New race quotas for SA rugby

[Feicarsinn]

I'm talking about professional players and those who aspire to be. A teenager who wants to play the IRB Junior World Cup requires professional preparation, you saw how kids are now?

Ardie Savea - 1.90 m and 89 kg:

He's only 19!
It's a highly trained child, a poor child African development wouldn't have that if he doesn't have the resources to train high level.



Ok buddy

Regards



Well, this sport is very physical, is a contact sport. Much depends on the physical you have like NFL.


regards

Okay, first cut it with the pictures. It doesn't help validate your point and is a serious pain in the neck for anyone reading.

Onto the argument. Your first sentence entirely defeats your point.

I'm talking about professional players and those who aspire to be.

At that point of their development these things will be supplied by those training them. Are you saying that professional black players aren't able to afford protein, etc? Ridiculous. as for those aspiring to play professionally, by the time it comes to the stage where they need to be taking anything in order to increase size (we're talking about 16 or 17 realistically) they'll be in a system which will provide for them, be it a school, an academy system, or whatever. They'll have gotten to that place through talent, which doesn't require you to be hitting the gym every day. You mention the Junior World Cup, well just look at the South African squad from that tournament:

Fullbacks: Cheslin Kolbe, Tim Swiel (DHL Western Province)Wings: Seabelo Senatla (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Luther Obi, Sylvian Mahuza (Leopards)Centres: Jan Serfontein, Dries Swanepoel (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Justin Gedult, JP Lewis (DHL Western Province), Tyler Fisher (KZN)Flyhalves: Handrè Pollard (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Robert du Preez (KZN)Scrumhalves: Kirshwin Williams (MTN Golden Lions), Hanco Venter, Stefan Ungerer (KZN)Loose Forwards: Leneve Dames, Roelof Smit, Ruan Steenkamp (all Vodacom Blue Bulls), Albertus Smit (MTN Golden Lions), Jurie van Vuuren (DHL Western Province)Locks: Dennis Visser, Irnè Herbst, Jacques du Plessis, Marvin Orie (all Vodacom Blue Bulls)Props: Justin Forwood, Andrew Beerwinkel, Neethling Fouchè (all Vodacom Blue Bulls), Luan de Bruin (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Marnè Coetzee (KZN), Sti Sithole (DHL Western Province)Hookers: Jacques du Toit (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Devon Martinus (MTN Golden Lions), Mornè du Plessis (KZN), Freddie Kirsten (DHL Western Province)

So obviously all of these players are with pro outfits. It's not like they have to be paying for their own stuff so wealth isn't an issue at that point. You use Julian Savea as an example, but I guarantee that he's been a member of a pretty pro set up for a very long time before he donned a baby black jersey. Also, you overstate the importance of physicality, particularly at younger ages. To quote Lions outhalf Johnny Sexton, speaking oh his teenage years:

I wanted to play rugby professionally but had no idea what that entailed. I didn't really do weights, I didn't really train that hard.

"I loved going out training with the ball but I never worked in the gym.

From that it's clear that you can go on to become a top player without having to be in the gym at the age of 15.

To be honest I think the fact that you come from a country with no professional rugby (I believe) means you don't really understand how the underage systems work in such a country. While in tier two nations players may have to take their development much more into their own hands, in places like South Africa talent is identified early and given the support it needs to maximize potential (be it financial, coaching, etc.) With that in mind you can't use the argument that black people in South Africa cannot afford to become rugby players.

 

[LittleGuy]

You're making the argument to be more simple than it actually is. What perspective do you want to look at it from? Objectivism? Collectivism? It's a classic, deep-rooted philosophical issue here. In this case, what matters more, the rights of the group or the rights of the individual?

Generally, I'm not convinced by either in its entirety. To ignore the rights of the individual to an extreme, and you end up with a 1984-like nanny state, and the issues are obvious. But I think that modern culture has gone too far in the other direction: in some cases it would be wrong to uphold the right of the individual over the right of the group. eg, I don't think it's morally acceptable that people earn their market worth, rather than their actual contribution to society. The disparity in wages between Premiership football players and teachers, for example, is criminal. The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong. I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold?

Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy.

To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role into the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to callted in a company that than discovered a cure for AIDS, you would find this outrageous? If a millionaire invested in a succesful company that proceeded to hire 100 people at decent wages is this undesirable? If Elon Musk invests his billions into new transportation technology that helps thousands of commuters, reduces pollution and benefits the entire planet is this a bad thing?
it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance.

Overall, it's a difficult issue, but I do think that it's probably a decent policy in the long-term.

Probably the post on TRF I've most disagreed with, ever!! (even beating some of gingergenius' economic ideas).

I don't even know where to start....your dimissal of the market system(you are economically illiterate....it's clear from your post) in favour of a "value to society" just who will determine this "value to society" let me guess...guys like you?

Hmmmm well I think that teachers are important but they wouldn't be able to teach if they didn't get food, so maybe farmers are actually more important to society...but wait the water guy is neccesary to give the farm water so he might actually be the most important(see how silly this is...). What about that doctor who helps saves lives....but really didn't dedicate himself and become a surgeon instead should he make tons of money? Or what about the guy with a missing arm who managed to become a great welder surely he deserves a heap of money for overcoming adversity? I don't have the answers to these questions, and NEITHER do you or any other group or annointed body, since neither of us has ever walked a mile in those people's shoes. An economy is not a university seminar intended to hand out badges of merit to "deserving" people, it's a system of allocating resources to get people the products and services they want.

At best a "value to society" system will create labour shortages in some areas and oversupplies in others as it has in every other socialist economy ever, at worst it will create a quasi caste like system where people stuck with the neccessary but "unvalued" work are treated like ****, like they used to be India(and still are).

"The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong"

Don't buy a ticket then!! Obviously other's don't agree with you or they wouldn't be voluntarily parting with their money to see Premiership games!! I could be the greediest individual on the face of the planet but I wouldn't make money if you didn't voluntarily buy what I was selling, if you want to get mad at anyone it SHOULD be groups like teachers, most of whom collectively bargain with the state which then compels taxpayers by violence/threat of incarceration to pay for those deals, in the farce that is public sector bargaining(there is no stick as it were, available to the goverment, as it is in private sector unions where both employee and employer have much to lose, in the case of public sector bargaining only the goverment/taxpayer has much to lose).

Here in my province of Ontario there was a hilarious change in goverment policy recently as we had an "oversupply" of teachers, so they implented changes to teachers college to discourage applicants.... I screamed at the newspaper "lower the ****ing wages and benefits and the market will send signals to people to try other lines of work!!!" It's not that hard you don't have to create a body to recommend changes or implement expensive new polices...just let the market work.... it's almost like....magic!!!

"I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold?"

Speaking of oversimplifying, Bill Gates could liquidate his entire estate to feed poor people and it wouldn't help(especially not in the long term). Most poor countries have no rule of law, no to limited intellectual(human) capital and rank corruption until these issues are resolved large sums of money sent there might as well be flushed down the toliet(micro loans to individuals is a different matter). As for the taxes, well see France, which is now losing it's cultural and buisness icons to the rest of the world as they flee exoribinant taxes, which have done litlle to nothing to help France's economic situation....although in a way I'd love to England raise it's taxes to such high level's so your great actors and musicians, and entrepeneurs will consider North America just as they did in the 60's-70's when socialism was at it's apex in the UK.

"Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy"

Since when are all investments profitable or without risk? And what pile of money did these people fall into in the first place.... or did they earn it by "lifting their fingers"?(the number of people with obsene amounts of inherited wealth is shockingly little) So if a billionaire invested in a company that than discovered a cure for AIDS, you would find this outrageous? If a millionaire invested in a succesful company that proceeded to hire 100 people at decent wages is this undesirable? If Elon Musk invests his billions into new transportation technology that helps thousands of commuters, reduces pollution and benefits the entire planet is this a bad thing?


To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role into the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to call it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance.

There has been a compromise, that of freedoms for equality, a policy which will lead to neither freedom nor equality. I don't care if the quota is attainable that only makes it mariginally less egregious. Not going beyond the proportion of black people in the country is entirely meaningless, as others have pointed out the Black community in South Africa like soccer, are we to dictate to black people in South Africa what they must do and like! Nor is forcing underskilled black players into the lineup going to benfefit the player you've moved up, who might be easily revealed to be clearly the worst player on the team year in year out(This is exactly what happened in the U.S.A. with college quotas, Black students who would have received fantastic grades and decent degrees at mid range universities were pushed into Ivy leage schools where they failed, benfitting NO ONE).

I have no idea whether Black people in theory make better forwards, since Black people are a very diverse group themselves with body types ranging from Kenyans to West Africans. In North American sports the positions that would most equate to forwards in rugby(Gridiron linemen, Tight Ends, Baseball, Catchers, First Baseman, Centres in Basketball) have higher percentages of white players in them than in the general sport at large but I have utterly no idea of the validity or causation of this, or whether it reflects to rugby, or to South Africa etc.

It is a racist policy because it EXCLUDES qualified white players from potentially playing rugby at the Vodacom Cup level(the starting lineup requirements are the most vile part). Just as pre 1995 Black players were excluded by the White goverment at the time. It's only up to the goverment to make sure that people aren't excluded from activities based on ther race if the SA government was investigating racist coaches for example who were deliberately leaving non white players out of their sides than fine. Besides do you really think most rugby coaches and executives would leave skilled Black players on the bench and potentially lose their own jobs when their team fails out of some bizarro racist view? Most racists like themselves much more than their own race(White owned South African construction companies were regularly fined for hiring too many black employees in the darkest days of the apartheid era, because they wanted the skills and manpower they brought to the table).

 

[Feicarsinn]

Probably the post on TRF I've most disagreed with, ever!! (even beating some of gingergenius' economic ideas).

Even more than the posts where I ridicule you? Interesting.

 

[psychic duck]

It's a highly trained child, a poor child African development wouldn't have that if he doesn't have the resources to train high level.

Contrary to what the media might portray. Not every black African child is living like Groundskeeper Willie in a shack by the way. And although a higher percentage of whites in SA might be comfortable, considering there is 90% black population there is probably more in total. Bryan Habana for instance I heard went to one of the poshest schools in South Africa. The level of "poor" you are talking about would be disadvantaged to get in virtually every sport as a pro.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Little Guy, that was the post I wanted to write but couldn't be bothered to. Well played, I agree with all of it.

 

[CDN_Rugby]

Probably the post on TRF I've most disagreed with, ever!! (even beating some of gingergenius' economic ideas).

I don't even know where to start....your dimissal of the market system(you are economically illiterate....it's clear from your post) in favour of a "value to society" just who will determine this "value to society" let me guess...guys like you?

Hmmmm well I think that teachers are important but they wouldn't be able to teach if they didn't get food, so maybe farmers are actually more important to society...but wait the water guy is neccesary to give the farm water so he might actually be the most important(see how silly this is...). What about that doctor who helps saves lives....but really didn't dedicate himself and become a surgeon instead should he make tons of money? Or what about the guy with a missing arm who managed to become a great welder surely he deserves a heap of money for overcoming adversity? I don't have the answers to these questions, and NEITHER do you or any other group or annointed body, since neither of us has ever walked a mile in those people's shoes. An economy is not a university seminar intended to hand out badges of merit to "deserving" people, it's a system of allocating resources to get people the products and services they want.

At best a "value to society" system will create labour shortages in some areas and oversupplies in others as it has in every other socialist economy ever, at worst it will create a quasi caste like system where people stuck with the neccessary but "unvalued" work are treated like ****, like they used to be India(and still are).

"The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong"

Don't buy a ticket then!! Obviously other's don't agree with you or they wouldn't be voluntarily parting with their money to see Premiership games!! I could be the greediest individual on the face of the planet but I wouldn't make money if you didn't voluntarily buy what I was selling, if you want to get mad at anyone it SHOULD be groups like teachers, most of whom collectively bargain with the state which then compels taxpayers by violence/threat of incarceration to pay for those deals, in the farce that is public sector bargaining(there is no stick as it were, available to the goverment, as it is in private sector unions where both employee and employer have much to lose, in the case of public sector bargaining only the goverment/taxpayer has much to lose).

Here in my province of Ontario there was a hilarious change in goverment policy recently as we had an "oversupply" of teachers, so they implented changes to teachers college to discourage applicants.... I screamed at the newspaper "lower the ****ing wages and benefits and the market will send signals to people to try other lines of work!!!" It's not that hard you don't have to create a body to recommend changes or implement expensive new polices...just let the market work.... it's almost like....magic!!!

"I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold?"

Speaking of oversimplifying, Bill Gates could liquidate his entire estate to feed poor people and it wouldn't help(especially not in the long term). Most poor countries have no rule of law, no to limited intellectual(human) capital and rank corruption until these issues are resolved large sums of money sent there might as well be flushed down the toliet(micro loans to individuals is a different matter). As for the taxes, well see France, which is now losing it's cultural and buisness icons to the rest of the world as they flee exoribinant taxes, which have done litlle to nothing to help France's economic situation....although in a way I'd love to England raise it's taxes to such high level's so your great actors and musicians, and entrepeneurs will consider North America just as they did in the 60's-70's when socialism was at it's apex in the UK.

"Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy"

Since when are all investments profitable or without risk? And what pile of money did these people fall into in the first place.... or did they earn it by "lifting their fingers"?(the number of people with obsene amounts of inherited wealth is shockingly little) So if a billionaire invested in a company that than discovered a cure for AIDS, you would find this outrageous? If a millionaire invested in a succesful company that proceeded to hire 100 people at decent wages is this undesirable? If Elon Musk invests his billions into new transportation technology that helps thousands of commuters, reduces pollution and benefits the entire planet is this a bad thing?


To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role into the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to call it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance.

There has been a compromise, that of freedoms for equality, a policy which will lead to neither freedom nor equality. I don't care if the quota is attainable that only makes it mariginally less egregious. Not going beyond the proportion of black people in the country is entirely meaningless, as others have pointed out the Black community in South Africa like soccer, are we to dictate to black people in South Africa what they must do and like! Nor is forcing underskilled black players into the lineup going to benfefit the player you've moved up, who might be easily revealed to be clearly the worst player on the team year in year out(This is exactly what happened in the U.S.A. with college quotas, Black students who would have received fantastic grades and decent degrees at mid range universities were pushed into Ivy leage schools where they failed, benfitting NO ONE).

I have no idea whether Black people in theory make better forwards, since Black people are a very diverse group themselves with body types ranging from Kenyans to West Africans. In North American sports the positions that would most equate to forwards in rugby(Gridiron linemen, Tight Ends, Baseball, Catchers, First Baseman, Centres in Basketball) have higher percentages of white players in them than in the general sport at large but I have utterly no idea of the validity or causation of this, or whether it reflects to rugby, or to South Africa etc.

