Old Joggie Jansen tackle of Cotterall

[david.b...@gmail.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh4qDqe0wuQ

Nice tackle.
Low, arms, not offside.

Just watch the 1st bit of action
The interview - you need a translator

[ruggeryoda]

yeah well I'd wonder what Joggie would say now. Amazing picture quality
too. Would be awesome to see a full match.

-R

[Caspar Milquetoast]

There we have it. The ideal South African tackle is one that injures an
opponent.

[Dechucka]

"Caspar Milquetoast" <bo...@diespammerdie.comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:413759405401067317.411723boyd...@news.eternal-september.org...

you really are a soft cock aren't you

[caspar milquetoast]

You really are a moron, aren't you? (RSRU Entirley Rehtoirical Question No. 237)

[Dechucka]

"caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
news:c202d0b8-37c5-4fe3...@googlegroups.com...

> You really are a moron, aren't you? (RSRU Entirley Rehtoirical Question
> No. 237)

do you want help answering it?

[caspar milquetoast]

It's all right, you just did.

[Dechucka]

"caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message

news:0075851f-9c29-419f...@googlegroups.com...

Knew you wouldn't have been able to answer it by yourself

[ruggeryoda]

Was he injured? He might've just been winded. Still a beautiful tackle,
not Viljoen's fault that the tackled player got hurt.

-R

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Well I know you arent being serious.

The only point I was making is to share a great tackle I stumbled onto

In hindsight, it does serve to argue against your new "injury tackle rule"
- Joggie Jansen was an 86kg inside centre (22 at the time). Debut test. Big for a centre back then. Tiny today
- Wayne Cotterall was a smaller (I think) three quarter
- Tackle couldnt have been fairer. Below the waist, head on

Yet Wayne still got injured.
What the video doesnt show well (that still photos did) was that Joggie tended to Wayne after the tackle.


My point - Rugby is an impact game and its got more so since 1970.
The bok hooker of that day (Piston van Wyk) was also 86kg and he didn't get around nearly as fast as 112 kg Bismarck.
Momentum is (mass X speed).
People are going to get injured. Often it is the tackler.

I am OK with eliminating certain types of tackles that result in the most serious injuries. The IRB is doing this.
How would you change the rule to disallow Bismarck's tackle?
I dont know.

But some of the NZ reaction out there is a "Carter Reaction".
I reckon the ref may have had a "Carter Reaction" himself?

[david.b...@gmail.com]

BTW it was sad to read that Wayne Cotterall passed away this year aged 69. Rickles will probably blame Jansen

[david.b...@gmail.com]

He eventually got up and played on.

He didnt play again in the series (got dropped) but played in a few positions in the provincial games. Shuttling him around affected his confidence

Jansen could tackle

[Greig Blanchett]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 17:31:54 +0200, ruggeryoda <rugge...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes, the headhunter tackle where Bates went low in one direction and
duPreez went high in another on Laidlaw was there at the beginning
too. Softcock went off. Was probably penalized too, so bent were the
refs on that tour. It wouldn't have mattered how the ABs played (Meads
with a broken arm), those refs were under instruction not to let SA
lose. One of them even came out and admitted it years later - said
he'd feared for his life if he hadn't followed orders.
--
greig

[caspar milquetoast]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:50:39 PM UTC+8, Dechucka wrote:
> "caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>
> news:0075851f-9c29-419f...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:37:38 AM UTC+8, Dechucka wrote:
>
> >> "caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> news:c202d0b8-37c5-4fe3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> > You really are a moron, aren't you? (RSRU Entirley Rehtoirical Question
>
> >>
>
> >> > No. 237)
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> do you want help answering it?
>
> >
>
> > It's all right, you just did.
>
>
>
> Knew you wouldn't have been able to answer it by yourself

I'm relieved to hear that you know something. There has been little evidence of this so far.

[caspar milquetoast]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:14:45 PM UTC+8, david.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 01:40:59 UTC+2, Caspar Milquetoast wrote:
>


>
> > There we have it. The ideal South African tackle is one that injures an
>
> >
>
> > opponent.
>
>
>
> Well I know you arent being serious.

Well all right, if you insist. Jesus, you take all the fun out of this.

>
>
>
> The only point I was making is to share a great tackle I stumbled onto
>
>
>
> In hindsight, it does serve to argue against your new "injury tackle rule"
>
> - Joggie Jansen was an 86kg inside centre (22 at the time). Debut test. Big for a centre back then. Tiny today
>
> - Wayne Cotterall was a smaller (I think) three quarter
>
> - Tackle couldnt have been fairer. Below the waist, head on
>
>
>
> Yet Wayne still got injured.

