The Luke Watson saga has taken another twist with the South African Rugby Union appointing a lawyer to investigate his alleged radical comments and decide whether they breach the Springbok code of conduct.

Durban attorney Dekker Govender has been handed the task of looking into the matter after Saru called an emergency meeting overnight to discuss Watson's speech at the recent Ubumbo Rugby Club festival at the University of Cape Town.

Watson allegedly hit out at the "Dutchmen" who control South African rugby, and said he wanted to vomit on his Bok jersey last year because of what it represented.

Watson has since expressed dismay at the South African publications that printed his comments saying his speech was taken out of context and has been twisted "for propaganda".

"This was a private discussion on transformation. It was unlawfully audio recorded and unlawfully distributed and I therefore reserve my rights," Watson said in a statement through his father Cheeky Watson.

Watson's comments come at a time when there are renewed calls for the Springboks emblem to be removed from the famous green jersey because many see it as a symbol of rugby's link to the republic's apartheid past.

Loose forward Watson was controversially included in Jake White's Springboks squad last year but never made the cut for the World Cup in France which South Africa won.

He has subsequently found favour with new Springboks coach Peter de Villiers.

Now his future is clouded. If a breach is identified, Watson will face a disciplinary hearing.

But whether that bothers him remains to be seen. It's difficult to get a handle on his attitude to representing his country.

Perhaps the best perspective on this sensitive issue comes from respected South African rugby writer Mark Keohane.

Writing on his website keo.co.za, he said: "If you talk the talk, then be prepared to walk the walk.

"In a country that supposedly promotes freedom of speech, there is no crime in Luke Watson speaking his mind. Subsequently, talk of banning Watson is absurd. What is it exactly that the South African Rugby Union wants to meet about? Watson has done nothing wrong.

"The crime, morally, is Watson now running for cover in the form of his comments being a private discussion. If you give it, then be prepared to take it. If you have a go at the evils in the game, be prepared to front those evils when they come knocking.

"Watson has not denied any quotes attributed to him, but has quoted the tiresome politician line that it has been taken out of context and distorted. He said what he said and good on him for speaking his mind, but he'd get more support if he actually stood by his statements, whether they were made in private discussion or not.

"It is admirable for anyone to speak their mind, but you can't have it both ways when there is a consequence to what you say.

"Watson, prior to his forced inclusion in the Bok set-up in 2007, said in a Sports Illustrated interview what he thought of John Smit's leadership, of Jake White and of the Springbok players.

"He refused to retract the comments when called up to the squad, but now stresses how isolated and alienated he was made to feel. Come on my boy. Grow up. Did he expect the boys he bagged to hug him when he came face to face with them?

"Watson, and I said it at the time, should never have accepted his forced inclusion. He was guilty of the same thing his father and the like supposedly fought against all their lives, which was forcing something onto someone else and abusing power.

"The Watsons were guilty of selective morality and their reaction to newspapers reporting Luke's latest rant is again a case of being selective.

"It really is very simple. No one held a gun to Luke's head and made him play for the Springboks. No one."