It is a racist policy because it EXCLUDES qualified white players from potentially playing rugby at the Vodacom Cup level(the starting lineup requirements are the most vile part). Just as pre 1995 Black players were excluded by the White goverment at the time. It's only up to the goverment to make sure that people aren't excluded from activities based on ther race if the SA government was investigating racist coaches for example who were deliberately leaving non white players out of their sides than fine. Besides do you really think most rugby coaches and executives would leave skilled Black players on the bench and potentially lose their own jobs when their team fails out of some bizarro racist view? Most racists like themselves much more than their own race(White owned South African construction companies were regularly fined for hiring too many black employees in the darkest days of the apartheid era, because they wanted the skills and manpower they brought to the table).

Amazing post, Little Guy. Post of the year!

 

[LittleGuy]

I have to admit that I shamelessly stole the freedom for equality line from Milton Friedman....



It probably also came off from my post that I was picking on you j'nuh(and heck I probably was a little)....but I'm not saying you are a bad guy, or that even your desired outcomes aren't laudable but I disagree with your methods. It jst seems to me that you are to willing to take away from others in order to reach those objectives. All an exchange is, is a shift from point A to B e.g. Player Bob Churchill no longer has a spot on the team and Mbeki Mandela does due to the quota rules, or in economics, Bill Gates has now paid 10B in taxes to give food to poor people.

But see the forest from the trees life isn't always a zero-sum game, what of the oppourtunity cost thats lost by not "creating" more. A lower quality Vodacom cup does nothing for anyone, but what if the talented black players coming up through that youth system, will enter the sides naturally in time and grow the comp in popularity with both the white/black/coloured(and others) in South Africa? Perhaps more teams could be added? Perhaps the Currie Cup could be strengthened? Maybe South Africa will have a greater pool of resources to pay it's players better wages and not lose them to Scotland. It's the same with economics also, taxing the crap out of the rich is easy(and yeah some of them are douchebags) but your missing out on what that money "could" have gone for. What if the 10B I stated earlier went to starting an entirely new company that got 50,000 people out of poverty permanently,or ended up creating 15B dollars of wealth?

P.S. I may have disagreed a lot with that post but that certainly isn't the case with all of your posts on TRF, and you've always kept your posts respectful.

Cheers Doug.

 

[admartian]

Probably the post on TRF I've most disagreed with, ever!! (even beating some of gingergenius' economic ideas).

I don't even know where to start....your dimissal of the market system(you are economically illiterate....it's clear from your post) in favour of a "value to society" just who will determine this "value to society" let me guess...guys like you?

Hmmmm well I think that teachers are important but they wouldn't be able to teach if they didn't get food, so maybe farmers are actually more important to society...but wait the water guy is neccesary to give the farm water so he might actually be the most important(see how silly this is...). What about that doctor who helps saves lives....but really didn't dedicate himself and become a surgeon instead should he make tons of money? Or what about the guy with a missing arm who managed to become a great welder surely he deserves a heap of money for overcoming adversity? I don't have the answers to these questions, and NEITHER do you or any other group or annointed body, since neither of us has ever walked a mile in those people's shoes. An economy is not a university seminar intended to hand out badges of merit to "deserving" people, it's a system of allocating resources to get people the products and services they want.

At best a "value to society" system will create labour shortages in some areas and oversupplies in others as it has in every other socialist economy ever, at worst it will create a quasi caste like system where people stuck with the neccessary but "unvalued" work are treated like ****, like they used to be India(and still are).

"The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong"

Don't buy a ticket then!! Obviously other's don't agree with you or they wouldn't be voluntarily parting with their money to see Premiership games!! I could be the greediest individual on the face of the planet but I wouldn't make money if you didn't voluntarily buy what I was selling, if you want to get mad at anyone it SHOULD be groups like teachers, most of whom collectively bargain with the state which then compels taxpayers by violence/threat of incarceration to pay for those deals, in the farce that is public sector bargaining(there is no stick as it were, available to the goverment, as it is in private sector unions where both employee and employer have much to lose, in the case of public sector bargaining only the goverment/taxpayer has much to lose).

Here in my province of Ontario there was a hilarious change in goverment policy recently as we had an "oversupply" of teachers, so they implented changes to teachers college to discourage applicants.... I screamed at the newspaper "lower the ****ing wages and benefits and the market will send signals to people to try other lines of work!!!" It's not that hard you don't have to create a body to recommend changes or implement expensive new polices...just let the market work.... it's almost like....magic!!!

"I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold?"

Speaking of oversimplifying, Bill Gates could liquidate his entire estate to feed poor people and it wouldn't help(especially not in the long term). Most poor countries have no rule of law, no to limited intellectual(human) capital and rank corruption until these issues are resolved large sums of money sent there might as well be flushed down the toliet(micro loans to individuals is a different matter). As for the taxes, well see France, which is now losing it's cultural and buisness icons to the rest of the world as they flee exoribinant taxes, which have done litlle to nothing to help France's economic situation....although in a way I'd love to England raise it's taxes to such high level's so your great actors and musicians, and entrepeneurs will consider North America just as they did in the 60's-70's when socialism was at it's apex in the UK.

"Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy"

Since when are all investments profitable or without risk? And what pile of money did these people fall into in the first place.... or did they earn it by "lifting their fingers"?(the number of people with obsene amounts of inherited wealth is shockingly little) So if a billionaire invested in a company that than discovered a cure for AIDS, you would find this outrageous? If a millionaire invested in a succesful company that proceeded to hire 100 people at decent wages is this undesirable? If Elon Musk invests his billions into new transportation technology that helps thousands of commuters, reduces pollution and benefits the entire planet is this a bad thing?


To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role into the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to call it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance.

There has been a compromise, that of freedoms for equality, a policy which will lead to neither freedom nor equality. I don't care if the quota is attainable that only makes it mariginally less egregious. Not going beyond the proportion of black people in the country is entirely meaningless, as others have pointed out the Black community in South Africa like soccer, are we to dictate to black people in South Africa what they must do and like! Nor is forcing underskilled black players into the lineup going to benfefit the player you've moved up, who might be easily revealed to be clearly the worst player on the team year in year out(This is exactly what happened in the U.S.A. with college quotas, Black students who would have received fantastic grades and decent degrees at mid range universities were pushed into Ivy leage schools where they failed, benfitting NO ONE).

I have no idea whether Black people in theory make better forwards, since Black people are a very diverse group themselves with body types ranging from Kenyans to West Africans. In North American sports the positions that would most equate to forwards in rugby(Gridiron linemen, Tight Ends, Baseball, Catchers, First Baseman, Centres in Basketball) have higher percentages of white players in them than in the general sport at large but I have utterly no idea of the validity or causation of this, or whether it reflects to rugby, or to South Africa etc.

It is a racist policy because it EXCLUDES qualified white players from potentially playing rugby at the Vodacom Cup level(the starting lineup requirements are the most vile part). Just as pre 1995 Black players were excluded by the White goverment at the time. It's only up to the goverment to make sure that people aren't excluded from activities based on ther race if the SA government was investigating racist coaches for example who were deliberately leaving non white players out of their sides than fine. Besides do you really think most rugby coaches and executives would leave skilled Black players on the bench and potentially lose their own jobs when their team fails out of some bizarro racist view? Most racists like themselves much more than their own race(White owned South African construction companies were regularly fined for hiring too many black employees in the darkest days of the apartheid era, because they wanted the skills and manpower they brought to the table).

