Weekend Argus (Saturday Edition)

PATRICK COYNE

-

will bounce and waggle his posterior grotesquel­y so as to put a jumping boy off. It only wants one jumper to fall off or touch the ground with his foot or any part of his body in the act of jumping, and the entire jumping team loses their turn.

But let us suppose that all have jumped well and are clinging triumphant­ly in place. Their leader then calls, always in Afrikaans: “Bok, bok, staan styf, hoeveel vingers op jou lyf ?” (Bok, bok, stand steady, how many fingers on your body?)

While calling this, the leader holds one to four fingers spread out on the back of the boy bukking beneath him, who has to guess how many fingers there are. If he guesses right, then the bukking team get their turn to jump.

But what often happens is that, amid loud groans, the bukking team collapse under the weight, especially if only one or two backs have to bear most of the load. In this case the jumpers get yet another turn.

A slight drawback is that, like several of our traditiona­l children’s outdoor activities such as ‘foefie slides’ – in which you slide down a cable clinging to a pipe – bok-bok is thought to be dangerous. Or, at least, school authoritie­s have considered it to be so.

At several famous South African schools the game was banned by headmaster­s. (Including mine, er, St George’s Grammar School.) This caused much righteous indignatio­n among the boys. It was, after all, a proud and ancient tradition.

Not many knew it, but the game dated to Roman times. Roman youngsters called their original Latin version of the challenge: “Bucca bucca, quod sunt hic” . (Buck buck – how many are here?)

Then, a picture of the game – a rather tame version, admittedly – can be seen in the bottom right-hand corner of Bruegel’s famous painting of children’s games.

It was played at Rugby School by Tom Brown…

Should all rough and tough games be banned?

Those who say “no!” bring up rugby as an example.

If you ban bok-bok, they say, then you should also ban rugby.

The trouble with bokbok was that it was usually played on a hard, unforgivin­g surface, in the days when many playground­s were nothing but gravel yards littered with stones.

But if the game were played on lush grass, or even on gymnasium mats, and under supervisio­n, it would surely be a far safer game.

As with all games involving body contact, here is a dilemma which teachers and parents will need to confront, if they haven’t already done so.

For the boys themselves, there is no problem. Bok-bok is not a game for sissies, they will say.

South African boys are just the opposite, and should be allowed to express their virile, robust nature in games such as bok-bok.

Is theirs a lost cause? Is caution sure to be the winner?

In the end, although the stern hand of authority may have spoilt their sport, for the survivors, bok-bok will remain a fond memory long after the last bruises have faded.

 ?? PICTURE: ADRIAN DE KOCK/AFRICAN NEWS AGENCY (ANA) ARCHIVES ?? The writer argues that bok-bok was better than rugby.
PICTURE: ADRIAN DE KOCK/AFRICAN NEWS AGENCY (ANA) ARCHIVES The writer argues that bok-bok was better than rugby.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa