Controversy precedes tour finale
New Zealand Sports History, the 1921 Springboks Tour of NZ, No 7
Losses to South Africa and New South Wales had put pressure on the All Blacks to respond for the third, and deciding, Test of their inaugural series, while South Africa had still to complete a rigorous programme before they could contemplate a series win and their return home.
That involved games against Waikato, Hawke's Bay-Poverty Bay and the New Zealand Maori before they could head south for the final two games of the tour.
However, the Springboks had to negotiate a controversy not of their own making in an incident that is forever linked with the tour and the history of contact between the countries.
Their build-up for the tour finale began near Hamilton.
Wing Attie van Heerden's speed continued to trouble provincial sides as Waikato found at Claudelands Showgrounds, after having put a solid forward effort together to confine the game between the 25-yard lines. However, two strong runs by van Heerden, the second of which saw him tackled short of the line, gave the South Africans a chance. Taffy Townsend, whose tactical kicking drove Waikato back several times, was quick to the ruck and passed out to Sarel Strauss and the ball was moved on to Jackie Weepener and Henry Morkel who scored near the corner. Soon after IB de Villiers added a penalty goal from near halfway and while van Heerden and Morkel went close to scoring, the halftime lead was 6-0. Waikato absorbed early pressure in the second half and turned it back on South Africa with wing CTJ Clarkin going close to scoring but the Springbok line held and the game ended with no addition to the score.
The Waikato Independent noted
The crowd was much surprised, and delighted to see the way in which the local forwards held their own against their doughty and heavy opponents. Our [no bias here] frequently beat the visitors for the ball in the scrum, and were undoubtedly superior in the loose. The visitors, however, excelled in line kicking, and as the game was played under the old rules, this gave them a big advantage. The combination of their backs was also superior, and at times they handled the ball splendidly. Indeed, had it not been for the really superb collaring of the home team, the visitors would undoubtedly have piled up a big score. Big and heavy as the Springboks backs are, they are a speedy lot, and their tricks of feinting, and side-stepping gave them many an opening.[1]
Travelling to Napier, the Springboks were set for a longer stay than usual as they were to play the combined Hawke's Bay-Poverty Bay side and in midweek they were to play New Zealand Maori, also in Napier. Among their opposition was the future world heavyweight title contender Tom Heeney and a future heavyweight in the New Zealand rugby sense Maurice Brownlie, who also had some unsuccessful goal-kicking duties for the combined side. Appearing at first five-eighths was Parekura Tureia, who had been excluded from the New Zealand Army team on their 1919 tour of South Africa on racial grounds.
Parekura Tureia - captain of the 1921 New Zealand Maori XV against South Africa
The Springboks unleashed a full-scale assault on the combined side's line with van Heerden not able to take a pass with the line beckoning while a centre-kick from Charlie Meyer was marked in a dangerous position along the home team to clear. Gerhard Morkel went close to scoring. Finally, after 27 minutes, it was Meyer who capped a combined passing rush to score.
Some good work by centre Jack Blake resulted in Strauss being caught with the ball, which was taken by Blake who just failed to score with a five-yard scrum being ruled. At a lineout that followed the play, Sam Gemmell made a break only to have his pass intercepted by Mannetjies Michau. He was tackled and the ball turned over with halfback Jimmy Mill, Blake and wing Bert Grenside handling before Grenside kicked to the in-goal where McNab fell on the ball to score with Tureia adding the conversion for the combined side to take the lead.
Morkel got South Africa back in front with a penalty goal but then the Bays were awarded a scrum after van Heerden was caught with the ball after the ball was kicked deep into Springbok territory. From the scrum Mill took the ball and ran around to score. Conceding a string of penalties proved costly for the home side and once the Springbok backs got their act together van Heerden went close to scoring in the corner. A lineout was ruled and it was Strauss who scored to regain the lead. The winning of the game was achieved when another passing rush saw van Heerden across to score the try. The Bay's last chance came after Tureia and Blake combined in a move that ended when Blake was pushed out in the corner. South African turned on the power through their pack to deny any more chances as time ran out.