In summation - everyone should be given a fair go.

 

[SomeOke]

Contrary to what the media might portray. Not every black African child is living like Groundskeeper Willie in a shack by the way. And although a higher percentage of whites in SA might be comfortable, considering there is 90% black population there is probably more in total. Bryan Habana for instance I heard went to one of the poshest schools in South Africa. The level of "poor" you are talking about would be disadvantaged to get in virtually every sport as a pro.

Most (all) of our professional rugby players come from top tier traditional "public" schools with huge school fees, or private schools with even larger school fees. School with access to scrum machines, facilities, great fields and world class coaching. I think I know what Conrad Smith is trying to say and it's not just a matter of finance but accessibility, even something like knowing the rules of rugby let alone the intricacies are not available to poor schools, regardless of any additional equipment you might need. Those are the schools that most black players attend and virtually every player of professional level came from a few rich feeder schools which get scouted and are predominantly white.
The black players that do get through are usually those identified by one of the aforementioned schools and offered scholarships at an early age, I went to Grey High which isn't even the greatest rugby school around but still had a extremely small percent of black pupils in my matric year (like 5%).

Basically rugby isn't accessible to the poorer population because the elite schools of South Africa where rugby is gospel are not affordable. I was under the impression that the same was true of rugby and football in the UK, with the elite private schools playing rugby and most public schools preferring football, is it so hard to believe that a similar divide is prevalent in South Africa, except the divide here is on race as well as socio-economic lines.

 

[Jaguares]

Okay, first cut it with the pictures. It doesn't help validate your point and is a serious pain in the neck for anyone reading.

Onto the argument. Your first sentence entirely defeats your point.



At that point of their development these things will be supplied by those training them. Are you saying that professional black players aren't able to afford protein, etc? Ridiculous. as for those aspiring to play professionally, by the time it comes to the stage where they need to be taking anything in order to increase size (we're talking about 16 or 17 realistically) they'll be in a system which will provide for them, be it a school, an academy system, or whatever. They'll have gotten to that place through talent, which doesn't require you to be hitting the gym every day. You mention the Junior World Cup, well just look at the South African squad from that tournament:

Fullbacks: Cheslin Kolbe, Tim Swiel (DHL Western Province)Wings: Seabelo Senatla (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Luther Obi, Sylvian Mahuza (Leopards)Centres: Jan Serfontein, Dries Swanepoel (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Justin Gedult, JP Lewis (DHL Western Province), Tyler Fisher (KZN)Flyhalves: Handrè Pollard (Vodacom Blue Bulls), Robert du Preez (KZN)Scrumhalves: Kirshwin Williams (MTN Golden Lions), Hanco Venter, Stefan Ungerer (KZN)Loose Forwards: Leneve Dames, Roelof Smit, Ruan Steenkamp (all Vodacom Blue Bulls), Albertus Smit (MTN Golden Lions), Jurie van Vuuren (DHL Western Province)Locks: Dennis Visser, Irnè Herbst, Jacques du Plessis, Marvin Orie (all Vodacom Blue Bulls)Props: Justin Forwood, Andrew Beerwinkel, Neethling Fouchè (all Vodacom Blue Bulls), Luan de Bruin (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Marnè Coetzee (KZN), Sti Sithole (DHL Western Province)Hookers: Jacques du Toit (Toyota Free State Cheetahs), Devon Martinus (MTN Golden Lions), Mornè du Plessis (KZN), Freddie Kirsten (DHL Western Province)

So obviously all of these players are with pro outfits. It's not like they have to be paying for their own stuff so wealth isn't an issue at that point. You use Julian Savea as an example, but I guarantee that he's been a member of a pretty pro set up for a very long time before he donned a baby black jersey. Also, you overstate the importance of physicality, particularly at younger ages. To quote Lions outhalf Johnny Sexton, speaking oh his teenage years:



From that it's clear that you can go on to become a top player without having to be in the gym at the age of 15.

To be honest I think the fact that you come from a country with no professional rugby (I believe) means you don't really understand how the underage systems work in such a country. While in tier two nations players may have to take their development much more into their own hands, in places like South Africa talent is identified early and given the support it needs to maximize potential (be it financial, coaching, etc.) With that in mind you can't use the argument that black people in South Africa cannot afford to become rugby players.

Let me tell you something, there are players with a talent from birth, and others do not. Those who have no talent have to try harder and train harder. Just this is a feature of the sport, a fat player that can train hard to excel as a prop or hooker, a player very high measuring 2 meters without much skill with the ball if he trains hard can be a great second row. And so on, there are different features for different posts. A scrum-half need a natural talent to pass the ball with speed to pressure from opposing players and be able to pass 20 meters without problems. An fly-half need natural talent to know how to kick the ball, is something that is learned on the field with persistence and perseverance, naturally talented players like Jonathan Sexton can excel in the amateur and professional level when they pass are trained as professionals, but those who no have the talent, they have to train hard from the lowest level. Or you think that all professional players have natural talent? An Irish forward will never kick like Jonathan Sexton then they have to train harder because they lack those skills.

There are exceptions, south pacific players with a genetic privileged talented, players without much training can be highlighted, but most or at least a significant number must train hard to become a professional rugby player.

For example, Conrad Smith was never called to play in Baby Blacks, he was never selected by the coaches, however he continued to train and he could get to All Blacks. Not everyone is lucky enough to be selected in youth, sometimes the system fails to attract young talent, then those who were not lucky enough and want to follow their dreams, they need money to train hard.


Regards

 

[admartian]

Most (all) of our professional rugby players come from top tier traditional "public" schools with huge school fees, or private schools with even larger school fees. School with access to scrum machines, facilities, great fields and world class coaching. I think I know what Conrad Smith is trying to say and it's not just a matter of finance but accessibility, even something like knowing the rules of rugby let alone the intricacies are not available to poor schools, regardless of any additional equipment you might need. Those are the schools that most black players attend and virtually every player of professional level came from a few rich feeder schools which get scouted and are predominantly white.
The black players that do get through are usually those identified by one of the aforementioned schools and offered scholarships at an early age, I went to Grey High which isn't even the greatest rugby school around but still had a extremely small percent of black pupils in my matric year (like 5%).

Basically rugby isn't accessible to the poorer population because the elite schools of South Africa where rugby is gospel are not affordable. I was under the impression that the same was true of rugby and football in the UK, with the elite private schools playing rugby and most public schools preferring football, is it so hard to believe that a similar divide is prevalent in South Africa, except the divide here is on race as well as socio-economic lines.

You might be right. Here in Auckland, the best of the schools are private and/or hard to get into (not necessarily academically, but zoning issues - where schools usually only take on students within a certain zone which is close to the school - and surprise surprise, these areas are usually high property areas which exclude those who can't afford to buy). In saying that, some exclusions can be made, but by far not that majority of the way players/students are admitted.

Only MAGS is the lone (relevant) public school that regularly competes.

And of course, the odd Kelston Boys appearance.

 

[smartcooky]

To a large extent, yes but gradual change has happened already and will continue to do so naturally for those that are interested. If only the politicians could stop grandstanding. You do get some of the black public figures who have publicly stated that no Boer will ever play for Bafana Bafana though and that is a wall that needs to be knocked down.

Didn't they have a white goalkeeper at one time?

Anyway, player selection based on anything other than skill or game plan is not on.

