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.
Article link: Robinson cut deep by Wallabies dumping. Written by Spiro Zavos, on The Roar - Your Sports Opinion
Roaring Hot
Yesterday's most commented articles
Melbourne Storm vs Newcastle Knights - Semi-Final 2: NRL live scores, blog [225 comments]
Fremantle Dockers vs Sydney Swans - Preliminary Final 2: AFL live scores, blog [118 comments]
Cutting O'Connor good for 2015 World Cup [82 comments]
Most read articles last 3 days
Melbourne Storm vs Newcastle Knights - Semi-Final 2: NRL live scores, blog
Fremantle Dockers vs Sydney Swans - Preliminary Final 2: AFL live scores, blog
Hawthorn vs Geelong - Preliminary Final 1: AFL live scores, blog