Then, if the shock of the All Blacks losing the second Test was not enough, New South Wales turned around on the same day and beat New Zealand 17-0. Poorly selected, and unable to have a run together before the game, with Roberts only being included at halfback two days before and arriving in Christchurch on the day before the game, the fixture was an indictment on the New Zealand Rugby Union's record. The chosen halfback Harry Mullins joined the list of players selected but who didn't play, shunted out of the side two days before the game in order that Teddy Roberts could play.
One unnamed former rugby official was quoted by The Star. He said,
They've got the wind up. Faulty selection lies at the root of the whole trouble. The first [Test] team was chosen haphazardly, but it beat the Springboks by an odd combination of luck and bad decisions. That left the selectors feeling proud. I would not like to be in their shoes today. The proposal to pick the third No.1 All Black team without reference to tomorrow's form was a sidelight on the whole business.[2]
In an editorial after the loss, The Press caught the mood.
There is already a disposition – it was noticeable in the comments heard on all sides during the progress of the game – to put the whole blame on the shoulders of the selectors, who are condemned for their handling of the New Zealand team and especially for their belated decision as to its composition. It is argued, and with some degree of reason, that a team which had actually never had a practice together could not, however capable its individual members might be, be expected to show the combination necessary in a team that had to meet opponents who had been playing together for some time. But the trouble on Saturday lay deeper than mere lack of combination. If the stark truth must be told, our team was out-played in every department of the game. In every respect the New South Wales team, representing a body of players smaller probably than is to be found in Christchurch alone, proved themselves better than the team which, though not the best that the Dominion could place in the field, yet contained seven of the men chosen to practise for the final test match with the South Africans, and represented many thousands of players…Clearly we had become too self-confident and two beatings in succession – we shall be fortunate if we escape a third – will perhaps teach us a little humility and induce the authorities of the game to look into the causes of the day that is apparent in New Zealand Rugby football.[3]
The Star said the revision of the All Blacks' team for the game was worse than a farce. If there couldn't be resignations from those responsible there should at least be an inquiry, it said. Members of the team had walked onto the field almost as strangers. At Friday's training run, four members of the New Zealand team – wing Eddie Ryan, second five-eighths Father Paul Markham, Roberts and forward Charles Fletcher - were missing. Fletcher's absence was borne out when he was unable to fit into his selected position in the scrum. New Zealand couldn't secure the ball from the scrum as a result and NSW helped themselves by screwing the scrum at will. Roberts said later he only got the ball clearly from two scrums in the game. That performance had the newspaper saying New Zealand should look at reverting to the 3-2-3 scrum and packing the wing-forward rather than attempting to compete with only seven men.
Apart from Roberts, Ford appeared to be the only New Zealand back who had any fund of resource…Roberts' attacking ability was never in doubt from the moment the game opened. He gave his supports all kinds of chances, repeatedly fooled the opposition, and turned back a rush with a counter-rush.[4]
Having witnessed their side get a thrashing, the Canterbury faithful recognised the NSW triumph for what it was and carried the 'Cornstalks' from the field on their shoulders. If, as was suspected, the game was a trial of Roberts, Beet Algar and Markham ahead of the third Test, it proved a failure. Given his display in the losing side, it was wondered why Son White had ever been dropped from the full Test side.
Straight after the game, the selectors in attendance A.J. Griffiths and Donald Stuart said they were heading back to Wellington, where they had been appointed, along with fellow selector George Nicholson, to take over the training of the All Blacks, instead of Billy Stead and Alex McDonald. Stead was already in Napier preparing the New Zealand Maori for their game against South Africa.
During the weekend's representative rugby, Otago first five-eighths W.R. Fea had helped his side to a win over the Ranfurly Shield-holding Southland team in Dunedin at the start of Southland's northern tour in which they would lose the shield to Wellington. Having been injured while on the New Zealand Universities' tour of Australia earlier in the season, Fea had not been considered for the first two Test matches. His form against Southland was enough to see him rushed to Wellington to join the squad preparing for the third Test.
