The South African Rugby League Springboks who toured Australia in 1963 would probably like to forget the results of the matches they played.

Although reinforced by South African-born players from English clubs in Colin Greenwood, John Gaydon, Oupa Coetzer and for a few games, Fred Griffiths and Alan Skene from Sydney clubs, the tourists were unable to justify the two Tests played.

In order to analyse the reasons for their heavy defeats and indeed understand the motive behind the tour, it is necessary to study the history of the formation of a Rugby League body in that country.

From various official statements and in particular from a summary written by Mr. W. Fallowfield, Secretary of the English Rugby League, in Bev Risman's "Rugby League Football Book", I have pieced together the following train of events.

The first reports of Rugby League promotion in South Africa occurred in 1953, when it was reported that a syndicate had been formed with a view to the promotion of the game. Mr. Ludwig Japhet was the contact man and he discussed the possibilities of Rugby League with Mr. Fallowfield at a London meeting in December 1953.

It was decided that games between British and French teams would be staged at Benoni, Durban and East London (South Africa) in 1957. A lot of preparatory work had to be undertaken in order to obtain suitable grounds. Strangely enough, the President of the S.A. Rugby Union unwittingly helped when he publicly described Rugby League players as "reptiles". Suitable grounds immediately became available!

The matches staged between Britain and France did little to further the cause of Rugby League in South Africa. Both teams regarded the matches as mere exhibitions and engaged in a "touch" type of football at Benoni. The South Africans, brought up in the dour atmosphere of Rugby Union, with its heavy rucking, were not impressed.

The slick passing and fancy work indulged in by both teams was spectacular enough, but without any real efforts being made to tackle opponents the game had a hollow ring to the sceptical South African critics. Mr. Fallowfield, aware of the public reaction, read out the "riot act" to the British team after the Benoni fiasco.

The British team played with more gusto in the second match at Durban but the French team unfortunately had not received the message. They refused to take the game seriously. Feelings ran high between the two visiting teams after this match with the French players expressing resentment at Britain's sudden volte-face.

It was anticipated that the third match at East London, in view of the strained relations now existing between both teams, would prove a thriller. This supposed grudge match did not eventuate, and the series faded out on a gentle note with Britain again winning with consummate ease. One result of these matches was a sudden awareness in South African Rugby Union circles of the financial rewards which Rugby League bad to offer. South African players arrived in Great Britain in a veritable flood.

The Rugby Union nabobs were not amused. Colin Greenwood, for example, who signed up with Wakefield, was asked by the Rugby Union controllers to return his Springbok gear, including jerseys and blazer. Colin's answer never hit print. Other players who appeared almost overnight on the British scene included Van Vollenhoven, Rosenburg, Griffiths, Prinsloo, Forster, Gillespie, the Diesel brothers, Skene, Lotriet, Pretorious, and Dorrington. The publicity arising out of this tour had at least made the game known in South Africa, even if the game itself was no further advanced in any material way.

Mr. Japhet died in 1957, not long after this experimental tour. This was a blow to Mr. Fallowfield, who had been deeply impressed with Mr. Japhet's sincerity. Rugby League promotion then became a dormant issue until August 1961 when Mr. Maurice Smith, a sporting promoter, wrote to Mr. Fallowfield and advised him that he had formed a caretaker committee and was seeking suitable grounds. Mr. Smith then handed over his Rugby League interests to Messrs. John B. Weill and Irwin Benson of Johannesburg.

It was reported in the press that Mr. Norman Lacey, a Rhodesian resident in Johannesburg, had expressed the intention of forming a Rugby League organisation. These two promoters worked separately and were not connected in any way. Messrs. Weill and Benson's Organisation became known as Rugby League South Africa while Mr. Lacey bestowed the name of National Rugby League on his group.

Rugby League S.A. was in constant contact with the English Rugby League authorities and advised them regularly regarding their activities. National Rugby League was rather tardy in making an initial contact however and some months elapsed before this League officially came into the picture. Both bodies were at loggerheads from the start. It was like having two trains on the one track.

They commenced signing up players from local Rugby Union sources, some of international standard, others being drawn from the inter-provincial competition. The English Rugby League despatched propaganda material - films, books and so on - to both organisations. They also simultaneously announced that competitive football would commence in the winter of 1962 - Great Britain's summer.

In February 1962 National R.L. apparently aware at last that some contact was necessary with Great Britain sent over one of their directors to interview Mr. Fallowfield. In this interview Mr. Fallowfield suggested that interest in the game in South Africa might be stimulated if a South African tour of England in September, 1962 could be arranged.