Something to do with the vectors involved. It was side on, at high speed, the player with the ball blindsided and unprepared for the tackle etc etc. Back in those days, men were real men. Even the backs. Some of the women too.

>
> What the video doesnt show well (that still photos did) was that Joggie tended to Wayne after the tackle.

What, he tried to eye gouge him when he was down?

JUST KIDDING! Strewth!

>
> My point - Rugby is an impact game and its got more so since 1970.
>
> The bok hooker of that day (Piston van Wyk) was also 86kg and he didn't get around nearly as fast as 112 kg Bismarck.

I have to hand it to you guys, you have the coolest rugby names on the planet. Piston van Wyk. That's right up there with Bastard. Even these days you have Chilliboy.

>
> Momentum is (mass X speed).
>
> People are going to get injured. Often it is the tackler.
>
>
>
> I am OK with eliminating certain types of tackles that result in the most serious injuries. The IRB is doing this.
>
> How would you change the rule to disallow Bismarck's tackle?
>
> I dont know.

No need to change the rule, it's all there. If the ref had said it was a dangerous tackle on the grounds of the outcome, the intention and the position of the tackled player, he has the law to support him. But instead he cited high and shoulder, neither of which was accurate.

But as I say, I wouldn't have called it a penalty anyway, but I'd be keeping an close eye on him in future, and when that elbow came along I'd be very tempted to reach for the pocket.

Actually I'd probably have called it a penalty for offside, and then looked like an idiot. Probably why I'm not a referee.

>
>
>
> But some of the NZ reaction out there is a "Carter Reaction".
>
> I reckon the ref may have had a "Carter Reaction" himself?

More like a du Plessis reaction, I'd say.

[caspar milquetoast]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 3:16:01 PM UTC+8, david.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 09:14:45 UTC+2, david.b...@gmail.com wrote:


>
>
> BTW it was sad to read that Wayne Cotterall passed away this year aged 69. Rickles will probably blame Jansen

Christ, for a moment there I thought you said he passed away during a 69. I thought, go you old bastard!

[david.b...@gmail.com]

You guys really need to rely less on bar-room stories and NZ journos!

Why? Because the bar room stories and SA journos about tours to NZ have similar accusations. But of course you guys were there and they were squeaky clean werent they?

Danie Craven once said (and I paraphrase)
- We cheat in SA, you cheat in NZ

Pah! One guy once said? Who? Did he tell that McClean journo?

I am not saying that refs werent biased.
I am saying that they were biased on both sides of the ocean
The same biased SA refs didnt stop the Lions from doing well did they?

The standard NZ drum - If NZ lose it must have been refs or chefs
Next drum - Will be dumb stats about pre and post neutral refs.

[ruggeryoda]

Two words: Clive Norling.

-R

[Two Dogs]

South Africa and Refs. Now there's a can of worms...just ask Derek Bevan

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/1995/jun/26/rugbyworldcup2003.rugbyunion1

Two Dogs

[caspar milquetoast]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 9:48:44 PM UTC+8, Two Dogs wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:26:42 AM UTC-4, david.b...@gmail.com wrote:


>
> South Africa and Refs. Now there's a can of worms...just ask Derek Bevan
>

I thought he got a gold watch. no wonder he was pissed off.

[Two Dogs]

At least they had advanced their thinking by 1995. The reward for "good refereeing" was a gold watch instead of being just being allowed to stay alive.

Two Dogs

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Like Bevan would fix things!
Out in the open as well..

Things I accept our Administrators (Louis Luyt et al) are guilty of
- Crassness
- Boorishness
- Rudeness
- Insensitivity

Bribery ?? Nah

You chaps accuse us of being conspiracy theorists
- Lets get the Japies email
- Brycegate
- etc.

Then you chaps complain about
- Gold watch
- Suzie - Laurie didnt even know her surname despite being employed by an international hotel chain yet I heard stories that Nelson Mandela personally nobbling of the ABs. 27 years in the pokey meant he never cooked for himself
- Crooked refs

Interesting enough the Lions tours had less scandal pre isolation
The Lions players often
* had a good bash at impregnating the local lasses
* Trashed hotels in drunken boys fun
* Drank all the beer
* And won more games
* Won more fights as well

But not much rugby scandal

[Dechucka]

> Yet Wayne still got injured.