I'm quite sure that it is against the spirit of rugby. Perhaps the iRB should take a leaf from FIFA's book, and threaten to suspend SARU from the iRB unless the policiy is dropped. They did once before, when blacks and coloured were discriminated against for selection, so why not threaten it again now that the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[lucky number 7]

Let me tell you something, there are players with a talent from birth, and others do not. Those who have no talent have to try harder and train harder. Just this is a feature of the sport, a fat player that can train hard to excel as a prop or hooker, a player very high measuring 2 meters without much skill with the ball if he trains hard can be a great second row. And so on, there are different features for different posts. A scrum-half need a natural talent to pass the ball with speed to pressure from opposing players and be able to pass 20 meters without problems. An fly-half need natural talent to know how to kick the ball, is something that is learned on the field with persistence and perseverance, naturally talented players like Jonathan Sexton can excel in the amateur and professional level when they pass are trained as professionals, but those who no have the talent, they have to train hard from the lowest level. Or you think that all professional players have natural talent? An Irish forward will never kick like Jonathan Sexton then they have to train harder because they lack those skills.

There are exceptions, south pacific players with a genetic privileged talented, players without much training can be highlighted, but most or at least a significant number must train hard to become a professional rugby player.

For example, Conrad Smith was never called to play in Baby Blacks, he was never selected by the coaches, however he continued to train and he could get to All Blacks. Not everyone is lucky enough to be selected in youth, sometimes the system fails to attract young talent, then those who were not lucky enough and want to follow their dreams, they need money to train hard.


Regards

Having made it a certain way through screening for provincial level , and having played a high standard at underage , knowing both professional and prospective professional players there is no way in hell that someone who has played rugby all their lives and not been through the system will play professional rugby.

Provinces / clubs look not just for the best players at the time but the players with the best potential and genetic potential too this begins as early as 14 , a point where ever at the highest level at that age , next to nobody is on a power or strength routine , at this point they will be screened by regional or provincial , then again later up until about 16/17 if they are deemed to be good enough or to have the potential to be good enough they will be kept in the system , if they aren't and won't they will be let go.

Give some credit to the people selecting underage talent , they know what they are doing , and if for a second you think they'd let a potential world beater or an exceptional talent through their net on the basis of the colour of his skin then you're completely and utterly delusional.

 

[Jaguares]

Most (all) of our professional rugby players come from top tier traditional "public" schools with huge school fees, or private schools with even larger school fees. School with access to scrum machines, facilities, great fields and world class coaching. I think I know what Conrad Smith is trying to say and it's not just a matter of finance but accessibility, even something like knowing the rules of rugby let alone the intricacies are not available to poor schools, regardless of any additional equipment you might need. Those are the schools that most black players attend and virtually every player of professional level came from a few rich feeder schools which get scouted and are predominantly white.
The black players that do get through are usually those identified by one of the aforementioned schools and offered scholarships at an early age, I went to Grey High which isn't even the greatest rugby school around but still had a extremely small percent of black pupils in my matric year (like 5%).

Basically rugby isn't accessible to the poorer population because the elite schools of South Africa where rugby is gospel are not affordable. I was under the impression that the same was true of rugby and football in the UK, with the elite private schools playing rugby and most public schools preferring football, is it so hard to believe that a similar divide is prevalent in South Africa, except the divide here is on race as well as socio-economic lines.

Thank you very much, my friend. Your if you understand me, my message is not so hard to understand, do not understand why some people get so angry about my thinking. In some countries like South Africa, football is much more accessible than the rugby. To play soccer you just need a ball to play rugby you need more than that. Besides football has simple rules and is more popular around the world, while rugby has many more rules, more complicated and not so many countries around the world where rugby is the first sport, this must be one of the reasons.


But we should be proud of rugby, whether or not the popular sport, rugby if not the world's most popular sport is because it is a very difficult sport.


For instance: In the world there are more nurses than engineers, that does not mean that nurses are better and more competitive than engineers. Just Engineering is much more difficult and less accessible for people than the nursing.


Rugby is a tough sport, not everyone can excel in this sport.


regards

 

[j'nuh]

I don't even know where to start....your dimissal of the market system(you are economically illiterate....it's clear from your post) in favour of a "value to society" just who will determine this "value to society" let me guess...guys like you?

Feel free to point out where I reject the market system?

I question it's morality. Do you genuinely believe its fair that we do have the resources to give the world a basic quality of life, but our distribution of resources results in malnutrition, starvation, deaths from very curable diseases, lack of clean water, no education etc in parts of the world? eg, western interests demand that we waste countless acres of agrarian land on the energy wasteful beef, whilst communities have barely enough food?

I question the political influence of markets. For example, tobacco/alcohol/energy companies/arms industry lobbying.

I question the laissez-faire system route we are going down, in particular trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich aid the poor? **** that.

However, I don't believe that competition, for-profit companies, consumerism etc. is a bad thing. I don't propose a return to feudalism or anything like that.

I'm economically illiterate? Riiight. Didn't you know that I fall asleep listening to an audiobook copy of The Road to Serfdom, crying wishing that Milton Friedman was still here and thinking about how classical liberalism will save us all? Tell you a secret though, promise not to hate me? I think that Keynes was a pretty decent chap, and that Clement Attlee was probably the best Prime Minister the UK has ever had. Heck, I even like the NHS, and I have no real intention of moving to Hong Kong. I also never went to an Austrian School.

Hmmmm well I think that teachers are important but they wouldn't be able to teach if they didn't get food, so maybe farmers are actually more important to society...but wait the water guy is neccesary to give the farm water so he might actually be the most important(see how silly this is...). What about that doctor who helps saves lives....but really didn't dedicate himself and become a surgeon instead should he make tons of money? Or what about the guy with a missing arm who managed to become a great welder surely he deserves a heap of money for overcoming adversity? I don't have the answers to these questions, and NEITHER do you or any other group or annointed body, since neither of us has ever walked a mile in those people's shoes. An economy is not a university seminar intended to hand out badges of merit to "deserving" people, it's a system of allocating resources to get people the products and services they want.

I'm not proposing a better system, I have none. That doesn't make the current one any more fair.

But I would describe myself as an economic centrist: one who believes that the free market is ordinarily a good thing that we should aim to uphold, at least for now, but that there has to be particular restrictions, there has to be a good benefit program for the unemployed and working poor, there has to be strong public infrastructure, there has to be avoidance of the laissez-faire in things such as medicine etc.

Don't buy a ticket then!! Obviously other's don't agree with you or they wouldn't be voluntarily parting with their money to see Premiership games!! I could be the greediest individual on the face of the planet but I wouldn't make money if you didn't voluntarily buy what I was selling, if you want to get mad at anyone it SHOULD be groups like teachers, most of whom collectively bargain with the state which then compels taxpayers by violence/threat of incarceration to pay for those deals, in the farce that is public sector bargaining(there is no stick as it were, available to the goverment, as it is in private sector unions where both employee and employer have much to lose, in the case of public sector bargaining only the goverment/taxpayer has much to lose).

re: not buying a ticket. Why the **** shouldn't I? An arbitrarily long time ago (30 years ago? 50 years ago? I'm not sure), tickets to football games were reasonably priced, and the working class man could afford them. Due to the introduction of high salaried players, pushing the expenditure of the club beyond crazy, ticket prices had to go up to sustain the model, and keep teams competing in the highest league. So now you offer me two ****ty choices: watch the game and team that I love (okay, I don't love football, but for the purposes of this) at great expense, or just shut up about it and don't buy a ticket. Does any rugby fan actually want to see the sport go down that road? Is it fair that the poor routinely get priced out of entertainment?

re: collective bargaining. Why the **** shouldn't teachers be allowed to bargain for better living standards? Teachers are treated like mugs in most countries.