Back in Napier, the Springboks were preparing to play the New Zealand Maori side. Four of the Maori team backed up from the Hawke's Bay-Poverty Bay side, Tureia, Blake, Mill and W Te Whata. It was a game that has become famous in New Zealand rugby history, not only for the post-game remarks telegraphed in a match report to South Africa but for the actions of the tourists before, and during, the game. Initially, they upset the Maori players when Afrikaner members of the touring party turned their backs on a group of Maori young women who were singing and using poi. Bill Thompson, a Horowhenua-based referee who had controlled the Springboks game with Waikato, denied that racial issues were part of the problem for issues in the game. He said he had talked with Maori officials, including manager Tom Parata, and they agreed the reason for the issues was the referee J.F. Peake of Canterbury losing control.
He attempted to get the Maoris to play three men in the front row of the scrum, apparently to comply with the wishes of the Springboks. The Maori captain [Tureia] refused to do so and this caused friction, frayed tempers, and, no doubt, resentment on both sides. All footballers know that any attempt to depart from the orthodox rules of the game, particularly during play, can only have one result – dissatisfaction and chaos. To suggest that the rough play was due to the racial feelings of the Springboks is pure unadulterated piffle.[5]
Thompson said, as a result of his experience during the Waikato game, he understood what the issue was for the South Africans.
In the early part of the tour it was apparent that our wedge-shaped scrum was beating the Springboks for the ball in spite of their heavy forwards, and they were forced to devise some scheme to counteract the result. There was only one way to do this – to get the referee to rule that the two front men in the scrum on the side from which the ball was being put in should not be allowed to hook. If successful in that respect they were 'on velvet', because their middle man would have a monopoly of the ball once it entered the scrum.
The day before the match at Hamilton I was interviewed by Messrs Bennett (manager), Pienaar (captain) and the travelling representative of the N.Z. Rugby Union, and asked to rule as mentioned above. In spite of the efforts of the N.Z. Union's representative to induce me to accede to the request, I definitely refused to do so and gave them my reasons. Other requests of a minor nature were also discussed and to these I gave my consent on the understanding that I should be permitted to advise the Waikato team before the game commenced how I was going to rule on the particular points raised.[6]
Thompson added that he prepared himself for South Africa to attempt to overcome the declined scrum request on the field during the game. That duly happened, he said, and he described it as 'rather cute'. He said he had a few quiet words with the Springbok captain and there was no trouble from that point. He added another point to negate the perception that the colour line was employed against Maori.
After the Maori match at Napier the Springboks passed through Levin, and when the train stopped the first man to step out of the Springboks' carriage was Rangi Broughton, one of the Horowhenua representatives [in the Maori team]. He had travelled from Napier with the Springboks in their car! Talking with Mr Bennett and other members of the team on the platform, I remarked that the boys had apparently taken a fancy to the popular Rangi. Mr Bennett agreed and stated, 'the Maoris were a fine lot of chaps.' Prior to the train leaving the Springboks lined up and gave Rangi three hearty cheers. There was no evidence of racial feelings in a voluntary and spontaneous action of that kind.[7]
The game proved a tight contest. The Springboks made a good start with the ball secured from a lineout being delivered quickly to the backs who all handled before Bill Zeller scored in the corner. The Maori pulled the score back with a Winiata Tapsell penalty goal. However, the bigger tourists dominated the lineouts and used that platform to send the backs onto the attack only to have their efforts stymied by the stern defence of the Maori. With the wind behind them in the second half, South Africa continued to run the ball and eventually they found their way through the defence, albeit only twice. There was a second try from another lineout deployment that gave van Heerden space to cross wideout.
Some controversy occurred when Blake looked to mark the ball deep in South Africa's territory. His appeal was over-ruled and Townsend got hold of the ball and broke down downfield to be confronted by local fullback Ed Kuru. Drawing him, he moved the ball to Zeller who set sail for the line. However, he was trailed and caught by Blake. The ball rolled free in the tackle where Townsend picked up the ball and dived over, although some in the crowd believed he had been pushed into touch before touching down. That resulted in an outburst from the crowd.
