carter was being treated. His biased opinion, forged by the media over the years was underwritten by the cooing and subsequent baying for blood of a partisan home crowd, confirming his decision without a mere glance at the evidence the rest of the rugby world saw. Mons Poite may face censure, which he rightly deserves, but his actions are typical of the attitude the world has to South Africans and there will be many more despicable decisions like these, involving the big guns as favourable results are sought to ensure the financial returns. The true question is when will the IRB take tangible steps to eradicate this bias from the game. My guess is that if ever, it will be only addressed after RWC2015, when another result will cause questions to be asked about the impartiality of the men in the middle. Until then, we will have to suffer many decisions and performances such as Saturday’s.
Posted on: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:48:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015