Here in my province of Ontario there was a hilarious change in goverment policy recently as we had an "oversupply" of teachers, so they implented changes to teachers college to discourage applicants.... I screamed at the newspaper "lower the ****ing wages and benefits and the market will send signals to people to try other lines of work!!!" It's not that hard you don't have to create a body to recommend changes or implement expensive new polices...just let the market work.... it's almost like....magic!!!

Riiight. So rather than simply cutting the number of places and using the excess of people wanting to become teachers to encourage competition, allowing for the best of them to rise above and raising the standards of education as a whole, with the remaining people going on to take up other jobs having realised that they're not making it through... instead, you just want to play the nuclear option. Make the profession even more unappealing. Make it a waste zone, a place for people to go when they fail to land a job at another company. Make them feel undervalued. That'll certainly encourage them to put more work into their classes.

For what it's worth, teachers are for the most part underpaid. People seem to get it into their heads that teachers work 9-5 and dilly-dally otherwise, enjoying months of work off at a time. Only the kind of teacher that your plans would attract, would do that. Good teachers work for a lot longer than 9-5. The marking, preparing of resources, after school classes, holiday revision classes etc. Same with public sector nurses. My mum works at least two unsalaried hours every day as a nurse, for the personal reward of the job.

Just look to the carer profession to see what happens when service jobs are so undervalued that they become unappealing and attract the wrong kinds of people. Is it any surprise that care scandals happen often, when they are underpaid and underappreciated? A lack of competition for careers in the jobs, just leads to the profession being full of undesirable people.

Speaking of oversimplifying, Bill Gates could liquidate his entire estate to feed poor people and it wouldn't help(especially not in the long term). Most poor countries have no rule of law, no to limited intellectual(human) capital and rank corruption until these issues are resolved large sums of money sent there might as well be flushed down the toliet(micro loans to individuals is a different matter). As for the taxes, well see France, which is now losing it's cultural and buisness icons to the rest of the world as they flee exoribinant taxes, which have done litlle to nothing to help France's economic situation....although in a way I'd love to England raise it's taxes to such high level's so your great actors and musicians, and entrepeneurs will consider North America just as they did in the 60's-70's when socialism was at it's apex in the UK.

Since when are all investments profitable or without risk? And what pile of money did these people fall into in the first place.... or did they earn it by "lifting their fingers"?(the number of people with obsene amounts of inherited wealth is shockingly little) So if a billionaire invested in a company that than discovered a cure for AIDS, you would find this outrageous? If a millionaire invested in a succesful company that proceeded to hire 100 people at decent wages is this undesirable? If Elon Musk invests his billions into new transportation technology that helps thousands of commuters, reduces pollution and benefits the entire planet is this a bad thing?

I think you're confusing my frustration at the wrongness of the system, with that I think there's a better alternative.

I'm not saying forsake the last centuries of development of economic models. I'm saying curb the massive flaws of laissez-faire markets as much as possible (the damage to the environment, some degree of wealth redistribution (the Scandinavian model is better than the United States one) etc.) and search to improve the system to a fairer one that also works.

There has been a compromise, that of freedoms for equality, a policy which will lead to neither freedom nor equality. I don't care if the quota is attainable that only makes it mariginally less egregious. Not going beyond the proportion of black people in the country is entirely meaningless, as others have pointed out the Black community in South Africa like soccer, are we to dictate to black people in South Africa what they must do and like! Nor is forcing underskilled black players into the lineup going to benfefit the player you've moved up, who might be easily revealed to be clearly the worst player on the team year in year out(This is exactly what happened in the U.S.A. with college quotas, Black students who would have received fantastic grades and decent degrees at mid range universities were pushed into Ivy leage schools where they failed, benfitting NO ONE).

Your argument relies on there not being an active interest of the black community in rugby.

As I said, 57 per cent of rugby players, U11 to U19, are black. This becomes an even higher percentage if you include mixed race people. There is an active interest there, it just seemingly doesn't transfer between U19 and the rugby academies. In other words, it seems that the scouting system is broken. The quota ensures that clubs actually give a damn about the U19 black people.

It is a racist policy because it EXCLUDES qualified white players from potentially playing rugby at the Vodacom Cup level(the starting lineup requirements are the most vile part). Just as pre 1995 Black players were excluded by the White goverment at the time. It's only up to the goverment to make sure that people aren't excluded from activities based on ther race if the SA government was investigating racist coaches for example who were deliberately leaving non white players out of their sides than fine. Besides do you really think most rugby coaches and executives would leave skilled Black players on the bench and potentially lose their own jobs when their team fails out of some bizarro racist view? Most racists like themselves much more than their own race(White owned South African construction companies were regularly fined for hiring too many black employees in the darkest days of the apartheid era, because they wanted the skills and manpower they brought to the table).

I believe that the fault comes from club scouts failing to put the effort in to finding the skilled black players, and clubs failing to engage black-majority schools. I bet that scouts keep their eyes on the same white-majority schools, year after year, and thus fail to notice the skilled black players. I bet that white-majority schools also have the best facilities and thus the best teams, easier for a player to get noticed. I bet that there are countless black players that are potential rugby giants and do have the skills, but are never given the opportunity to show their skills. Hell, I bet a lot of black-majority schools hardly even put much effort into running a rugby program. If this quota results in clubs taking an active interest in scouting black players and encouraging black-majority schools to take up rugby, then the ends most likely justify the means, and I believe that it will increase the standard of the team in the long-run.

EDIT: sorry for a bit of swearing. Read it as comic exaggeration rather than frustration. Ok, maybe a little frustration too. I just wish we could get the smileys back.

It probably also came off from my post that I was picking on you j'nuh(and heck I probably was a little)....but I'm not saying you are a bad guy, or that even your desired outcomes aren't laudable but I disagree with your methods. It jst seems to me that you are to willing to take away from others in order to reach those objectives. All an exchange is, is a shift from point A to B e.g. Player Bob Churchill no longer has a spot on the team and Mbeki Mandela does due to the quota rules, or in economics, Bill Gates has now paid 10B in taxes to give food to poor people.

For what it's worth, I'm normally against positive discrimination. I'm interested in this particular quota simply because of the possible utilitarian aspects of it. Yeah, it would be disappointing that players may get left out initially on the account of race. (But hey, rugby is a squad game, and there must be some element of rotation anyway.) The reason that I'm particularly for this quota, is that I think it puts pressure on the whole rugby system in school, to adapt to multiculturalism. It adds pressure on traditionally white/rugby schools (eg the equivalent of Hartpury College, where most of the Gloucester academy are based), to open up to black people.

Not to forget that both England (3.4 per cent black) and France (3.5 per cent black) seem to have no issue with bringing through black people. Sure, there are differences between the culture of English/French and South African black people, but there are also many, many, many more black people in South Africa, than in England/France.

 

[admartian]

re: collective bargaining. Why the **** shouldn't teachers be allowed to bargain for better living standards? Teachers are treated like mugs in most countries.