The New Zealand Maori team was: Back row (from left), A. M Takarangi (Maori Advisory Board), J H Hall (MAB), J Korariko, W Tapsell, J Garlick, T A Grace, B Gemmell, M Edwards (reserve), G Ormond (MAB), J W 'Billy' Stead (coach). Second row, T Parata (MAB), E Kuru, W P Barclay, W T Parata (manager), P Tureia (captain), W Te Whata, J J Mill, W T Pitt (MAB). Front row, S M J Piki (MAB), T Tangitu, J Mitai, P Taituha, J M Blake, T Carroll (reserve), R Broughton. (Photo – Otago Witness)
Up 9-3, it was the Springboks' turn to be put to a defensive test and from a ruck near their line, it was Maori forward Jim Garlick who secured the ball to get over the line for the try. Tureia's conversion made it 9-8 and that was the final score.
Coach Billy Stead said in a final assessment of the tourists that their lineout play, the strongest feature of their game, was illegal.
Their favourite method was for 'Baby' Michael (17st odd) and Boy Morkel (over 16st) to force an opening through the opponents' lineout, drag one of their own comrades in possession of the ball through behind them, the ball then being deftly sent to one of the giants who had got clear.
This took a tremendous lot of stopping, and left van Rooyen (who later became a famous forward in Northern League in England) very often unmarked, loose of the ruck, and through all the matches he made some great thrusts down to the fullback, fortunately in most cases unattended.
Their fielding and line-kicking were of a much higher standard than we had been used to in New Zealand, but it was left to the Maori team to prove that the 2-3-2 scrum could master their formation, and there was no happier man in New Zealand at the time than the captain (Pienaar) when he found that no Maoris had been selected in the forwards of the team for the final test.[8]
If on-field issues were a concern, the leaking of the transcript of a match report to South Africa by touring journalist C.W.E. Blackett, an Australian born journalist living in South Africa, was a different affair completely. A Post Office telegraph worker passed a copy of the report to the Napier Daily Telegraph newspaper.
The Daily Telegraph report said:
Most unfortunate match ever played. Only as the result of great pressure being brought to bear on Mr Bennett induced them to meet the Maoris, who had assisted largely in the entertainment of the Springboks. It was bad enough having to play a team officially designated the New Zealand natives, but the spectacle of thousands of Europeans frantically cheering on a band of coloured men to defeat members of their own race was too much for the Springboks, who were frankly disgusted.
That was not the worst. The crowd was the most unsportsmanlike experienced on the tour, especially the section who lost all control of their feeling. When not 'booing' the referee they indulged in sarcastic remarks at his expense. On my occasions the Africans were hurt, and the crowd, without waiting for the possibility of immediate recovery shouted, 'Take him off! Take him off!'
Their faithful coloured allies proved loyal to New Zealand, for, in addition to a serious injury to Kruger's leg, van Heerden had to stay off the field for fifteen minutes, and others were limping badly. The Maoris flung their weight about, regardless of the niceties of the game.[9]
The reaction to the story was immediate. Under the heading 'A Grievous Blunder', the New Zealand Times editorialised on the matter.
The most grievous and shocking blunder ever perpetrated in the history of New Zealand was made in the cable message sent to South Africa about the Maori-Springbok match. It was grievous in its gratuitous insult to the Maori race, which has stood with our people, their fellow-subjects, in the lines of battle and trench; it was shocking in its ignorance of the principal feature in the eighty-years' history of the fellowship of Maori and Pakeha. That fellowship began in perfect equality between the two, each signing the treaty of alliance with dignity and mutual respect. When, in consequence of misunderstandings, natural to the conditions of their new joint life under the British Crown, wars broke out, this equality of mutual respect and dignity of treatment remained unchanged. According to some authorities it was even increased, for the behaviour of the Maori in war, both for and against the pakeha, was chivalrous, brave, honourable; in fact, in everything pertaining to soldiership, diplomacy, and statesmanship, such as to improve rather than decrease the respect in which the Maori was held by the Pakeha. This fact the Maori emphasised during the Great War with a burst of loyalty second to none, followed by a battle record of which the best races on earth might well be proud. The finest thing in this eighty-years' story is the complete absence of the colour line. Less practical knowledge the Maori has of arts and sciences, but in loyalty, courage, nobility of character, high ideals, picturesqueness of poetic indignation, brilliancy of noble speech, shrewdness of judgment, and independence of soul, the Maori has no superior, as everyone who knows him is well aware.[10]
Bennett said when approached on the matter that the side strongly resented the story and it was not indicative of how they felt. He said claims they had been forced to play a match against the side were wrong as it was always intended to play the side, although it was well into the tour before the game was confirmed.