Back in those days, men were real men. Even the backs. Some of the women
too.

========================

isn't that the era you got married?

Sorry

[Dechucka]

"caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message

news:89b46b98-053f-4bae...@googlegroups.com...

blown away in the prime of his life

[Caspar Milquetoast]

<david.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 15:57:19 UTC+2, caspar milquetoast wrote:

> Then you chaps complain about
> - Gold watch
> - Suzie - Laurie didnt even know her surname despite being employed by an
> international hotel chain yet I heard stories that Nelson Mandela
> personally nobbling of the ABs. 27 years in the pokey meant he never cooked for himself
> - Crooked refs

I think Mandela ordered the food poisoning. I mean, he was president AND a
terrorist AND in charge of some very nasty people in the SA security forces
AND I saw on that documentary Invictus how desperate he was for the Japies
to win the world cup at any cost -- it would have been child's play for him
to arrange.

>
> Interesting enough the Lions tours had less scandal pre isolation
> The Lions players often
> * had a good bash at impregnating the local lasses
> * Trashed hotels in drunken boys fun
> * Drank all the beer
> * And won more games
> * Won more fights as well
>
> But not much rugby scandal

The 1974 Lions team was an exceptionally good team and were determined from
the start not to put up with the continual off the ball filth from the Boks
that targeted key players to injure them before the tests. As a result they
developed the famous 99 call and made sure that any dirt was met by a full
team retaliation. The Springbok selectors played right into their hands
with wholesale changes after losing the first and second tests so while the
Lions went from strength to strength in cohesion and consistency, the
Springboks fielded very different XVs in each test and suffered from lack
of combinations. Also there probably was not the same prejudice from the
refereeing fraternity with the All Blacks still considered the ultimate
foe, even though the Lions had beaten NZ at home for the first time ever
three years before. Even so, the ref of the fourth test blew it up four
minutes early with the score drawn and the Lions camped on the Boks line --
a whitewash was clearly not something that could be contemplated.

In those days all countries had their local rules and interpretations that
in those pre-video match analysis days the visitors had to come to terms
with, but one thing everyone who toured South Africa agreed on was that the
level of violence and the embarrassing parochialism of local referees was
in a quite different realm to that encountered anywhere else in the rugby
world. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else
believes it.

[Caspar Milquetoast]

I married an Australian. We're all sorry.

[Dechucka]

"Caspar Milquetoast" <bo...@diespammerdie.comswest.net.au> wrote in message

news:227888755401166363.890732boyd...@news.eternal-september.org...

yep :-(

[ruggeryoda]

<sni>

> The 1974 Lions team was an exceptionally good team

Most likely the best team ever to come to these shores. If only on paper
and the results they showed.

> and were determined from
> the start not to put up with the continual off the ball filth from the Boks
> that targeted key players to injure them before the tests. As a result they
> developed the famous 99 call and made sure that any dirt was met by a full
> team retaliation. The Springbok selectors played right into their hands
> with wholesale changes after losing the first and second tests so while the
> Lions went from strength to strength in cohesion and consistency, the
> Springboks fielded very different XVs in each test and suffered from lack
> of combinations. Also there probably was not the same prejudice from the
> refereeing fraternity with the All Blacks

Dully's law still lives!

> even though the Lions had beaten NZ at home for the first time ever
> three years before. Even so, the ref of the fourth test blew it up four
> minutes early with the score drawn and the Lions camped on the Boks line --
> a whitewash was clearly not something that could be contemplated.
>
> In those days all countries had their local rules and interpretations that
> in those pre-video match analysis days the visitors had to come to terms
> with, but one thing everyone who toured South Africa agreed

That is true because you were there and you interviewed 'everyone' and
read 'everyone's' books.

> on was that the
> level of violence and the embarrassing parochialism of local referees was
> in a quite different realm to that encountered anywhere else in the rugby
> world. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else
> believes it.

I have as much reason to accept as I have to reject that. None. Look,
the results of the Springboks in those days were very much tied to the
Afrikaner macho psyche (as other nations had similar ties, maybe not as
acute) and the country still teemed with people who actually lived
through the hell that was the concentration camps and the aftermath of
the Second Anglo Boer War, at the hands of the people that this very
team represented.

However, in the same rugby fraternity you had guys like Danie Craven who
loved the game as much as anyone else, wrote books about it, dedicated
his life to it. If you read his philosophy in his books he long realised
that the outcome of the match was secondary to the game itself. And he
had clout - as the selection of Errol Tobias, the first black Springbok,
six years later showed - to show the government the middle finger.

