South Africa Banned from hosting International Sporting Events by Minister

[sigesige00]

How about World 7s RSA Round?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Scotland rugby licking its lips

www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/...ould-be-the-next-true-scottish-hero-1-4108641

Have lined up Huw Jones and Kebble

Take them... We have better players than them... Although, I don't think Kebble will be able to play for Scotland because of SA registering the U/20 team as the 2nd National team for which Kebble has played...

How about World 7s RSA Round?

What about it? It's still on as it isn't a new tournament, and there are already contracts in place.

The government is just not going to support it.

 

[saulan]

Take them... We have better players than them... Although, I don't think Kebble will be able to play for Scotland because of SA registering the U/20 team as the 2nd National team for which Kebble has played...



What about it? It's still on as it isn't a new tournament, and there are already contracts in place.

The government is just not going to support it.

Which is odd because there doesn't seem to be a transformation problem in our sevens team.

 

[Thingimubob]

Huw was born in Scotland and raised in England. I always thought he had English aspirations.

A name that Welsh would look out of place for England :lol: I demand he changes his name from the Welsh spelling to the English "Hugh" if he runs out with a red rose on his chest.

Heard he is Welsh qualified either way, though doesn't look like he's on our radar at all! He any good?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Which is odd because there doesn't seem to be a transformation problem in our sevens team.

exactly! Which just goes to show how flawed and idiotic our Minister is. In afrikaans we have a saying "met dieselfde kam geskeer". And that saying is applicable to the Sevens team here. They also fall under the SARU jursidiction, and has to now be also punished just like every other SA national rugby team.

I just wonder what will happen if our 7's team wins the gold medal at the Olympics...

 

[Peat]

Take them... We have better players than them... Although, I don't think Kebble will be able to play for Scotland because of SA registering the U/20 team as the 2nd National team for which Kebble has played...

Unless I'm mistaken though, he never played a game for SA U20 team against another nation's registered 2nd national team, which is when a player gets tied to a nation, so would still be free.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Unless I'm mistaken though, he never played a game for SA U20 team against another nation's registered 2nd national team, which is when a player gets tied to a nation, so would still be free.

Isn't that the reason Hughes can play for england?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Unless I'm mistaken though, he never played a game for SA U20 team against another nation's registered 2nd national team, which is when a player gets tied to a nation, so would still be free.

He was part of the matchday 23 against the following teams:
Ireland
Italy
England
Argentina
New Zealand

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

He was part of the matchday 23 against the following teams:
Ireland
Italy
England
Argentina
New Zealand

I think its only France and Wales (or was that England?) that have their u20's nominated as their official 2nd team. Apart from ourselves I mean.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

England's is the Saxons, that's why Ross Moriarty can play for Wales after playing u20 for England.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think its only France and Wales (or was that England?) that have their u20's nominated as their official 2nd team. Apart from ourselves I mean.

You're right it's France and Wales.

England's 2nd national team is the Saxons and Ireland's Wolfhounds are their second team.

It's just us France and Wales that has done this (so far).

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

England's is the Saxons, that's why Ross Moriarty can play for Wales after playing u20 for England.

You're right it's France and Wales.

England's 2nd national team is the Saxons and Ireland's Wolfhounds are their second team.

It's just us France and Wales that has done this (so far).

Thanks.

If England, Ireland, NZ and Aus could "get with the program" so to speak it'd certainly count in everyone's favor and reward the national side for giving a young guy a go. Otherwise a player is taking up a developmental spot that could've gone to someone who actually cares for playng for that country. I'm of the opinion u20 is a better catchment team than an 'A' side to secure future players. 'A' sides are generally for fringe players rather than potential future stars and its the 2nd group I'd be more concerned with retaining. Most big sides have enough depth to cover for a fringe guy going over but you don't want as far as possible to lose a star player in the making.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'd go the other way, and say that the 2 countries using U20 (France have on occasion, but not currently - as far as I can find out) should join everyone else.

I'd do it with a simply edict from the IRB (yes, yes, I know - I refuse) "The nominated 2nd team for a country must be of open selection criteria" - so no teams picked on age, ethnicity etc (baring IRB qualifying regulations)

 

[saulan]

Unless I'm mistaken though, he never played a game for SA U20 team against another nation's registered 2nd national team, which is when a player gets tied to a nation, so would still be free.

We discussed this in another thread, the law got changed (I think @smartcooky said it changed in 2014?). In u20 tournaments, if you play and your nation has the u20 team as the a side, you can't play for another nation, regardless of whether the opposition has designated their u20s as their a side or not. Kebble played in 2011 though, so he may be free if he didn't play against another country's a side (before the law change/addition to be more specific on under 20s).

Basically, everyone should change their a sides to their u20 sides and it's what World Rugby seems to be incentivising. Saxons are only bound if they player another a side which is basically two other teams, which means most tours they have won't lock them in. These are also less frequent. On the other hand, if you just play in the u20 tournament, which happens on a yearly basic , you are locked in regardless of who you play, capturing your nation's best 30 (?) young players of that year into only being eligible for your nation.

Forum discussion took place here:
http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/37509-SARU-attempts-to-keep-junior-stars-in-SA/page2

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I'd go the other way, and say that the 2 countries using U20 (France have on occasion, but not currently - as far as I can find out) should join everyone else.