I understand that the message has not been published in South Africa. The whole of my team and the officials are very much hurt because the Maoris have been particularly hospitable towards us. On behalf of the whole of my associates, I wish to give the report an absolutely unqualified denial.[11]
Blackett told the NZ Herald he was astonished that Bennett had apologised on Blackett's behalf for his report.
What I do regret, apart from the unfortunate manner in which the message was disclosed at this end, is the mutilated and abridged form in which it was published in certain papers. For reasons best known to themselves the persons who surreptitiously obtained and disseminated the cable, published only those passages which could be construed as an attack on the Maoris. One glaring instance was the fact that the words, 'They merely threw their weight about regardless of the niceties of the game' were shorn from their context, which read: 'It would be unfair to suggest that the Maoris played a foul or unnecessarily rough game.' Similarly, there appears to have been a deliberate omission of a statement in the message to the effect that the Maoris belied their reputation that they were unable to play an uphill game by continuing their hard hustling tactics to the finish. Obviously, therefore, the statement that the message was quoted in full was incorrect. I was equally surprised to read that Mr Bennett had received cabled advices that the newspapers which I represent had refrained from publishing the message. On that point I hope to give definite information before leaving New Zealand.[12]
Bennett told a meeting of the Wellington Referees' Association that he attended before the third Test that the Springboks had been concerned about the behaviour of some in the Napier crowd and the remarks they made. But, he said, those remarks in no way reflected on the players or the Maoris as a race. The Springboks dissociated themselves from the journalism which had not been submitted to them for verification.
Such a course was against journalistic etiquette. Had they been questioned on the subject the person responsible would have been put right. In conclusion, Mr Bennett stated that the visitors had every respect for the Maoris as players and as gentlemen.[13]
The Maori manager W.T. Parata said after reading Bennett's explanation he accepted that the cabled comments were not inspired by the Springboks or any official connected with them.
I have seen Mr Bennett about the matter, and he assures me that there was nothing whatever that his team took exception to with regard to the Maori team. On the contrary quite the reverse of ill-feeling exists between the Maoris and the Springboks. As a matter of fact, my small son has been the South Africans' mascot in more than one game, and a telegram is now on its way to Auckland asking him to fill the same role in Saturday's test.[14]
The matter was still being felt by South Africans the following year. The manager of a visiting South African athletics team I H Emery said, at a civic reception in Wellington, that rugby authorities in South Africa had asked him to apologise for any statements in the incident that might have hurt the feelings of New Zealanders. The comments in the newspaper report had hurt South Africans as well as New Zealanders, he said. But the Springboks had returned home full of New Zealand, he said, and some had left their hearts behind. The message had been one man's opinion and it had not been liked when published in South Africa, he said.
[1] Waikato Independent, 1 September 1921
[2] The Star, 2 September 1921
[3] Editorial, The Press, 5 September 1921
[4] The Star (Christchurch) 5 September 1921
[5] W.Thompson, The New Zealand Observer, August 20 1936, p.23
[6] ibid
[7] ibid
[8] Billy Stead, The Evening Star Sports edition, 18 June 1937
[9] Report to South Africa published in Daily Telegraph (Napier) and quoted in New Zealand Times, 15 September 1921.
[10] Editorial, New Zealand Times, 16 September 1921
[11] The Evening Post, 15 September 1921
[12] C W E Blackett, New Zealand Herald, 16 September 1921
[13] Harold Bennett, speaking to Wellington Referees' Association, quoted by The Evening Post, 15 September 1921
[14] W.T. Parata, New Zealand Herald, 16 September 1921