And besides, not even the worst parochial Broederbond infused rabid
japie ref in those days would send someone off for tackling a Springbok
too hard.

-R

[Mark (newsgroups)]

On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:39:21 AM UTC+1, Caspar Milquetoast wrote:
> In those days all countries had their local rules and interpretations that
> in those pre-video match analysis days the visitors had to come to terms
> with, but one thing everyone who toured South Africa agreed on was that the
> level of violence and the embarrassing parochialism of local referees was
> in a quite different realm to that encountered anywhere else in the rugby
> world. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else
> believes it.

Just as everyone else believes that more recently the All Blacks get the benefit of ref calls more often than anyone else and are penalised less harshly. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else believes it.

Out of interest though, are there any good reads you recommend where you're getting your information from? It would be interesting to read from multiple sources confirming your view. Do you think South Africa is singled out as the worst in this regard? I mean violence and referee bias.

[kev or lou]

On 17/09/2013 09:36, david.b...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 17 September 2013 09:13:03 UTC+2, ruggeryoda wrote:
>> On 2013/09/17 01:40 AM, Caspar Milquetoast wrote:>
>>
>> <david.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh4qDqe0wuQ
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Nice tackle.
>>
>> >> Low, arms, not offside.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Just watch the 1st bit of action
>>
>> >> The interview - you need a translator
>>
>> >
>>
>> > There we have it. The ideal South African tackle is one that injures an
>>
>> > opponent.
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Was he injured? He might've just been winded. Still a beautiful tackle,
>>
>> not Viljoen's fault that the tackled player got hurt.
>>
>>
>>
>> -R
>
> He eventually got up and played on.
>

Previous post: "> Yet Wayne still got injured."

Since when is getting winded being injured.

Bloody softcocks everywhere

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Yes lots of people believe in creationism... Doesnt make it right

I accept that SA absolutely used their provincial teams to soften up the visitors a bit. I think NZ did that as well.
The 1974 Lions often hit first. I recall in the 3rd Test (my 1st ever) JPR Williams sprinting half the length of the field and ran into the melee with his arms swinging. I loved JPR though. He got the treatment at the bottom of the rucks and didnt flinch

You say that our refs targeted NZ above others?
Have you met an Afrikaner? Losing to the British was way more intolerable for them.

Parochial? OK I accept that.

However I think your data is flawed in its sample.

I have read books by NZ and SA writers about the same tours. Have you done that?
The 1956 tour was a case in point.
Danie Craven was deeply unhappy about the standard of NZ reffing.
He was further unhappy about the dirty play the ABs got away with.
We had Bakkies Botha. NZ had Kevin Skinner.
Craven went as far as to write a complaint.
Terry McLean wrote about this (and he discusses Craven's allegations) in his book and I have read Craven's book too. Terry McLean was no lover of SA for valid political reasons.

Of course the Boks lost for the 1st time and so the complaints were seen as sour grapes.
From what I understand we probably deserved to lose but that didnt alter the fact that in SA opinion your refs were ... lets use your word and call it parochial.

I have read books about the 1937, 1965, 1970, 1976 and 1981 tours as well. Again from both sides of the ocean. (When I say that an Australian writer doesnt count as the other side)

If you don't read both sides then I am forced to question your objectivity

The difference is that I am prepared to concede flaws on our side of the ocean.
You seem to take the viewpoint (similar to some of my brethren) that your players and refs are pure as driven snow.

Who was more parochial? Hell I dont know. I am prepared to concede the possibility that SA could well have been more so.

But NZ <> driven snow

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Sorry I forgot 1949 - the tour when Okey Geffen kicked the penalties and the birth of the ref and SA kicker partnership legend...
Of course 4-0 made NZ complaints sound like sour grapes ala 1956

[david.b...@gmail.com]

I suspect Rick's sources may be Flatulent Old Fogeys

But I have a list I will disclose once Rick discloses his sources

[Caspar Milquetoast]

"Mark (newsgroups)" <marknew...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 4:39:21 AM UTC+1, Caspar Milquetoast wrote:
>> In those days all countries had their local rules and interpretations that
>> in those pre-video match analysis days the visitors had to come to terms
>> with, but one thing everyone who toured South Africa agreed on was that the
>> level of violence and the embarrassing parochialism of local referees was
>> in a quite different realm to that encountered anywhere else in the rugby
>> world. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else
>> believes it.
>
> Just as everyone else believes that more recently the All Blacks get the
> benefit of ref calls more often than anyone else and are penalised less
> harshly. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else believes it.

