‘Bully’ Boks won’t hold back
John Smit says French accusations of thuggery won’t stop the Springboks from favouring a belligerent approach.
The Boks received a chilly welcome on Wednesday, torrential rain pelting at tired bodies and French journalists unleashing a wave of criticism from the outset.
The local media seem to have picked up where the British and Irish whingers left off, taking their cues from French coach Marc Lievremont and loose forward Imanol Harinordoquy on the subject of robust play.
Lievremont told the media earlier in the week that the Boks don’t always play within the laws, a sentiment echoed by Harinordoquy. At a welcome press conference at Toulouse’s House of Rugby, Smit and Peter de Villiers were made to feel anything but welcome. The French pressmen addressed the Boks as the Butcher Boys of world rugby, something that shocked the South African captain.
‘It caught me completely by surprise,’ Smit told keo.co.za. ‘You don’t ever hear that from the Aussie or New Zealand guys during the Tri-Nations. We play as hard as we can, and most teams respect us for it.
‘We brought that physicality into the Lions series. You need to be more physical than the other side to win a Test match, and you can see in matches where we lost, we were perhaps not as physical.’
The Boks won the second Test of that Lions series, and rather than focus on the victory, the travelling journos attacked the Boks for their over-the top belligerence. Schalk Burger was yellow carded in this fixture for what was initially believed to be eye-gouging (and later confirmed as reckless play) while Bakkies Botha was cited for a (textbook) clearance at ruck time. The Boks have always enjoyed a physical reputation, but these incidences have created a misconception.
‘We’ve never been a side to hit and kick and bite,’ said Smit, ’so I don’t think you can call us a dirty team. Bakkies wasn’t in the wrong when he cleared that ruck, and Schalk was later cleared of gouging. But I can understand how those two instances may have spurred on this idea.
‘Nevertheless, we will try to be as physical as possible this Saturday.’
Smit was involved in the planning for a November tour that will sees the Boks playing three Tests in as many weeks. They play the French on Friday, but have strangely arrived in Toulouse just two days before kickoff.
The squad trained in Johannesburg earlier this week in completely different conditions to those experienced in Toulouse. The team arrived on Wednesday and spent 30 minutes doing various stretching exercises in pelting rain and a seven-degrees temperature.
‘We decided that we wanted to spend a little more time with our families before the tour. That was one of many reasons for arriving late,’ said Smit. ‘We also wanted to be fresh for the game on Friday and felt it would be better to come up a bit later.
‘We employed the same plan when we went to Perth in the Tri-Nations, and it worked on that occasion. We believe this plan will benefit us this Friday.
Smit reiterated that he is not concerned about the conditions.
‘If you want to be playing anywhere in France at this time of year, it may as well be in the south. It’s not too cold and it probably won’t rain that hard. I remember in 2005 they were clearing snow from that pitch in Paris, so compared to that, it shouldn’t be too bad.’
By Jon Cardinelli, in Toulouse
November 12th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
#148 gunther: Extremely!
November 12th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Gee, I’m a new blogger to this site – you girls seem to fight alot.
Get over it, kiss and make up – lets talk Rugga?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
#145 who cares:
1. Yes, of course.
2. Yes, of course.
He’s been cited/banned for exactly the same techniques previously. The IRB released a YouTube video ‘Dangerous play examples from IRB’ 6mths prior to Lions tour. It showed exactly the same techniques by a multitude of players, incl Bakkies – twice ! Its called a ‘WARNING’ in most peoples language.
So he does the same thing, again. And gets cited/banned.
And yet Smit continues to say ‘Bakkies wasnt in the wrong’.
Which in any culture is holding 1 middle finger up to the IRB and World Rugby.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
#147 who cares:
my, how mature.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
#153 WakaNathan: I disagree with you totally, it’s called cleaning out at the ruck and it was the prime example of how to do it. What do you think about the Lions prop who afterwards said that Bakkies didn’t deserve what he got, thats how the games meant to be played,
When was he cited baned previously for the same technique? I seemed to have missed that one.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
#155 who cares: Even I hold up my middle finger to the IRB.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
#153 WakaNathan: Bud, the bakkies thing is old news now and you have some valid points regarding smithy. Most rugga fans opinion though is that the clearing was leagal and bakkies was hard done in.
Really, lets move on.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
#137 Fidget:
yeah G10 also want him back at hooker, cant see how one can drop Bismarck, he will be essentially tomorrow, tho i also expect a very big and physical game from Smit.