Riiight. So rather than simply cutting the number of places and using the excess of people wanting to become teachers to encourage competition, allowing for the best of them to rise above and raising the standards of education as a whole, with the remaining people going on to take up other jobs having realised that they're not making it through... instead, you just want to play the nuclear option. Make the profession even more unappealing. Make it a waste zone, a place for people to go when they fail to land a job at another company. Make them feel undervalued. That'll certainly encourage them to put more work into their classes.

For what it's worth, teachers are for the most part underpaid. People seem to get it into their heads that teachers work 9-5 and dilly-dally otherwise, enjoying months of work off at a time. Only the kind of teacher that your plans would attract, would do that. Good teachers work for a lot longer than 9-5. The marking, preparing of resources, after school classes, holiday revision classes etc. Same with public sector nurses. My mum works at least two unsalaried hours every day as a nurse, for the personal reward of the job.

Just look to the carer profession to see what happens when service jobs are so undervalued that they become unappealing and attract the wrong kinds of people. Is it any surprise that care scandals happen often, when they are underpaid and underappreciated? A lack of competition for careers in the jobs, just leads to the profession being full of undesirable people.

I can only speak regaredin this part - for the most part, this is true. At least of the teachers I know (a couple of siblings, 2 grandparents, my gf's mother and sister and some friends from school) and heard about - which is to say 9-5 (or 3:30pm here) is only really counting the time they spend with students. The rest, which is many hours beyond that, is spent on classroom planning, curriculum standards, meetings, conferences (for more senior staff) etc.

Yes there are bad apples (bad apples in the fact that they may not be doing anything wrong, but certainly not to the standard set by others) - but for the most part - that "free time" allocated can be seen as deserving, and needed (for preparation). Teachers are by no means overpaid lol.

If anything lawyers are - there's a stat somewhere that says we are saturated with qualified lawyers that aren't practising law. Not that I necessarily have a problem with that.

 

[nickdnz]

As I said, 57 per cent of rugby players, U11 to U19, are black. This becomes an even higher percentage if you include mixed race people. There is an active interest there, it just seemingly doesn't transfer between U19 and the rugby academies. In other words, it seems that the scouting system is broken. The quota ensures that clubs actually give a damn about the U19 black people.


I believe that the fault comes from club scouts failing to put the effort in to finding the skilled black players, and clubs failing to engage black-majority schools. I bet that scouts keep their eyes on the same white-majority schools, year after year, and thus fail to notice the skilled black players. I bet that white-majority schools also have the best facilities and thus the best teams, easier for a player to get noticed. I bet that there are countless black players that are potential rugby giants and do have the skills, but are never given the opportunity to show their skills. Hell, I bet a lot of black-majority schools hardly even put much effort into running a rugby program. If this quota results in clubs taking an active interest in scouting black players and encouraging black-majority schools to take up rugby, then the ends most likely justify the means, and I believe that it will increase the standard of the team in the long-run.

EDIT: sorry for a bit of swearing. Read it as comic exaggeration rather than frustration. I wish we could get the smileys back.

I agree - but quotas aren't the solution to any problem and I don't believe the ends justifies the means either.

For a start - in New Zealand in the secondary school I went to - there were a large amount of Chinese and Indonesian students who play Badmington. In my primary school it was considerably more mixed. Now is it reasonable then to make every Badminton club enter mixed race doubles teams, making Chinese and Indonesian children with a desire and aptitude to play Badminton miss out? Of course not. And what happens when the clubs enters competitions with half a white squad who were selected for their colour rather than talent? They lose. Does this model encourage more white children to play?

In New Zealand, there are lower qualifying grades for lawyers who are Maori to get into second year law than there are white students (within Victoria University at least). I disagree with this whole hartedly. People say "There is a difference between equity and equality" which is true, however the result being is I would rather be defended by a doctor of a different ethnicity than Maori unless I had access to their qualifications. What should happen, and it does as well, is Maori students get access to facilities that others do not which aid in their development more. Same thing I believe with the situation in South Africa, a grass roots campaign should be done to improve resources - selectors should be encouraged to look wider in terms of recruitment and scholarships to rugby schools should become more avalible. The result of which would be an increased quality of player who is capable of making it into those teams, not just disadvantaging another group of players more qualified.

Also - what possible justification can anyone have for including this system to get one race (I'd call it ethnicity - but ethnicity is more self-detirmined, and I'm sure they don't care what ethnicity you consider yourself providing you are black) more involved in one sport - but exclude another race from another.

 

[LittleGuy]

Feel free to point out where I reject the market system?

Most of your entire previous post and this one as well.

I question it's morality. Do you genuinely believe its fair that we do have the resources to give the world a basic quality of life, but our distribution of resources results in malnutrition, starvation, deaths from very curable diseases, lack of clean water, no education etc in parts of the world? eg, western interests demand that we waste countless acres of agrarian land on the energy wasteful beef, whilst communities have barely enough food?

The morality of it is irrelevant it is not designed to be a moral system, and of course it's unfair, life is unfair, expecting a system to balance one of the basic tenants of existence is silly. Nor as I said previously is our system entirely to blame for failures in other parts of the world, in fact if you look at those parts of the world you'll notice some glaring absenses....free markets, property rights, rule of law etc. Canada could donate more and more and more to these parts of the world and it still wouldn't do anything, since these countries wouldn't even be able to distribute it to their own citizens(do you expect Mugabe to just hand over our aid to his people?)

I question the political influence of markets. For example, tobacco/alcohol/energy companies/arms industry lobbying.

True but salient big buisness and free markets are two different entities and often the most anti-free market forces are actually big buisness, the beer companies in Canada are outrageously anti-competitive as are the big telecommunication companies. Sadly they are often in bed with government, which restricts entry or over regulates these markets.

I question the laissez-faire system route we are going down, in particular trickle-down economics. Tax breaks for the rich aid the poor? **** that.

Trickle down economics isn't actually an economic theory, it's a caricature made by the opponents of free markets. One of the first proponents of cutting marginal tax rates was John F. Kennedy hardly a right wing zealot.

However, I don't believe that competition, for-profit companies, consumerism etc. is a bad thing. I don't propose a return to feudalism or anything like that.

I'm economically illiterate? Riiight. Didn't you know that I fall asleep listening to an audiobook copy of The Road to Serfdom, crying wishing that Milton Friedman was still here and thinking about how classical liberalism will save us all? Tell you a secret though, promise not to hate me? I think that Keynes was a pretty decent chap, and that Clement Attlee was probably the best Prime Minister the UK has ever had. Heck, I even like the NHS, and I have no real intention of moving to Hong Kong. I also never went to an Austrian School.

Harsh on my point taken back, you know plenty of economic theories but approach the system through a moral lense and not a practical one. I guess you won't be surprised if I say that Clement Atlee was one of the the worst PM's in modern UK history(Wilson was probably worse, Heath was terrible as well) who utterly squandered the Marshall plan aid(England received more than any other country) on nonsense, Germany received less money, was in much worse shape after the war and ended up ahead of the UK and shockingly quickly mostly because they didn't pursue disastrous policies like nationalizing industries.

Sadly Keynes died fairly young and was unable to stop the utter perversion of his theories, he even wrote to Hayek before his death about this....



I'm not proposing a better system, I have none. That doesn't make the current one any more fair.

Thomas Sowell always mentions how he asks those that criticize capitalism "What else?" The lack of an alternative screams volumes about how our system works better than all others, and as I said already of course it's unfair "ces't la vie"

But I would describe myself as an economic centrist: one who believes that the free market is ordinarily a good thing that we should aim to uphold, at least for now, but that there has to be particular restrictions, there has to be a good benefit program for the unemployed and working poor, there has to be strong public infrastructure, there has to be avoidance of the laissez-faire in things such as medicine etc.