On the contrary, I think it's quite likely. You'll find the same thing with
leading teams in club and provincial competitions -- refs (and everyone
else for that matter (except the other team and its supporters)
subconsciously accept that the "better" team doesn't need to bend laws to
win, doesn't need to cut corners playing catch up rugby, and just generally
gets the benefit of the doubt. It's one of the perks of the position. By
contrast, once you have a reputation like South Africa's for abrasive,
confrontational play, the subconscious expectation is always to assume the
worst in any given suspicious situation. Mind you, you deserve it you
cheating bastards.

Oops.

>
> Out of interest though, are there any good reads you recommend where
> you're getting your information from? It would be interesting to read
> from multiple sources confirming your view. Do you think South Africa is
> singled out as the worst in this regard? I mean violence and referee bias.

For referee bias in the old days, without a shadow of a doubt. For
violence, you and the French. With the qualification that at least Japie
violence was face to face, not the cowardly, gutless surrender monkey
attacks from behind on eyes and testicles of opponents trapped in rucks.

As far as source information goes, well, you could do any amount of
research on that. In my library I have The Men in Black by Chester and
macMillan of course, All Blacks versus Springboks by Graeme Barrow, and
Terry McLean's Great Days of New Zealand Rugby, Beaten by the Boks (the
1960 tour)l The Battle for the Rugby Crown (the 1956 series),The Bok
Busters (the 1965 series) and Battling the Boks (the 1970 series).

I quote wikipedia about 1974:
"The management of the Lions unilaterally declared that in their opinion
the Springboks dominated their opponents with physical aggression because
of their famous size advantage, 'off the ball' and 'blind side' play. In
the build up games, and in McBride's previous tours of South Africa,
provincial sides had tended to use their physical size, late tackling and
dirty play to deliberately intimidate and injure Lions players prior to
Test matches".

Or this quote from the Guardian newspaper of Willie John McBride's pre-tour
speech to his players:
"I've been in South Africa before and there's going to be a lot of physical
intimidation, a lot of cheating. So if you're not up for a fight, there's
the door."

From All Blacks Versus Springboks, of the third 1976 test, the series at 1
all:
"Snyman's drop kick almost certainly missed, but referee Gert Bezuidenhaut
ruled it had gone over. He also incorrectly ruled that Sig Going had
forfeited a penalty kick for taking too long." In the fourth test, New
Zealand one point behind and about the draw the series, "Twice All Black
centre Bruce Robertson had been interfered with chasing the ball and on
both occasions a try was feasible. On both occasions only a penalty was
awarded, not a penalty try. South African apologised in droves". The final
penalty which won the match for the Springboks was wrongly awarded after
Billy Bush baulked at the front of the lineout, when the ball was thrown to
the back of the lineout and Bush was not involved at all, which was finicky
in the extreme. Lock de Klerk was allowed to be lifted throughout the final
three tests.

Well, we could go on all night.

I offer none of this as subjective fact, only as the way visitors to the
Republic have recorded it.

[Caspar Milquetoast]

I would have liked to have been but they wouldn't let me out of high school
and I couldn't afford the fare.
Although i did read some books and newspapers.

>
>> on was that the
>> level of violence and the embarrassing parochialism of local referees was
>> in a quite different realm to that encountered anywhere else in the rugby
>> world. Of course you will never accept that, just accept that everyone else
>> believes it.
>
> I have as much reason to accept as I have to reject that. None.

Which bit -- that it's true, or that other people believe it?

> Look, the results of the Springboks in those days were very much tied to
> the Afrikaner macho psyche (as other nations had similar ties, maybe not
> as acute) and the country still teemed with people who actually lived
> through the hell that was the concentration camps and the aftermath of
> the Second Anglo Boer War, at the hands of the people that this very team represented.
>
> However, in the same rugby fraternity you had guys like Danie Craven who
> loved the game as much as anyone else, wrote books about it, dedicated
> his life to it. If you read his philosophy in his books he long realised
> that the outcome of the match was secondary to the game itself. And he
> had clout - as the selection of Errol Tobias, the first black Springbok,
> six years later showed - to show the government the middle finger.
>
> And besides, not even the worst parochial Broederbond infused rabid japie
> ref in those days would send someone off for tackling a Springbok too hard.
>

Is it possible to tackle a Springbok too hard?