#140 WakaNathan:
Brad, not sure if there is an ‘e’ or not.
#143 Richie_7:
yeah diff is Smit’s was legal and not a spear.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
#152 Fidget: Mostly we do. But sometimes characters like Wankathon try to stir things up. It all settles down eventually and then we’re back to discussing how the Lions should take the following year’s Currie Cup.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
#157 Fidget:
Move on ? Who Cares cares. Amd isnt it Smit who refuses to let this issue ‘move on’ ?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
The entire supersport panel on boots and all had a fat go at the IRB for 20 min over this issue. In fact, this is one of the first time i have come accross someone defending the IRB like this. If the Lions players say that it was fair play, then you must know the IRB are sucking hind ***
November 12th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
#154 WakaNathan: Thats right, and I have manners as well.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
#152 Fidget: This is very, very tame here today Fidget.
It can get much, much worse the fighting.
Welcome on board.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
#158 cab: Yeah, i agree with you. First prize will be to sort things out in the current set up. bissi is a monster player on his day.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
#160 WakaNathan: You brought it up, imagine me calling Richie arrogant when he defends one of his players, especially on one of those down under sites.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
#163 Puma: Thanks, hope to make a contribution to the discussions.
Hey, I’m so stoked. I just got 4 tickets to go to the cricket at the wanderer’s tom night. Going to be tight for the rugby but I should make it home in time.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
#155 who cares:
A prime example how to do it is by entering NOT from the side but thru the gate; by ‘binding’ on to the ruck first – this would mean using your hands, not having them at your sides; and using your bound arm not your head/elbow/knee.
Oh, you dont recall him taking out the Aus Capt, Mortlock ?
Or the same ones for the Bulls ?
Im not making this up y’know – go to YouTube and search ‘Dangerous play examples from IRB’. This video was released by IRB………..6 months BEFORE the Lions……and you will see both cases fully illustrated. Tell me whether you think Bakkies did anything “in the wrong” as Smit would say ?
November 12th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
#165 who cares:
I didnt bring it up, Smit did. Read the article yet ?
I wouldnt give a sh*t because I dont respect you any more than you do me. But if a Bok/Capt/Manager said that about McCaw I’d be pretty p*ssed off.
Yes, that means you, Muller, White and Smit.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
#168 WakaNathan: We are both fighting a losing battle here, my opinion is that Bakkies didn’t deserve to be banned after the Lions test, and if your opinion difers so be it, even after the whole Lions team agrees with me, so be it, I will now stop communicating with you.
You don’t get respect if you don’t know how to show it.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
So, we all have our views. Interesting Video, i agree partly here WakaNathan but only partly.
Lets say that bakkies hit him on the head with his shoulder and he broke his neck, would it still be viewed by eveyone as legal clearing? Cause its not a tackle, its a clearing so it cant be called high but surely its would be dangerous if he broke the guys neck.
Must be said though, was one heluva clearing and glad it was not me.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
THE BUTCHER BOYS,
It actually has a nice ring to it.
It really is growing on me. It’s a compliment don’t you think? The butcher boys, LOL, you have just pissed off Smity and the boys and now you going to pay.
Bakkis is going to do some more of that legal clearing and Scalky is going to remove more eyes. Stupid arrogant Frogs!!!!!!!
November 12th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
#169 who cares:
Quite.
Incorrect. The Lions Management just played the diplomatic line over Bakkies as they knew the IRB would cite him and therefore Lions Management wouldnt need to, thereby avoiding a diplomatic media storm. This however did not stop the Safas calling them whingers, despite the fact they werent.
But only 3 weeks ago the truth finally came out. Shaun Edwards, Lions forwards coach, used his weekly Guardian article to admonish dangerous play and used the Bakkies ‘clearout’ as the prime example of what the IRB are trying to eradicate.
So dont go fooling yourself that, as oft quoted here, that the Lions Management thought it “was OK”, because they didnt.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
#170 Fidget:
Dont forget the key point is NOT BINDING. Its OK to ‘bind’ as you enter, even if that is grabbing a teammamte simultaneously as you enter. This is designed to slow the entry and make it safer. Check all those examples and theyre all flying in with a leading shoulder/head or in 1 case the whole body off the ground. The hands are not binding, they are at the side.