In the meantime the rival organisation, Rugby League S.A., was not letting any grass grow under its feet. As evidence of good faith officials had contacted the British authorities and requested that standard English playing equipment be forwarded to them so that there would not be any difference between the playing equipment of both countries.

With both organisations in official contact with the English Rugby League rivalry became intense. It was obvious that neither group was prepared to do a deal with the other and differences were patently irreconcilable. It was in this atmosphere, one of suspicion and sheer distrust between the two bodies, that Rugby League was born in South Africa. National R.L. claimed to have four club sides, Rugby league S.A., five. Practices were accordingly begun, but what could have been an interesting competition between nine teams was split down the middle by these two warring factions.

The National R.L. representative canvassed Great Britain in an effort to bring out a club side to play teams from his Organisation. One does not know at this stage whether this was a genuine attempt by National R.L. to improve the playing standard, or alternatively, a gimmick to bolster a sagging competition and make a few quid in the process. No doubt these aspects were examined by the English Rugby League, which finally sanctioned a tour by Wakefield Trinity.

In an endeavour to restore the status quo Mr. Fallowfield had now to walk a diplomatic tightrope - it was proposed that the 1962 British Lions tourists should play matches against Rugby League S.A. on their way home.

Wakefield Trinity had little difficulty in defeating teams from the National R.L. with results reading more like cricket scores. At Durban, for example, they romped home 59-3, after leading 34-3 at half time, against a Combined XIII.

The Pretoria News (10.7.62) made this comment on the match: "The small crowd did not seem impressed by the code". The Rand Daily Mail was critical of,the promotion of this match. Their writer (10.7.62) stated: "Unless professional Rugby is better stage-managed than it was when Wakefield Trinity, the Rugby League Cup holders, defeated a South African Invitation team by 59 points to three at the New Kingsmead Stadium at Durban yesterday, its future in South Africa looks extremely bleak . . . . The promoters must be criticised for their failure to present the game in easy to follow form to spectators who, many of them, were watching it for the first time."

"There were no programmes for sale, although all the players were carefully numbered; only casual introduction of each man over the public address system. And one would have thought that an expert would have given the crowd a quick briefing in the salient features of Rugby (League), plus the way the scoring goes."

The Star (2.7.62) was more charitable: "It would be unwise to judge the chances of Rugby League becoming established in South Africa on the evidence of Saturday's rough and onesided match but one had the impression that the crowd would be well prepared to watch the game again". (Wakefield defeated Celtic, a club team, 52-6, in this match.)

Wakefield's expenses were guaranteed but the tour resulted in a financial loss for National Rugby League. Rugby League S.A., the fence-sitters of this project, had observed the weaknesses of the National R.L. teams and were determined to see that their teams did not suffer a similar fate against the visiting 1962 Lions. They employed Dave Brown, the former Australian, East's and Warrington international, as coach for a period of three months.

Dave worked like a beaver and expressed confidence that Rugby League S.A. would make a creditable showing. It is interesting to observe, at this point, that Mr. Fallowfield was not nearly so sanguine. He wrote: "I felt that the South African Rugby Union forwards who had turned to Rugby League would require match experience before they could get used to League forwards pounding down the middle selling dummies right and left and generally behaving like tlireequarters."

"This proved to be the case and the British team had no trouble in beating R.L.S.A. teams although the British players admitted that the skill of the South African players was good. It was their limited knowledge of tactics, particularly in defence, that was their downfall."

It is an historic fact, as I know from my English experiences, that Rugby Union forwards do not readily settle down to the League game. In England a Rugby Union forward, even if of international status, is generally "written off" for at least a year. The resounding defeats of teams from both the National R.L. and the Rugby League S.A. at least restored parity so far as the English Rugby League was concerned. In their bids for power neither body could claim any advantage over the other.

Each Organisation had made separate applications for affiliation with the International Board. Mr. Fallowfield arrived in South Africa en route to Auckland, New Zealand, where the Board was due to meet. He had a twofold purpose - to attempt to resolve the differences between the two bodies and to prepare a report for the Board's consideration.

