“…these things can happen to anybody”

“It is an unfortunate reality that these things can happen to anybody”

The words of Springbok Rugby Coach Peter de Villiers, quoted in this morning’s Cape Times on the Bees Roux incident in which the Bulls’ prop is accused of beating a Tshwane Metro Police Officer to death in the early hours of Friday morning.

De Villers went on to say:

The team supports Bees 100 percent, not on the deed, but rather on the circumstances that led to the situation developing.

Well, let’s have a quick run through on what we know so far, shall we?

It is alleged that Jacobus Stephanus “Bees” Roux (“Bees” being Afrikaans for “Ox”) was pulled over in the early hours of Friday morning (a few hours ahead of the Pumas v Bulls game) when Metro Police suspected he was driving while drunk. What followed seems a little confused – depending on whom you choose to believe, so here’s an independent eye-witness account from Richard Motegeni, a security guard at a nearby building:

Motegeni said the white VW Polo was seen driving very slowly at about 1.36am.

“Suddenly a large man and a Metro police officer tumbled out of the door on the driver’s side.”

He said the big man, whom he only later learned was Bees Roux, was immediately on top of Mohale.

“He shouted, ‘You thief! You want to steal my car!’ and repeatedly hit the officer very hard in the face. The officer did not fight back.

“The big man then twice lifted the officer up by his clothes at his shoulders and back and threw him down hard on the tarred road, head first.”

Motegeni said Roux then kicked the officer, after which he walked away quickly to his car, which was apparently rolling very slowly forwards.

“He brought his car to a stop, returned and started hitting the officer again.”

And that ties in with what paramedics found when they got to the scene:

Netcare911 spokesperson Chris Botha told News24 that when paramedics arrived on the scene the deceased was already dead.

“He had a massive injury to the head. I don’t know what they used (to hit him),” he said.

Botha said there was blood on the road where the body was lying. “It looks like his head hit the tar road.”

Suddenly, all becomes clear. And what seemed like another utterly idiotic statement from the gaffe-prone de Villers makes perfect sense. I mean, who among us wouldn’t support Roux “on the circumstances that led to the situation developing”? You know, having a skinful on the night before a big game and then jumping in your car to head home? Of course the Boks support him 100% in that – after all, it’s the perfect message to be sending out, isn’t it?

Dodgy Headline

And yes, the whole picking up a police officer by his shoulders and throwing him down hard onto the tarred road, head first: that’s the sort of thing that can happen to anybody.

Actually, if I’m absolutely honest, that hasn’t ever happened to me, although I once almost tripped up a firefighter, but that was an accident and he was off duty at the time.

I wonder if it’s ever happened to any of my readers?
Or to Peter?
Or to any of the other Springbok players who are “100% behind Bees”?

There’s long been a suspicion that de Villiers isn’t the man for the Springbok coaching position. They say he can’t handle the media, that he’s out of his depth. Many cite his lack of experience, although the much-loved Jake White had even less experience when he took on the job.

But then others suggest that de Villiers’ detractors are racist and that it is actually not his experience nor his ability which is the problem, but rather the colour of his skin.

Having seen the interview he gave yesterday and read about it in the newspapers today, I’d like to suggest that we look beyond his experience, his ethnicity and his annoying voice and just think about what he has said for a moment.

There is absolutely no excuse for his voicing any kind of support for Bees Roux – either in the alleged fatal assault, nor in the supposedly ubiquitous “circumstances leading up to the situation developing”. I wonder what the players think of this? Are they really 100% behind Roux as de Villiers suggests? And if so, why?

As far as I’m concerned, the diplomatic way to go would have been to choose not to comment on the situation. But he did.

The next best thing would have been to distanced yourself and your team from the situation. To have made some comment about the police investigation being ongoing etc etc and then move on to the next question about why your side doesn’t have a defence.

But at no point do you come out and support a man who has allegedly used his huge size and strength to repeatedly smash a police officer’s head into the road until he was dead.

