“Fair is foul and foul is fair!”

So wrote Shakespeare in Macbeth four centuries ago, but frankly those words could very easily apply to the ongoing accusations and counter-accusations, whinging and bickering that has characterised the Tri-Nations to date.

Everyone has an opinion, everyone has a view about this or that incident or other – and the incident was either foul or perfectly fair, depending on whether one’s blood is green or black.

Sadly, as a Springbok fan, I must admit that the biggest whingers have tended to be South Africans. I believe we are in danger of earning a new title — world champion whingers.

Look at the way those who should know better have cried foul about the three-week suspension given to Springbok hooker Bismarck du Plessis after last Saturday’s historic victory over the All Blacks at the House of Pain. “It’s so unfair”, “it’s harsh”, they wail and gripe.

This tragic chorus perpetuates the myth that the Springboks (and we, as South Africans) are the victims of some conspiracy of foul unfairness. The implication is that that there are two different sets of rules and standards – one (foul) for the Springboks and another (fair) for the All Blacks.

Unfortunately, this undignified refrain has marred and detracted from the glorious moment of that historic victory over the All Blacks. We should have been savouring our triumph. Instead, we whinged.

I am dismayed – no, I’m horrified — that Oregan Hoskins, president of the South African Rugby Union, felt it necessary to wade into the fray as well. The Springbok team has a large enough logistical complement that is paid and equipped to handle these fair/foul cases. Presidents of international unions should not get involved in these on-field controversies. It is not Hoskins’ place to publicly express his anger and say he was shocked by the suspension. If he wanted to raise the matter at a Sanzar meeting scheduled for this week, fine, but there was no need to go public with his intentions.

Sanzar had already issued a statement after the disciplinary hearing which stated that Du Plessis had acknowledged that his fist had “come into contact with Thomson’s lower cheek and then, as it rolled across his face, his left knuckle appeared to come into contact with the face near the eye area, but did not come into contact with his eye.” It was found that Du Plessis had not acted willfully.

Imagine it … “as it rolled across his face” … almost lyrical!

Well, there was nothing lyrical about that what I saw. I don’t know whether there were different television transmissions of that Test, but the one that I viewed clearly showed Du Plessis grinding his fist into Adam Thomson’s eye. In fact, I anticipated that the referee would at least send him to the sin bin and was surprised – but relieved, I must add – that nothing happened. The New Zealand commentators also remarked on the incident, while the bewildered All Black player seemed to expect some kind of action from the referee, too.

The fact that Du Plessis was cited by the match commissioner shows that neither whistle-happy referee Matt Goddard, nor his two assistant referees saw the incident. If they had, I believe a red card would probably have been in the offing – particularly considering the International Rugby Board’s stance that severe action should be taken against eye gauging.

What outcry would there have been then?

I must also agree with esteemed Australian rugby writer Greg Growden, the Sydney Morning Herald’s senior rugby correspondent, who says Du Plessis was treated too leniently. He compared his three-week suspension to the 13 weeks handed out to Italy’s Mauro Bergamasco for gouging the eye of Lee Byrne of Wales during a Six Nations match earlier this year.

The South African camp – including Hoskins – of course, compared the Du Plessis suspension to the one-match suspension given to All Black lock Brad Thorn for what they persist in calling a spear tackle on John Smit in the first Tri-Nations Test.

In fact, they were infuriated when Thorn was found guilty of a lesser infringement (as was Du Plessis). Yet Andre Watson, the hugely respected boss of South African rugby referees – now retired but still a highly regarded expert on the laws of rugby – has said it was not a spear tackle because Smit was not driven into the ground. He added, however, that Thorn should have been given a yellow card.

Another example of fair/foul interpretations is the Springboks’ camp’s griping after the first Test that Tony Hancock was scrumming illegally. Watson noted that the Springboks were also guilty “at times” of scrumming illegally.

Then there was the yellow-carding of Victor Matfield for a high tackle in the second Test. The foul-criers whinge that his tackle was not as bad as that on Bryan Habana a few minutes earlier – which certainly looked more dangerous. However, they conveniently forget that while the All Black was not given a yellow card, referee Goddard had warned both captains that the next high tackle would result in a yellow card. And then Matfield transgressed and Goddard carried out his threat. Fair or foul?

Let’s hope that the Tri-Nations Test against the Wallabies in Perth goes without any whinging and bickering and that we are presented with an as exciting classic as the one at the House of Pain.

• Why are SARU waiting until January 27?

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 17th, 2008 at 8:48 pm and is filed under Rugby. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.