Those who know the history of the Springbok versus All Black battles since the first series in 1921 will recognise the 1956 rubber in New Zealand as one of the most momentous but also rancorous and controversial of them all.
And a lot of what transpired was down to the New Zealand desperation to revive the sport’s standing in the country after the 4-0 series defeat they suffered in South Africa in 1949.
By hook or by crook the Kiwis resolved that they had to win the series.
In the end they prevailed to record their first ever series win against the Boks, but it was in no small part down to the depths they stooped to, with Olympic boxer Kevin Skinner, infamously being selected into their front row.
There are famous pictures of the Bok prop Jaap Bekker, a master at his craft and a feared scrummager, with his face reduced to pulp after one of the battles that according to observers at the time was more Queensbury Rules than Rugby Union.
It feels like history is re-enacting itself, not necessarily with the same level of under-handedness, for it is more subtle this time, but in terms of the desperation the All Blacks have to win in order to ward off the threat posed to rugby union in their country by rival codes in the Antipodes, particularly Rugby League.
PEYPER SUMMED IT UP IN A NUTSHELL
Former top referee Jaco Peyper, now with the Boks as their law adviser, summed it up perfectly in the press conference where the Boks bit back at the narrative being driven by the Kiwis revolving around the slowing of the game and ball in play time.
“The Shape of the Game conference made a clear statement this year - this game is about all shapes and sizes, this game is for everyone,” said Peyper.
“We don’t feel, in South Africa, the need to compete with different codes. So therefore we do go for all shapes and sizes and different approaches. There are other parts of the world where they are under pressure from other codes. So you have to produce something that will attract people who follow the other codes to also follow you.
“But there are different pressures across the world, and you can’t just adjust for one nation’s preference, or two nations preference, or four. The Shape of the Game has global attendance, all the tier one, all the tier two nations, from medical and S and C (Strength and Conditioning) people through to coaches and referees.”
Peyper explained that at the conference, which All Black coach Dave Rennie, who is driving the narrative trying to set up the Boks as a team that plays counter to the spirit of the game, played no part in as he was not yet in his position, everyone goes in with preferences but then has to accept the decision made by the majority.
BOKS ARE STICKING TO WHAT WAS DECIDED
It is all pretty clear cut. There was a Shape of the Game conference (also known as State of the Game depending on who you talk to). The laws and protocols decided there are being conformed to and met by the Boks. And yet there’s this narrative coming from New Zealand that somehow they are doing wrong and are slowing down the game.
“The five games that we’ve (the Boks) have played this year, we’ve not had one piece of feedback warning that we’ve slowed down the game,” says Peyper.
“Maybe the All Blacks have played against teams that are in pre-season mode. Maybe there’s something there, but we’ve certainly not got negative feedback around it. We expect to play in terms of those agreements between referees and coaches.
"And yes, the law is very clear. There are 30 seconds from the moment the referee puts his foot down to make a mark, whether it’s a scrum or lineout, to form the set piece. We adhere to that and we respect that.”
Peyper is right when he speaks about the local teams the All Blacks played against being in pre-season mode, which of course would mean they aren’t as fit as they would be were they asked to play these games in season.
There’s a bizarre level of ignorance in New Zealand about what their team has played against so far on this tour.
Former All Black coach John Hart was quoted saying the South African teams looked unfit. Of course they are.
The Stormers played the opening game of the tour off just three weeks of training. If the Kiwi Super Rugby or provincial teams played against the Boks at Christmas time, meaning in their off-season/pre-season, how would they fare? Would they also not be unfit?
Bok coach Rassie Erasmus was also on the money when he asked if the two games the Boks played in New Zealand last year were slow games.
There was nothing slow about the Bok annihilation of the All Blacks when they won 43-10 in Wellington and you don’t pick Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu and Manie Libbok as your flyhalves if all you want to do is slow the ball down and kick the ball in the air.
RUGBY IS TURNING AWAY FROM BALL IN PLAY MEASUREMENT
And kicking the ball in the air cues something else that Peyper said. Last week’s Bok game against Argentina, because it featured players returning from injury and was therefore more a hit out to get some game time than anything else, featured a lot of ball in the air.
It led to a ball in play time of 46 minutes, which is a mind-boggling stat - supposedly on the positive side if you share the New Zealand preoccupation with ball in play time.
But seeing I asked him the question, Peyper asked me one back - “Was it a good watch?” The answer is obvious, and the reason for such a long ball in play time was obvious too - the ball in the air eats up time. As by the way do tries, which with the conversion take up a minute.
“One of the big things that was knocked off the table at the Shape of the Game conference was ball in play. Myself as a referee back in Super Rugby, we measured ball in play, and we realised that ball in play, like in the Argentina v SA game, where it was very high, did not necessarily equate to a good game,” says Peyper.
“In the Boks versus France game last November there were just 32 minutes of ball in play but there was such intensity that it was considered a great game. Over time the Shape of the Game has realised that it is not the ball in play that is the measure of whether a game is good or not. It is the ball out of play (hence the 30 second limit for lineout throws or scrum set-ups).”
WHEN IN POSSESSION IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO DO WHAT YOU WILL WITH IT
Then there’s the issue of what you do with the ball when you have it. As Erasmus says, who has the right to dictate to another team what they do with their possession?
Which is what the Kiwis are trying to do with the narrative they’re spinning and which is clearly not a universal view or the last global conference would have turned out differently.
What they’re really busy with is a crude attempt through persuasion to negate some of the key Bok strengths, but it shouldn’t wash.
As Peyper says, one of the beauties of rugby is that everyone plays it differently, Georgia plays differently to Australia, Ireland plays differently to South Africa. No country has the right to dictate to any other how they should play, how they should use their possession.
The threat from the league code is New Zealand’s problem for them to deal with, and if they want to reinvent in a way that will appeal to a market that might be starting to favour League, that is their right and that ball is in their court, so to say.
But they have no right to dictate to the rest of the world how they should play the game.