The principal recommendations made to the Board were:
1. That the National Rugby League be advised to form Clubs within its own Organisation, with such clubs to be responsible for the signing-on fees of players. (Up to this time players and clubs were signed by the League, clubs had no separate entity.)
2. That these National Rugby League Clubs should become part of Rugby League South Africa.
3. That a constitution be drawn up for Rugby League South Africa which would give clubs representation on a Management Committee.
4. That Honorary Membership of the International Board be conferred upon Rugby League South Africa. It was also decided that an invitation be extended to South Africa to compete in the World Cup subject to the adoption of the Board's recommendations.

Mr. Fallowfield pointed out that the founders of National Rugby League who were out of pocket through their initial investments could be reimbursed out of future National R.L. club profits, thereby freeing Rugby League South Africa of any obligations in that regard.

He also stated that it would be an advantage if Australia could agree to invite a South African team to tour Australia at the earliest opportunity. The International Board adopted Mr. Fallowfield's recommendations. The National Rugby League and the Rugby League South Africa agreed to the proposals and, on the surface at least, unanimity had at last been achieved. The one organisation adopted the name "Rugby League South Africa". It was hoped that the nine teams located in the Johannesburg area would launch the 1963 season in a blaze of new found enthusiasm.

The Australian Board of Control accordingly sponsored the suggested South African tour and allowed the visitors 65% of the gross gates, with a guaranteed $45,000. This was generally regarded as an extremely generous action on the part of the Australian Board and exemplified Australia's keen desire to see Rugby League become firmly established in South Africa.

The Springboks ran into trouble on their opening match of the tour at Canberra, with injuries to leading players. Oupa Coetzer, a magnificent winger in any company, was one of the casualties and took no further part of the tour. John Gaydon also withdrew from later matches. Even allowing for these early setbacks the South Africans were hopelessly outclassed throughout the series.

The forwards lacked the Rugby League technique and could not make a game of it. They had obviously not improved on their South African form. The complete failure of the team was virtually Rugby League's death warrant in South Africa.

As one might well have expected the Rugby League officials in South Africa had to contend with acts of antagonism from the Rugby Union diehards. The failure of the touring team delighted these isolationists and the death of professional Rugby caused not sorrow but rejoicing.

The extent to which Rugby Union officials deliberately placed obstacles in the way of the Rugby League promoters is well illustrated in the following newspaper comment by Francois Roux in the Sunday Times (1.7.62): 'Prominent Rugby Union officials in Bloemfontein have advised Nelie Smith, the Free State captain, NOT to take on any advance booking at his sports shop for next Saturday's match between Wakefield Trinity and Bloemfontein Aquilas at Springbok Park, Bloemfontein."

"The advance booking offer was made to Smith by Mr. Andre Bezuidenout, the Chairman of the Bloemfontein Aquilas. They are old friends. This is just another instance of the refusal of some of the Rugby Union men to accept the arrival of the 13-a-side code."

"'I can't believe it,' Wilf Rosenberg, one of the five Springboks in the touring side, said yesterday, when told that many of the Transvaal players who had switched to the professional code were being shunned in the club houses of their old Rugby Union Clubs."

"'I wonder what these Rugby Union officials would say if they were told Ken Thornett, who plays for Leeds in the English Rugby League, has just been made an honorary life member of the Randwick Rugby Union club in Sydney. They have a more mature attitude in England towards professionalism. I am welcome in most of the Rugby Union clubs in the north of England. We even go to their dances.' "

The collapse of Rugby League in South Africa meant personal tragedy to such fine players and persons as Dawie Ackermann, Martin Peisler, Gerry Van Zyl and others, who had transferred from Rugby Union.

They can no longer play football and are almost ostracised from South African Rugby Union. This is a sad conclusion to the careers of men who had not so long before been regarded as national heroes.

The manner in which the official cold-shoulder is given to Rugby League players in South Africa, even if they had previously represented their country in International Rugby Union, is something beyond the comprehension of the Australian mind.

This prejudice, blind and rather savage in its application, seems so well ingrained in the mind of South African Rugby Union officials, that it is now obvious that the two codes would never co-exist with any degree of peace and co-operation. I can only wonder where sport begins and ends in South Africa. Does one regard South African Rugby (Union) more in sorrow than in anger?

Yet, South Africa is not the only Country which exhibits the extremes of isolationism and snobbery in respect of the amateur code. Wales, and to a certain extent New Zealand, are good allies.

Australia, praise be, has long emerged from the darkness of bias, apart from the odd aristocrat. We have friendly rivalry between the two codes but there is not the same great chasm which divides the players into distinct social groups. Many Rugby League followers turn up to watch our International Rugby Union matches and vice versa.