Check out that Bakkies hit on Mortlock again, he is aiming directly at the head/neck. Then watch him as he sees Mortlock immed drop unconscious to the ground. And tell me there is no intent from Bakkies there ?
Hideous.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
#173 WakaNathan: my goodness Waka…are you sure you are not an extremely anxious australian rugby union supporter with pms? stop you whining, we are here to support the springboks and listen to interesting points of view from other supporters…not your drivel
November 12th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
you remind me of a cross between Col. Hans Landa from the inglourious ******** and thetackler
ps. any reports from mallet on Italy’s chances next week?
November 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
#174 BuckT:
on the contrary, I seem to be 1 of the only ones actually discussing the rugby points raised specifically by this article.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
#176 WakaNathan: there is a difference between discussion and preaching from your moral high ground…why not focus on the positives of the all blacks instead of the ‘negatives’ of the springboks…
November 12th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
BuckT, you are wasting your time!
Had a look at the Kiwi wankers comments and are honestly struggling to understand his reason for being on this site.
Just wanna p!ss off some Boks supporters, that’s all.
Probably still crying himself to sleep after they lost the Tri-Nations…
November 12th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
#174 BuckT: Oh, is he a sheep shager? Now that puts his argument in a whole new light.
lol, just kidding blokes.
Lets lighten up a bit.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
#178 Snotmossel: OH, is he a Kiwi, even worse.
Why does a Kiwi wear long Wellington boots? so that he can put the sheeps back legs inside the boots, makes it easier to shag them sheep.
haha, only a joke now boys.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Life is always greener on the other side
November 12th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
#180 Fidget: Kiwi, Aussie, all the same to me. Just made the assumption since one of his various highly thought-provoking comments was something along the line of him being upset if someone would make some of the remarks regarding our “dirty and butchery play” against someone like McCaw.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
yeah but lets face it McCaw is a great cheat, one of the greatest ever, the thing with McCaw and Fitzy is their innocent choir boy faces – pure genius.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
#177 BuckT:
Isnt it Smit, here, preaching from his Moral High Ground ?
Bakkies was banned. Smit, individually, was fined. As was the team.
and yet he’s still telling us “Bakkies wasnt in the wrong”.
Unless Im mistaken, THAT is preaching from a Moral High Ground. No ?
November 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
#183 cab:
Thing is, Fitzy and McCaw never complained. They know they get away with more than they get caught with. So they dont complain when they do.
Smit hasnt stopped about Bakkies. And the fans have been going on about unfair citings for a decade.
BS
November 12th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
#184 WakaNathan: you got one thing right, you are mistaken….john smit felt the ruling on bakkies was unfair, as did other players from other countries. he felt the irb made an unfair call and he is standing by his decision. it’s the same as you saying the ban on Carter was unfair…perhaps so…you just feel the need to come here and stick the knife in, so to speak, must fuel an underlying desire to always be right…you must argue a lot
November 12th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
#153 WakaNathan:
The IRB released a select number of clips and were unable to release the 1000’s of INDENTICAL clips that take place week in/week out of that sort of clearance.
The IRB were wrong to cite that. Adam Jones, the B&I Lions management said as much and 90% of right-thinking people know as much. It’s only those who are watching the incident with preconceptions that say different.
And good on Smitty for calling it as he sees it again. A man who stands by his convictions!
November 12th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
#186 BuckT:
Nah, no probs whatsoever with DC. It was high. Ive certainly seen worse but there you go. Cop it sweet my son.
The banning on Bakkies was not unfair. The IRB released that video 6mths prior to the Lions. How fair can you be ? The fact Bakkies and SA coaches chose to ignore it does not give them open licence to subsequently claim they are being persecuted. Quite the opposite.
Moral High Ground indeed.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
#184 WakaNathan:
No- that’s calling it as he sees it. Moral high ground has nothing to do with it.
When you are accused of something you believe is absolutely wrong, do you just roll over and accept it? IF the laws of the game clearly state that what Bakkies did is a citable offence, then there should be citings every single week. And that is Smit’s gripe.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
#187 Vetkoek:
1-eyed nonsense. The video released by the IRB included approx 20 cases and showed Boks, Kiwis, Brits.
By citing, the IRB were being consistent. The Lions Management were playing the diplomatic path. Shaun Edwards, Lions fwds coach, wrote an article about it in the Guardian 3 weeks ago, using Bakkies ‘clearout’ as the prime example of dangerous play. The truth will always out.