[Caspar Milquetoast]

The 1949 All Blacks gave themselves every chance of losing. The took the
wrong coach and there were some very odd selections, and their goal icking
was hopeless. They were based on the famous world war two NZ army team and
loved to run the ball, and got plenty of it, but some of that "creative"
South African rule interpretation cut the guts right out of any attacking
moves when hennie Muller took to standing twenty or thirty yards off the
back of lineouts and smashing the All Blacks centres as soon as the ball
came their way, way behind the advantage line. As a brilliant flanker he
hardly needed the advantage but it made running the ball next to
impossible. The law was changed after that tour so that if players were not
actually in the lineout they couldn't cheat by standing in the middle of
the field but had to get back on side with the rest of the team.

All the same, the Springboks won well and deserved to win. For two decades
after that, the All Blacks gave up creative attack and adopted the
Springbok model of bashing the opposition in the forwards and kicking
goals.

[Caspar Milquetoast]

I have never understood this line of thinking. I said nothing at all about
the NZ behaviour, but you cannot resist polarising my opinion because I
have dared to criticise your team that somehow equates to placing my team
on some sort of pedestal.

I have already said that in those days of infrequent tours and without
video analysis, there were many local differences that touring teams had to
come to terms with. That can seem like bias to the other side, but the
clever touring team adapts and plays the home team on their own terms. I
understand the 1974 Lions were very quick to do that.

But all that aside, there remains that perception that the South Africans
were dirtier and their referees were not about to give the benefit of the
doubt to anyone not wearing green.

If you have read many books from both sides, you must be aware of this. I
do not ask you to agree with it.

[Caspar Milquetoast]

Let me say something else, to show that my opinion, although necessarily
subjective, is not based on any kind of personal prejudice about a
particular nationality.

In my personal experience here in Perth, or East Durban as it's sometimes
known, almost without exception South Africans are the most humble, modest,
good natured and friendly people I know, and there are bucket loads of
them here. Even more so than some of my embarrassing fellow countrymen. And
they know and love their rugby -- a pleasure to share a beer with (as long
as you steer clear of bent Japie referees). Fortunately, the discussions
of results have been quite pleasant since 1998, although there have been
moments...

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Rick I acknowledged that the perception exists
I even acknowledged that there was some truth in it.
You know I acknowledged these points.

What I didnt concede to was your comment that SA were so much worse than NZ
It has to be relative argument.
You cant look at one set of books & perceptions and disregard the others.
One needs to put them *all* into the melting pot. And that is what I am saying you are not doing.

1949 - From what I have read I agree with your perceptions.
My father (no longer around) even conceded that 1 or 2 of the penalties in the 1st test may have been lucky

THere were other good reasons why NZ lost 1970 and 76
- 1970 - Very unlucky with injuries and once that happened they made awful selections. On paper NZ should have won

- 1976 - As a kid I watched every single game (was about 20 of them).
If NZ had kicked over their penalties they would have won the series. I remember Bryan Williams, Grant Batty kicking. Lineouts. I felt sorry for your locks (Peter Whiting?) You often used wings to throw the ball in and they bowled the ball with such velocity that the lineouts were a lottery
I accept Bezuidenhout wasnt a great ref btw. But you won a test with him in charge (2nd Test). 1st test was a decent ref and to this day I think NZ lost because of Gerrie Germisuys. What a try! Similar to the 2nd Test in 1981

[david.b...@gmail.com]

No issue at all there Rick.
I have read before that you like many Saffers

In fact the stereotypes you afford our expats has me laughing because they are just so true ('pork the caw' and not being able to hire good help to do the dirty work)

When Kiwi supporters travel to SA I have a lot of time for them
The women in particular are generally way more knowledgeable than our own.
I have had many a pleasant conversation over beers with them

But because we want our sides to win somewhat both nationalities are a little selective in their reading of the facts.
We have more supporters than you guys and therefore more dingbats.
Yes we have more conspiracy theorists as well.
Having said that set a Kiwi supporter off on Suzie and bent refs... When I scratch beneath the surface they often know very little.

I would venture the same applies to our supporters

[Caspar Milquetoast]

There would be no point in me commenting about New Zealand. Anything i say
would be completely subjective and as a a part of the culture I would
necessarily view that behaviour as natural and normal. Others will need to
provide that input.

