Abstract
The extent to which historians impose themselves on the past through their narratives remains contentious. While historians of sport have engaged these debates, most continue to assume a realist correspondence between historical narratives and the past. In this paper, I draw on Hayden White's model of narrative explanation to analyze two competing narratives on the 1981 Springbok rugby tour of New Zealand. The first is provided by Ross Meurant who served as a police officer during the 1981 tour; the second comes from antitour activist Geoff Chapple. White's model focuses on the form of historical narratives and directs attention to their tropes, emplotments, arguments, and ideologies. As well as evaluating the two contrasting narratives about the tour, I also respond to critiques of White's work in order to assess its merits for sport historians.