I don’t care about how good or how crap de Villiers is as a coach. It doesn’t bother me if he thinks there’s a referee’s conspiracy against the Boks. I don’t give a toss if he is coloured, black, white or green and gold. He could come in polka dot for all I care. But when he sits there as the national coach and says what he did, when he sends out the message to kids that it’s OK to drink drive, that your colleagues will support your actions when you have spent the weekend in a prison cell on a murder charge, then I simply cannot understand why this man still has a job. Anywhere else on this earth, he would rightfully already have been sacked.

Peter de Villiers is a disgrace.

That match at Newlands

It was the biggie. The North/South derby match. The one that everyone had been talking about even more since they realised that this season, it might actually make some meaningful difference to the final standings of the Super 14 table.

We parked the kids with a handy Mother-in-Law, I dosed myself up with MedLemon and Corenza Para-C, chose to ignore the ongoing viral guests which have been (literally) plaguing me all week and headed down to the aging Newlands Stadium along with 49,000 others, in order to witness the fiercest rivalry in South African rugby.

And the Stormers of Cape Town were on a hiding to nothing. Ever since the Bulls (of Pretoria) announced that they would be resting “several” of their first team players for the match, the home side were in a metaphorical no win situation.
Lose and you’re the laughing stock of the country. Win and no-one is impressed, because you’re only playing the Bulls’ B team – albeit with several Springboks in the side.
At this point, for less-informed readers, I should perhaps explain that I don’t mean actual springbok springboks – as in the little antelope things – look, they’re bloody fast, but their lack of ball-carrying abilities renders them near useless in the more technical aspects of the modern game of rugby. Like, for instance, ball-carrying.
Seriously, if someone were to genetically engineer a robust and dependable ball-carrying arm onto an actual springbok springbok, I swear every rugby team in the world would be trying to sign it up.

But I digress.

What I mean is that several of the so-called Bulls’ B team have played rugby for South Africa at international level. So they weren’t actually that ‘B’ at all. Add to that the fact the many of the Bulls side didn’t have a match last week to recover from and – more cynically – that they didn’t have to be concerned about any suspensions for the upcoming semi-finals either, since presumably the A-team would be back for that game.
At this point, for less-informed readers, I should perhaps explain that I don’t mean the actual A-Team – as in Hannibal, Face, Murdoch and BA Baracus… oh… never mind.

But from the very first kick, it was clear that this was going to be one way traffic. The Stormers went ahead early through ex-Bulls winger Bryan Habana and never really looked back. Let’s not forget, that for all the Bulls’ excellent performances this season, it’s the Stormers who have the best defence record in the league (by some clear margin) and that defence never looked to be in serious danger tonight. Habana got his second try after 23 minutes before crowd favourite Andries Bekker added a third on 27 – effectively ending the game as a contest – at least as far as the scoreline was concerned.

Down 28-3 at half time, the Bulls did seem to come out for the second period with the sole intention of injuring as many Stormers players as possible. And by whatever means. There were a couple of shoulder charges, some nasty little exchanges after the ball had gone and one shocking incident involving a horrifying chainsaw attack on the Stormers’ scrum-half.
(I may have made that last one up.)

Job done, the second half was less entertaining than the first. Stormers’ centre Jacques Fourie dotted down to take the score to 38-3 and then the Stormers started resting their first team as well, a home semi-final (their first since 1999) against the NSW Waratahs already in the bag. With many key players taken off, the Bulls snatched a consolation try in the 78th minute.

It was a disappointing way to finish, but the job was done. And while – as I mentioned before – Pretoria fans will be anxious to remind everyone that this was hardly their starting XV, the history books will just list the final score: 38-10.

Bragging rights are therefore, for the moment at least, quietly settling down into a worn leather armchair with an expensive glass of brandy at a trendy yet understated cigar bar in central Cape Town.

Next week, South Africa hosts the two semi-finals: Bulls v Crusaders and Stormers v Waratahs. If results go with the home sides, it will be another Bulls v Stormers match-up in an all South African Super 14 final on 29th May – but this time, with the Bulls’ A-team – who will presumably have been locked in a garage with only a bakkie, a couple of tonnes of scrap metal and some welding equipment in the intervening period – in full attendance.

Watch this space.