>
> 1949 - From what I have read I agree with your perceptions.
> My father (no longer around) even conceded that 1 or 2 of the penalties
> in the 1st test may have been lucky
>
> THere were other good reasons why NZ lost 1970 and 76
> - 1970 - Very unlucky with injuries and once that happened they made
> awful selections. On paper NZ should have won

The 1970 team was the end of a great era of 1960s All Black rugby but many
of the team were getting past it and never played for the All Blacks again.
They went into the series as favourites and looked like world beaters in
the provincial games but they were too loose, never settled and were
overcome by a hungrier if less fancied Springbok team. There was a lot of
bad feeling about the level of violence in the games, with Meads suffering
a broken arm from a Springbok kick, and while the All Blacks had dished out
rough stuff of their own a lot of the Springbok biffo was just vindictive.

>
> - 1976 - As a kid I watched every single game (was about 20 of them).
> If NZ had kicked over their penalties they would have won the series. I
> remember Bryan Williams, Grant Batty kicking. Lineouts. I felt sorry for
> your locks (Peter Whiting?) You often used wings to throw the ball in and
> they bowled the ball with such velocity that the lineouts were a lottery
> I accept Bezuidenhout wasnt a great ref btw. But you won a test with him
> in charge (2nd Test). 1st test was a decent ref and to this day I think
> NZ lost because of Gerrie Germisuys. What a try! Similar to the 2nd Test in 1981

I too watched the 1976 games on TV in NZ in the middle of the night -- made
a great excuse for an all night party. The early and mid 70s were not one
of the great All Blacks era and again we timed our South African trip with
all sorts of deficiencies, as if winning there was not hard enough with all
things going well. As you quite rightly say, the lack of a reliable goal
kicker was a major issue and although they had less of chance on paper than
the 1970 team, they probably deserved to have better results and were
widely seen in NZ anyway as having fared worse at the hands of Bent
Bezuidenhaut. I talked to Sid Going at my local club when he was promoting
his book and asked him how the All Blacks felt going into the third test
with the series at 1-1. he said they thought they would have to find an
extra ten points to overcome the 16th man because the general feeling was
there was no way in hell the South African rugby establishment would let
the series go after the 1974 Lions and relegate South Africa to third in
the world.

We didn't get to tour South Africa with a peak team until 1996 but by then
you guys were still recovering from isolation and won only 2 from 11 tests
to against over that period. With neutral referees. Smirk.

[earldu...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:10:34 PM UTC+1, caspar milquetoast wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:50:39 PM UTC+8, Dechucka wrote:
>
> > "caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>
> >
>

> > news:0075851f-9c29-419f...@googlegroups.com...

>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:37:38 AM UTC+8, Dechucka wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >> "caspar milquetoast" <bo...@comswest.net.au> wrote in message
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>

> > >> news:c202d0b8-37c5-4fe3...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> > You really are a moron, aren't you? (RSRU Entirley Rehtoirical Question
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> > No. 237)
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >> do you want help answering it?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It's all right, you just did.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Knew you wouldn't have been able to answer it by yourself
>
>
>
> I'm relieved to hear that you know something. There has been little evidence of this so far.


I'm relieved to hear that you know something. There has been little evidence of this so far.

[Greig Blanchett]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 02:46:37 -0700 (PDT), david.b...@gmail.com
wrote:

[...]

>
>Sorry I forgot 1949 - the tour when Okey Geffen kicked the penalties and the birth of the ref and SA kicker partnership legend...
>Of course 4-0 made NZ complaints sound like sour grapes ala 1956

Collective post war madness had got hold of the NZRFU in 1949. Here's
what they did:

NZ Maori tour Australia (not that any would have been allowed to go to
SA, but that's another story) - May - June.

All Blacks tour South Africa - May to September

Australia tour New Zealand - August to September

We had two AB teams run out on 3rd September, one at Durban for the
3rd Bok test and the other at Athletic Park (WLG) for the 1st Oz test.

They can't both have been the best of the best.
--
greig

[Caspar Milquetoast]

I thought you had left, Andrew. Or are you a lying little cunt as well as a
derivative, pompous parasite?

[david.b...@gmail.com]

No argument.
We were dumb here. SA wasnt the best of the best either because of our dumb racial policies. But we forced NZ to impose them on themselves. NZ should have but didnt take a stand. Embarrassing for both but way more so for SA.

Serious question for the historical buffs
- Around 1950 time how many Maoris made the run on 15 when the ABs played a NH side in the NH? I dont mean 1/16th Maori and eligible to play for the NZ Maoris. I mean people that SA would not have let in.

