The real rugby monsters
Paul Dobson, one of South Africa's most respected rugby journalists, takes a look at the unforgiving death, through an act of violence, of young Riaan Loots recently. He also looks at the excuses that are being dished up to justify the act that resulted in his death. He asks some very pointed questions!
Our columnist Duncan Bech reflects on what he makes of England's coaching shake-up and gives us his views on the possible return of a certain knight of the realm…
The death by rugby thuggery of 24-year-old Riaan Loots is horrific. The reaction of some people is also horrific. And yet in both there was a degree of predictability, suggesting that the only hope of any form of solution lies in ruthless honesty and ruthless action.
Rugby is a game to be played for fun, friendship and adventure – not for this. Certainly not for this. The death of Riaan Loots is opposed to everything that rugby stands for. And then to seek to find excuses for it is monstrous.
Rugby has a certain amount of acceptable violence, but that violence is governed by the laws of the game. Violence outside of the laws of the game is not acceptable and is subject to the laws of the land that deal with assault and in this case the worst form of assault possible – the death of the person assaulted.
There are many things one could talk about in this, including the predictability of it, given the level of rugby rage and rugby violence that is prevalent in the southern part of Africa.
The predictability I want to deal with – and only briefly – was the hideous reaction of the chairman of Delicious club. Predictably he blamed the referee and predictably he played the race card.
The logic of such excuse-finding beggars belief. And the bad part of it is that it can start putting smokescreens around an inquiry that demands the most rigorous honesty. That honesty is essential to get to grips with an unacceptable form of violence which has destroyed the game for many people in this southern region.
Violence in rugby needs to be seen for what it is – violence in rugby. If the red herrings of socio-political discussions are dragged in, the inquiry will not be honest.
The worst fighting I have seen on rugby fields in South Africa had nothing at all to do with racism.
When Tygerberg and Northerns Avonwood fought in Ravensmead there was no racial difference.
When Young Stars and Caledonian Roses fought at the track in a Charity Rag match there was no racial difference or religious difference.
Recently there was horrific fighting in a French Top 14 match between Bourgoin and Agen. Spectators joined in. The matter could then be treated as a rugby matter, and there followed the suspension of players and home matches for Bourgoin.
It was a rugby matter, not a socio-political affair.
Rugby violence must be treated by rugby authorities as a rugby matter. And it must be inexcusable.
In any case racist remarks or any other form of verbal insult is not an excuse for violent action. Because a driver flicks his lights at me is no reason for me to beat him to death with a hockey stick. Road rage is madness. Rugby rage is also madness.
Just one little thing on that: racist remarks in rugby in the southern part of Africa are not the weapon of only one race group either. Racist remarks are also possible against whites and do happen week after week. They are wrong but not an excuse for white violence either.
But let's get to the referee. The chairman of the Delicious club, Bennie Leendertz, said that his players were provoked by the referee's bias. You have also heard the announcement: "The referee lost control". Leendertz claimed that the referee could have stopped the fight.
The responsibility for controlled behaviour rests first with the player himself. The responsibility then rests with the team's maneact.
The act has happened by the time he can do something about it. And when he does something about it the only weapons he has are his whistle and his personality. He has no other armour to control fighting men who are physically better equipped than he is and outnumber him.
Some years ago there was monstrous fighting in a Test between Australia and England in Australia. The fighting started at the kick-off. The referee did not even have time to lose control.
In all four of these cases the referees were top men – in Ravensmead André Cilliers, a top Western Province referee of provincial level, at the Track Paul van Blommestein, a top provincial referee with international experience, at Bourgoin Frank Maciello, a top French referee with Test experience and in Brisbane Bob Burnett, an experienced Test referee. There was nothing wrong with the referees in question.
No, the blame must be placed fair and square on the players and those who manage them, including those who "motivate " them and those seek to find reasons for brutality of this nature.
This matter of refereeing bias is also frequently subject to perception.
Recently Ewan McKenzie, former Wallaby and Waratahs coach, had a litany of complaints about Jonathan Kaplan's refereeing of a match between the Waratahs and the Hurricanes. His perception, it seemed, was that Kaplan was biased. McKenzie was wrong on every count – wrong in terms of fact and law. If he was wrong in his perception, what about the perceptions of less equipped people to form accurate and fair judgements of referees in the heat of the match?
What had Dave McHugh of Ireland done wrong – in fact – that caused Piet van Zyl's physical violence against him? That was in Durban when the Springboks were playing New Zealand. Presumably Van Zyl had some perception that the referee had done something wrong and that that gave him the right to an act of mad violence.
But even if the referee in Rawsonville was wrong, what excuse was there for killing Riaan Loots? If a traffic policeman gives me a ticket which I think is unfair, it does not give me an excuse for shooting the driver of the car behind me.
Let's hope the inquiry is conducted with rigorous honesty that incudes whoever has a voice in the matter, including Rugga SA. Let's hope fervently that in the end all elements that are a threat to rugby's good order are cut out of rugby, whether they are players or club officials. Otherwise the body of rugby will continue to rot away.
Do you agree or disagree with Paul? E-Mail us your view!