A.Jones is still out of all rugby, he will be for 6mths. How would Safas feel if that had been their TH, J.Smit ? The complaints wouldnt have stopped.
Besides, as the video shows Bakkies has a history of the same offence. How dumb and arrogant to assume you can just keep doing it, despite the warning.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
#189 Vetkoek:
The laws of the game DO state its a citing offence – you must BIND when entering the ruck – he did not.
The IRB released the vdeo specifically to give examples of what the Laws are NOT.
Smit was wrong and the IRB have told him repeatedly, fined him. His reply is to give the Middle Finger time and again.
Moral High Ground.
November 12th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
#190 WakaNathan:
When and how was this warning issued to Bakkies? IF the warning was issued to everyone, why do we see the same clearing out in just about every test since.
Don’t tell me you don’t see it, because it is there every week. Perhaps if you took off your eye-patch, you’d get a better perspective on it.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
#185 WakaNathan:
never complained?!
holy ****, you must have selective amnesia or something, entire fiction novels were created by Fitzy regarding supposed Suzie and Barnesey vendettas.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
#191 WakaNathan:
Smit is not saying the law is wrong. He – like everyone else – is saying that is not applied consistently and that Bakkies has been made a scapegoat and that is wrong. Especially in the context of this article.
And he is 100% correct on that. I will ask one last time. Do you HONESTLY believe that nobody has cleared a ruck like that since Bakkies did it in that match?
Cos I see it happen at every level, every week.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
#192 Vetkoek:
The video released by the IRB. If thats not a clear warning I dont know what was. Released just before the Lions series, not a coincidence.
The prime example was this year ABs vs Boks (Hamilton ?). Woodcock allegedly cleared out ‘like Bakkies’. And the whole of SA puffed out their indignant chests. But replays clearly showed he had his hands up, and his right hand bound to a teammate at the same time he cleared-out. He was bound. Thats the difference. Show me where Bakkies ‘bound’ – its clear he didnt. Check out that hit on Mortlock – his hands are near his pocket and he is clearly aiming his SHOULDER at Mortlocks head/neck.
#194 Vetkoek:
complete BS. “He – like every other Bok fan – is saying he did nothing wrong”
November 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
#195 WakaNathan:
Mate- your youtube video means nothing.
And if you read the transcript of the hearing involving Smit, he CLEARLY states that he believed Bakkies was being unfairly targeted, because that law is seen every week being broken.
Your little comment on the Bok fan thing says it all. This is not about being a bok fan. It means nothing now anyway.
Keep whipping out your little instances of people binding on whilst clearing aruck then watch both the tests from this saturday and see how many times is didn’t happen.
It’s BS. The laws are not applied consistently and Bakkies got treated as a scapegoat. Only thing is, the IRB hwave not cited one single person since then for the same offence.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
#193 cab:
Cab, please search the entire internet for the bit where Fitzy complains about Suzie.
He doesnt.
In fact Fitzy is repeatedly on record as saying the whole ‘Suzie’ thing was a nonsense. Fitzy is famous for keeping schtum. In fact, he didnt even need to say anything about Chew la Roux because his face already said everything.
Suzie arose via Laurie Mains, not Fitzy.
Lets not forget it was a Safa who blew the lid on the poisoning in ‘95 – the security officer who was previously a bodyguard to Madiba. He saw it all and wrote about it. A well-respected Safa professional, no less
Fitzy had nothing to do with Barnes. Crickey, he’d been retired for 10years before Barnes shocker in Cardiff !!!
November 12th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
#196 Vetkoek:
Bakkies the scapegoat
ha HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !
BTW – it wasnt ‘my’ YouTube clip, it was rugbys governing body and lawmaker.
I imagine of I gave the Middle Finger to a Judge or a cop, he mightnt be too keen on that either.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
#196 Vetkoek: Vetkoek ou maat, jy probeer praat met hierdie ou asof hy n redelike mens is – maar lees sy poste – hy is ongelukkig nie – en jy moet hom op daai manier hanteer
Hy probeer om SA ondersteuners om te krap en praat twak 99% van die tyd. Hy is n ongelukkige jong man wat wegkruip in n hol in London iewers en sy lewe spandeer om Suid Afrikaners die moering te maak, in plaas van op n All Blacks blad te gaan pos en met sy eie landsmense te gaan praat
November 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
#199 bokfan1:
BaXXies to you too !