Springboks 'no more' in South Africa

[jargan83]

Springboks 'no more' in South Africa

From staff reporters, November 19, 2008

SOUTH African rugby is to drop the century-old emblem of the national side, replacing the Springbok with the king protea, the Republic's national flower.

South Africa's sports minister, Makhenkesi Stofile, said the Springboks symbol would not be axed completely, in response to incoming legislation that requires national teams to wear the king protea emblem on the left side of the jersey, but he said that its size and position on the jersey had not been finalised.

"The minister also advised us that the commercial emblem of national sporting federations - in rugby's case, the Springbok - can be utilised as federations deem fit, so long as that use does not compromise the national emblem," South African Rugby Union president Oregan Hoskins said in a statement.

Hoskins will convene a special meeting on December 1 to determine the details on the new emblem, which is already used in other sports.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23217,00.html

[frontrow]

It would be disgusting for them to outrightly remove it, i suppose this is meeting halfway (i guess), still, f**k the politics behind it...

[lara93]

[Jehna]

How threatening....a flower...perhaps they can join the ranks of england now..

[lara93]

ahaha
they look like poofs now

[robyn <3]

Hm. I find it an interesting subject. I'm sad that they are no longer the Springboks, for they were my team for quite a while. But this step is a lot less drastic than the alternative. I would much rather S.A appears more pro-colourful by changing their emblem rather than by dropping over half the european/afrikaans blokes from the team and having 80% of the players with dark skin.

I predict that there will be some trouble in South Africa about this soon. Sigh.

[GIGS20]

Either way it's all a total clusterf%$k!

The South African government seems to have a talent for making the most offensive decisions possible to the heartland of rugby in that country...now I'm not saying that the heartland of rugby is right....There's probably far too much entrenched racism which is supposedly being addressed by such a move, but I think that most racists get worse when confronted by reverse racism!


BTW Lara I wouldn't talk too soon about the quota idea.....I don;t think it's far off!

[frontrow]

England, South Africa, Waratahs, Scotland, all flowers...The kiwis have a silver fern as well...Doesn't seem too much of a hinderence...That said, i liked the springbok as an emblem...

[slomo]

politics and sport just don't mix.....

[brokendown gunfighter]

politics has been a part of sport since year dot

[travelling_gerry]

Been thinking about this. Just because your national emblem is on the left chest you can still have a springbok on the right and call themselves springboks.

Australia does ...coat of arms on left and wallaby on right.

[jargan83]

politics has been a part of sport since year dot

Doesnt mean it mixes
Posted via Mobile Device

[laura]

One part of me wants to say why have a flower..didn't work for the Tahs and certainly hasn't worked for the Poms...but then again its not Australia making the mistake so I don't care so much.

The other side of me is frustrated that a century of history is not enough to maintain a symbol that holds a lot of pride in the hearts of its country-men and women.

What is the purpose of the change, there isn't going be any benefit from changing it and its unlikely to solve the Nations political issues. Surely the symbol and the history that it represents is something positive that has come out of South Africa's past.
They should keep it as a symbol of pride rather than 'just an emblem on a jersey' and a way fro the ministers to make thir mark. Im sure there are more important less outrageous things they could do to change the image of South African rugby.

[Badger]

ahaha
they look like poofs now

what do you mean now?

[slomo]

....nelson mandela didn't have a problem wearing it at RWC1995 !.......