I'd do it with a simply edict from the IRB (yes, yes, I know - I refuse) "The nominated 2nd team for a country must be of open selection criteria" - so no teams picked on age, ethnicity etc (baring IRB qualifying regulations)

These fixtures ('A'-side) are so hit and miss though. At least, they are for SA and I'm suremost of the Sh teams at least. I can't even remember when last a SA 'A' side played a fixture. The u20 tournament on the other hand has a proper format and routine warm-up games.

As an aside, I suppose one needs to take a stance and ask the question who are you "for"; the player or the nation. I personally believe that if you don't intend on representing a nation's senior test side then you should be upfront about it and not waste that country's resources and take up a spot in what is in essence a developmental team for that nation.

If the player is unsure then fair enough but sit out in any event and let the guy who is hellbent on playing for his nation (if he can get the opportunity) play for his nation. These are national representative age grade sides and take resources from that union not a personal carreer stepping stone IMO.

 

[saulan]

These fixtures ('A'-side) are so hit and miss though. At least, they are for SA and I'm suremost of the Sh teams at least. I can't even remember when last a SA 'A' side played a fixture. The u20 tournament on the other hand has a proper format and routine warm-up games.

On that point, apparently the last SA A match was 2003 and the last Junior All Blacks match (their past and still current a side) was in 2009. Really should make their a side the Baby Blacks.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I don't think the government saying that they will not host a world cup is interference. It costs governments money to host these events... added security, more people working customs etc.. and if they don't think the union has done enough to transform the game then they don't need to take on those costs.

That being said, the quota system is not the best way to transform rugby. In the US we have had a problem with participation rates among black communities with baseball, so major league baseball started to spend money in inner cities building fields and supplying equipment. SARU should have the same strategy, sure it would cost them some money but it's ridiculous that whites only make up 20% of the population but 70% of the rugby team. The only way to solve that is to include black people in the game. Obviously I don't know all the stereotype/culture based obstacles that are in the way, but this is not a problem that can be solved with time, not forced selections.

 

[Peat]

We discussed this in another thread, the law got changed (I think @smartcooky said it changed in 2014?). In u20 tournaments, if you play and your nation has the u20 team as the a side, you can't play for another nation, regardless of whether the opposition has designated their u20s as their a side or not. Kebble played in 2011 though, so he may be free if he didn't play against another country's a side (before the law change/addition to be more specific on under 20s).

Basically, everyone should change their a sides to their u20 sides and it's what World Rugby seems to be incentivising. Saxons are only bound if they player another a side which is basically two other teams, which means most tours they have won't lock them in. These are also less frequent. On the other hand, if you just play in the u20 tournament, which happens on a yearly basic , you are locked in regardless of who you play, capturing your nation's best 30 (?) young players of that year into only being eligible for your nation.

Forum discussion took place here:
http://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/37509-SARU-attempts-to-keep-junior-stars-in-SA/page2

Ahh, I'd missed that.

Personally I'm of the opinion that age grade teams shouldn't be eligible to be 2nd teams, but yes, that's why they seem to be incentivising.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I don't think the government saying that they will not host a world cup is interference. It costs governments money to host these events... added security, more people working customs etc.. and if they don't think the union has done enough to transform the game then they don't need to take on those costs.

That being said, the quota system is not the best way to transform rugby. In the US we have had a problem with participation rates among black communities with baseball, so major league baseball started to spend money in inner cities building fields and supplying equipment. SARU should have the same strategy, sure it would cost them some money but it's ridiculous that whites only make up 20% of the population but 70% of the rugby team. The only way to solve that is to include black people in the game. Obviously I don't know all the stereotype/culture based obstacles that are in the way, but this is not a problem that can be solved with time, not forced selections.

Is it though? Really? That's what I don't get. Could you eplain it to me- the reasoning behind that logic. Is it a problem in the US that black players make up ~70% of the NBA but the national demographic is ~70% white?

 

[nickdnz]

Is it though? Really? That's what I don't get. Could you eplain it to me- the reasoning behind that logic. Is it a problem in the US that black players make up ~70% of the NBA but the national demographic is ~70% white?

This.

Badminton in New Zealand is proportionately more popular among Asians Kiwis than white Kiwis. Why? Well for various reasons involving their heritage, their historical success in the sport, the role the sport has played among their various cultures, their athletic build etc, etc, etc. Would it be acceptable to say that at least half of the representative teams must be white? Asians make up nearly 10 per cent of our population - however we have only ever had five players born in Asia play for the All Blacks - none since the 1970s - and they were all white guys. It's not a racist policy, there just isn't the same number of Asian's playing rugby in New Zealand. Proportionately a lot more Pacific Islanders play rugby in NZ than white players, again it doesn't mean a policy should be included (especially for including a majority!).

It's frankly racist. The fact De Allende's parents were apparently questioned about what race he constituted for the sake of policy, is racist.

You can argue that it is important that rugby in South Africa must be more inclusive, that opportunities to be involved in the game must be encouraged through communities where they previously were either discouraged or ignored. But the difference is that it has to be on a grass roots level, where rugby infrastructure are installed within communities that didn't have it, that opportunities like rugby scholarships are more available to those who can't access it.

That is a real effort. As I have said before, South African politicians seem more interested in harming a source of pride of a minority, than effectively trying to encourage real inclusiveness and change.