SA rugby needs to change testosterone driven mentality

It is difficult to decide what was worse about Saturday's Super 12 showdown at Newlands - Japie Mulder's charge on De Wet Barry or some of the things that were said afterwards.

I find it laughable that Cats coach Laurie Mains can question Corne Krige's captaincy credentials on the basis of what he said after the game about the Mulder tackle.

Oh yeah, Laurie! What about your own captain Rassie Erasmus' contention that if Japie had done the same thing playing for the Springboks he would have been lauded as a hero.

I can only assume that Erasmus, who like Mulder has always struck me as a very decent fellow off the field, had not seen what many saw from the press box. As he had not seen it, maybe he can be forgiven for thinking it was a legitimate tackle.

But unless the rugby laws have changed, taking out a man with the ball nowhere in sight is not legitimate. And there has to be some significance in the fact that it came just minutes after Mulder gesticulated towards Barry after being dumped by a tackle that was perfectly legitimate.

No Rassie, most South Africans would not have treated Mulder as a hero if he had been wearing a Springbok jersey. As one who has covered most tours since our return from international isolation, I can tell you that the South African media has never turned a blind eye to the indiscretions of Springbok players.

James Small, when he was sent off by Ed Morrison in a test against Australia in 1993, did not get sympathetic treatment from this pen. Neither did Johan le Roux when he was spotted taking a bite out of Sean Fitzpatrick's ear in 1994, or for that matter Pieter Hendriks or James Dalton after that infamous fracas in the match against Canada during the 1995 World Cup.

I well remember Dalton's incredulous reaction to the treatment by the touring media of lock Adri Geldenhuys when he was sent off in a midweek game against Manawatu during the 1994 tour of New Zealand.

"But he is a South African, you guys have to go easy on him," urged Dalton. More recently, rugby writers did not exactly rush to the defence of the same Japie Mulder when he was fined by the Springbok management for his late charge on Wales A flyhalf Stephen Jones in Cardiff last November.

If WP were guilty of doing a similar thing when Thinus Delport was injured during last year's Currie Cup, then that was wrong too. But there is an important question which clearly has to be asked: Was the tackle in question legitimate, or wasn't it?

Let me be honest by admitting that I cannot remember the Delport incident. I do know there were no complaints afterwards. If I recall correctly, the only disciplinary action taken in the game was against Mulder for a late tackle which left Barry concussed.

Equating the Mulder incident at Newlands last week with the one that happened minutes earlier misses the point entirely. If a player is hurt in a legitimate tackle, as Barry's was, then it is bad luck. When it comes to legitimate tackles, players are perfectly entitled to "high five" one another. Hard tackles are part of rugby.

But if a player is hurt in an off-the-ball incident, which Saturday's was, then it is a different story. Even many of the Johannesburg based journalists who were present at the game felt at the time of the incident that Mulder was in the wrong and that disciplinary measures would be necessary afterwards.

For Mains to suggest that Mulder's action was a legitimate tit-for-tat, as he did at the post-match press conference, is irresponsible. It was on the same level as his suggestion that South African teams should help each other, presumably by not citing each other. Isn't that another way of condoning foul play? Again, as in the case of Erasmus, perhaps Mains can be excused on the basis that he may not have seen the incident in question.

But come on, foul play is never justifiable. And if anyone doubts Alan Solomons' commitment to eradicating foul play among his own players, perhaps they should speak to some of the players themselves. Robbie Fleck, for one, has regularly been hotly scolded by Solomons for his onfield indiscretions.

After the 1999 battle with the Blues, when Fleck was yellow-carded, Solomons made no attempt at the post-match press conference to defend his player. On the contrary, he let him have it, just as he let Mulder (a member of the opposition) have it on Saturday. The Cape media, by the way, have also regularly criticised Fleck for his at times over-hyped approach.

Maybe the some of the Stormers players hit the nail on the head when they suggest that the problems of last Saturday may have been the result of a difference in the culture of the teams. In their view, there is a different mentality among some of the other South African players that they find hard to understand.

It is not new. I well remember former Natal Springbok Cabous van der Westhuizen telling me during the 1994 tour of New Zealand about how shocked he was at some of the post-match conversations of his teammates. According to Cabous, it appeared some players were only interested in how much physical damage they could inflict on their opponents.

Nick Mallett often spoke of the problems he had trying to get some of his players to understand what was meant by "on-the-ball aggression". He felt that too many of the guys took this to mean they would be excused for taking out their frustrations on their direct opponents.

There is evidence to suggest this attitude might still be too prevalent. It was alleged after last year's Currie Cup final that some of the Natal players still found reason to celebrate on the basis that they had taught some of the WP players "a lesson" in a physical sense.

I thought the objective of rugby was to win the game.

As for Mulder's subsequent comments that the Cape reaction means rugby "is becoming a game for slapgatte"...well, does anything else need to be said. Instead of just apologising, he questions whether the sport would be worth playing if it was not for the sort of rough jungle justice that he is fast becoming famous for.

He went on to say that it would be "a sad day" if the complaints of the Cape players were taken seriously. Wrong Japie, it is already a sad day. Cape teams are regularly accused of being cry babies when they complain about the over-robust approach of other South African teams. Long before Saturday's game, Krige had lamented the "psychotic" approach South African players adopt when they play against each other.

It is just a pity they don't put the same intensity and commitment into their matches against overseas teams. There again, maybe that is the difference between the Stormers and some of the Kiwi/Aussie sides. The Stormers get psyched out, but the overseas sides ignore it and just let their superior skill do the work.

The difference in mentality between WP/Stormers might well be rooted in the fact that their players tend to be better blessed with skill than they are with brawn. Dare I suggest that a more widespread adoption of that mentality is necessary if our rugby is to flourish. A little less testosterone and a little more skill might be in order.