Cross-posted at the SA Portfolio Collection Travel Blog

On fielding weakened teams

The MASSIVE match this coming weekend is the MASSIVE clash between MASSIVE rivals, the Stormers of Cape Town and the Bulls of Pretoria in the Super 14 rugby tournament. And there’s a MASSIVE amount at stake, with the Stormers looking for a lucrative (and potentially winnable) home semi-final, which they will get if they win this game.

The Bulls have a had a great season and are already guaranteed to finish top: they will have home advantage for both the semi-final and the final (assuming they win that semi). And – safe in the knowledge that those conditions are already fulfilled – they are going to field a weakened team against the Stormers at Newlands on Saturday. And that has led to protests from teams in Australia and New Zealand, as Kevin McCallum explains:

At 4.52am on Tuesday morning, the whining began nine time zones away. An email arrived in inboxes from the Sydney Morning Herald with the headline: “Blow to Waratahs as Bulls set to rest stars in South African stitch-up.”
The stitch-up? Well, having already secured for themselves the number one spot in the league, the Bulls are considering giving Victor Matfield, Fourie du Preez, Gurthro Steenkamp et al a rest ahead of the semifinal. Not an entirely unreasonable move, you might say. Not across the water, however.

“It reeks of a South African stitch-up in the Super 14,” reads the report.
“With one round to go, the integrity of rugby’s premier provincial competition could be compromised with tournament leaders, the Bulls, set to field a second-string team against the Stormers in the top-of-the-table clash in Cape Town.
The Waratahs, currently third on the ladder with 38 points and one point behind the Stormers, will get to play a semifinal at the Sydney Football Stadium if they beat the Hurricanes on Friday night and the Stormers lose to the Bulls. Such a game could boost the Waratahs’ coffers by several hundred thousand dollars.
The odds of the Stormers hosting a semifinal in Cape Town will be shortened if the Bulls field a weakened team. Such a result would be unfair to teams such as the Waratahs and the Crusaders from Christchurch who are both seeking a home semifinal and have both lost to full-strength Bulls teams this season.”

The thing is – while their suggestion that the Bulls would ever do the Stormers any sort of favour in this regard is laughable – and much as I hate to agree with whining Aussies – they’re actually correct. It’s completely unfair and it shouldn’t be allowed.

But my feelings on this issue go far deeper than just this silly egg-chasing event on Saturday. As a Sheffield United fan, I’m fed up with the big sides playing weakened teams for matches against relegation-threatened smaller teams. Who can forget the team that Liverpool put out against Fulham in May 2007? Well, everyone actually, because no-one had ever heard of any of the players. Two of them were still in nappies.
Of course, Liverpool (Reserves) promptly lost that game, Fulham got the 3 points and stayed up at our expense.

Red scum Manchester United are famed for resting players ahead of “big” games: against West Ham in 2007, against Hull last season.
And this season, Fulham were found not guilty of fielding a weakened side, despite resting 5 of their key players for a game against the Tigers.

Look, my rationale on this is fairly simple, so even Bulls supporters should be able to follow it without too much difficulty:

If you’re playing in a knockout competition, like the FA Cup (or like a Super 14 semi-final), then as far as I’m concerned, you can field who the hell you like. Field your 6 year old granddaughter at scrum-half if you want. Because, when that decision backfires (and it usually will, because she’s rubbish) and she fumbles a greasy ball at the back of a 79th minute ruck on your 22 and the opposition runs in the winning try, the only team affected by your silly idea is yours. Hard luck, sunshine.
However, if you are in a league competition, where that 79th minute winning try might affect other teams aside from the one you’re playing against, then fielding a 6 year old should not be allowed. And yes, even though the Bulls have “earned” themselves the right to rest their big names, they really shouldn’t be allowed to.

This is based on fairness and on logic. I have carefully stayed away from the emotional “the fans pay good money and don’t get to see the big names” argument, though it should probably be considered by SANZAR when (if?) the weakened teams issue is discussed.

I’m not suggesting that they should alter the rules before this Saturday – that wouldn’t be fair on the Bulls. Ag, Shame.
But there should be a new ruling and some clarity over what constitutes good sportsmanship over this issue, which will surely arise again in future seasons. In the meantime, as far as I’m concerned, the Aussies and the Kiwis have every right to cry foul.