I have no idea about the answer so not trying to make a point

[david.b...@gmail.com]

So you dont read the other's viewpoint because of culture and subjectivity?
That is either small minded, stubborn or lazy.

Reading SA AND NZ books on the same tour has influenced my viewpoint. It's helpful to read the other perspective.
It softens ones own culturally imposed viewpoint.

Having said that many, many of my brethren dont even read SA books let alone NZ books.


I am positive that no-one is right and no-one is wrong.

>
> >
>
>
> > - 1976 - As a kid I watched every single game (was about 20 of them).
>
> > If NZ had kicked over their penalties they would have won the series. I
>
> > remember Bryan Williams, Grant Batty kicking. Lineouts. I felt sorry for
>
> > your locks (Peter Whiting?) You often used wings to throw the ball in and
>
> > they bowled the ball with such velocity that the lineouts were a lottery
>
> > I accept Bezuidenhout wasnt a great ref btw. But you won a test with him
>
> > in charge (2nd Test). 1st test was a decent ref and to this day I think
>
> > NZ lost because of Gerrie Germisuys. What a try! Similar to the 2nd Test in 1981
>
>
>
> I too watched the 1976 games on TV in NZ in the middle of the night -- made
>
> a great excuse for an all night party. The early and mid 70s were not one
>
> of the great All Blacks era and again we timed our South African trip with
>
> all sorts of deficiencies, as if winning there was not hard enough with all
>
> things going well. As you quite rightly say, the lack of a reliable goal
>
> kicker was a major issue and although they had less of chance on paper than
>
> the 1970 team, they probably deserved to have better results and were
>
> widely seen in NZ anyway as having fared worse at the hands of Bent
>
> Bezuidenhaut. I talked to Sid Going at my local club when he was promoting
>
> his book and asked him how the All Blacks felt going into the third test
>
> with the series at 1-1. he said they thought they would have to find an
>
> extra ten points to overcome the 16th man because the general feeling was
>
> there was no way in hell the South African rugby establishment would let
>
> the series go after the 1974 Lions and relegate South Africa to third in
>
> the world.
>

That's Syd's opinion and there could even be some truth.
Probably not 10 points of truth.
I must get his book. Of course he was one of the stars of the tour and it was difficult for the players back then to be critical of their coaches or fellow players.

Syd was a hero of ours. As boys we watched his reverse pass and went out onto the field and emulated it. Boks vs ABs on the school field near our house.

[DC]

George Nepia wasn't selected to SA in 1928 after being a key player to NH
in '24 -- played in all matches and scored 77 points.


--
/DC

[Caspar Milquetoast]

There were three who should have toured South Africa in 1949 -- although we
were mostly a pakeha team in those days, before Islanders were invented.

Flyhalf Ben Couch was one maori player who played in 1947 and in 1949
played in the B team to face Australia while the A team were off getting
hidings in South Africa. So at least he still got to play for the All
Blacks even if he couldn't tour South Africa. he went on to become a Member
of parliament. Centre Johnny Smith and halfback Vince Bevan would also
certainly have been on the tour but were ineligible on racial grounds, and
joined Couch in the Australian series.

Couch and Smith didn't play for the All Blacks again but Bevan played in
all four tests against the 1950 Lions and toured the UK with the '53 All
Blacks.

[Caspar Milquetoast]

Jesus, you could find some boys who actually wanted to play as the All
Blacks? Or were the just the slow, small ones who weren't allowed to play
unless they were the All Blacks -- and you could thrash them 50-0 every
time.

[earldu...@hotmail.co.uk]

The Earl is disappointed in you my dear old thing. If you recall the Earl agreed to leave as long as you posted using your own name and refrained from profanities. The evidence presented in your many posts suggests you are unable to do that. Oh well, you will have to put up with the Earl for a while longer.

[david.b...@gmail.com]

The best AB was the best player on the field. As I mentioned Syd Going was the hero in the touring side and he wanted to be Syd. He even had a black jersey with a number 9.
Incidentally he was the most one eyed Bok supporter.

If the ABs went ahead In true Bok tradition just tackled this guy late and sat on him until we got ahead

[david.b...@gmail.com]

Thanks,

I have only recently read up on our black rugby players and cricket players from 40-70 years ago.
There was some damn good players that had crap facilities and no decent coaching .
In the 70s some liberal whites went and played in these poor leagues.
Sad.

Prioritizing apartheid ahead of winning must have been an odd choice.

[caspar milquetoast]

A lying little cunt it is then.