The welfare state is the single biggest burden on the working poor, those at a highest disadvantage in our society are those who are just above the cut off for receiving benefits who do not earn enough to be wealthy, nor do they qualify for the benefits enjoyed by those below the cut off. These individuals must deal with both subsidizing those below them directly and indirectly, while being the main squeeze of those above them who cut costs or simply shrink their buisness to avoid higher tax brackets.

Nor do those on welfare benefit in the long term, in the short term thay are indeed acting in their own self interest, but what about long term, they develop no skills, no self esteem they are treated like children or objects by those that run the welfare programs or politicians who stir them up for votes and power(it's been like that since Roman times with manipulation of the grain dole). Those that benefit the most from the welfare state ARE the PUBLIC SECTOR 'workers who run the welfare state!!! These individuals get comfortable upper middle class lifestyles, are essentially undismissable, long vacation times, don't work weekends/hoidays and worst of all do not have to produce results.


re: not buying a ticket. Why the **** shouldn't I? An arbitrarily long time ago (30 years ago? 50 years ago? I'm not sure), tickets to football games were reasonably priced, and the working class man could afford them. Due to the introduction of high salaried players, pushing the expenditure of the club beyond crazy, ticket prices had to go up to sustain the model, and keep teams competing in the highest league. So now you offer me two ****ty choices: watch the game and team that I love (okay, I don't love football, but for the purposes of this) at great expense, or just shut up about it and don't buy a ticket. Does any rugby fan actually want to see the sport go down that road? Is it fair that the poor routinely get priced out of entertainment?

You can if you want to, I'm not stopping you, but don't pretend you are not a reason for the high salaries if you do. What you are essentially saying is that the rest of the fan base are the ones that are wrong since they voluntarily paid money to go see the team play. There is also some mid-high quality sports action available at relatively low cost of your willing to search for it,the Toronto Maple Leafs which are my closest Ice Hockey franchsie(The LEAST affordable franchise to see in North America for a sports fan as studied by ESPN) I no longer by their merchandise and I laugh at people who fork over the amount they want fot tickets, but I don't sit outside begging to be let in, I'll go spend my cash on Jays or Raptors afforadbale seats instead. I will however grant you that if these teams have used taxpayer funding to build their stadiums than by god, I'll be right beside you on the ticket price protest line as that is outrageous!!

re: collective bargaining. Why the **** shouldn't teachers be allowed to bargain for better living standards? Teachers are treated like mugs in most countries.

If teachers are open to competition than absolutely, but in public sector bargaining there is essentially no negotiation. In the private sector the union denies it's employers the employees and labour, while management holds the stick of losing buisness to competitors, lost wages, lost productivity etc. it's in both parties interests in most cases to reach a deal, while in the public sector, the employee can withold their labour and guess what...there is no competitor for the consumer to go to! Pressure than builds with the public who are denied vital services provided by aforementioned workers, who than get angry at the government for having no deal done. Nor are customers of private sector entities compelled by law to continue doing buisness with a company who's prices they find to high. I am however compelled by law to pay taxes to the Ontario government even though I believe they over compensate the teacher's union.

I'm sure there are countries where they get a raw deal, but in most Western countries they are generally paid well to very well, with great benefits. In Ontario which I used as an example their compensation is borderline outrageous, I know fire and brimstone left-wing friends who have utterly no sympathy for a picket line of BMW drivers and "Land's end" clothing wearers discussing their raw deal.


Riiight. So rather than simply cutting the number of places and using the excess of people wanting to become teachers to encourage competition, allowing for the best of them to rise above and raising the standards of education as a whole, with the remaining people going on to take up other jobs having realised that they're not making it through... instead, you just want to play the nuclear option. Make the profession even more unappealing. Make it a waste zone, a place for people to go when they fail to land a job at another company. Make them feel undervalued. That'll certainly encourage them to put more work into their classes.

The profession is currently very appealing here as evidenced by the oversupply of teachers. The cutting of salaries also does not nessecarily result in lower quality people, it may result in more passionate teachers with a true dedication to their craft who are willing to make a financial sacrfice to pursue a career they love, it also may not even affect current applicants, as it may push out older deadwood(dear god I remember some of the old union types here in Ontario before Harris threw them out, had a High School teacher who took the attendance down to the office, took him so long some of the other students drove down to McDonalds grabbed breakfast and ate before he got back!!)

For what it's worth, teachers are for the most part underpaid. People seem to get it into their heads that teachers work 9-5 and dilly-dally otherwise, enjoying months of work off at a time. Only the kind of teacher that your plans would attract, would do that. Good teachers work for a lot longer than 9-5. The marking, preparing of resources, after school classes, holiday revision classes etc. Same with public sector nurses. My mum works at least two unsalaried hours every day as a nurse, for the personal reward of the job.

I can't completely speak for England's teacher salary wages, as I said in Canada and Ontario they are compensated very well. If my plans would only attract this 9-5 type of teacher, than why were there high quality teachers(in fact possibly even better teachers) when pay rates were lower? In fact in Canada part of the problem is that teacher's unions were given the benefits, sick days(they could get up to 20 days at one point...or 1 in every 9 of their working days) etc. when the job had lower wages, now wages have gone up and the benefits mostly stayed.

Your mum sounds like a class person, but again this is irrelavent, economics is not a moral seminar, if we pay nurses extremely well, we won't find as many people applying to be the doctor!!


Just look to the carer profession to see what happens when service jobs are so undervalued that they become unappealing and attract the wrong kinds of people. Is it any surprise that care scandals happen often, when they are underpaid and underappreciated? A lack of competition for careers in the jobs, just leads to the profession being full of undesirable people.

People are people, there is corruption and neglect amongst the highest and lowest paid people, mulit billionaire ponzi schemers and my grape pickers who write their names on other peoples pick boxes for another $2.00

I think you're confusing my frustration at the wrongness of the system, with that I think there's a better alternative.

I'm not saying forsake the last centuries of development of economic models. I'm saying curb the massive flaws of laissez-faire markets as much as possible (the damage to the environment, some degree of wealth redistribution (the Scandinavian model is better than the United States one) etc.) and search to improve the system to a fairer one that also works.

The Scandanvian countries are frequently brought up by social democrats but inter country comparisons have always been difficult and in fact the socialism aspect of our Northen friends frequently overstated. Norway floats off of oil money we can essentially dimiss any brilliance there, and the other examples are vastly different than the States, they have much higher population density's,(especially when you factor in the low Northen popluations) lower geographic area, less geopolitical responsibity/involvement(though the US should move towards this as well) and a more culturally homogenous population. The tax rates are a little higher but they aren't exactly night and day especially at the mid levels. The United States isn't exactly a beacon of laissez faire capitism either, bail out's to auto makers, poorly run banks


Your argument relies on there not being an active interest of the black community in rugby.

I suppose I could have understated the interest but I'll factor that in to my thoughts in this reply.

As I said, 57 per cent of rugby players, U11 to U19, are black. This becomes an even higher percentage if you include mixed race people. There is an active interest there, it just seemingly doesn't transfer between U19 and the rugby academies. In other words, it seems that the scouting system is broken. The quota ensures that clubs actually give a damn about the U19 black people.

They will anyway, because otherwise they will begin to lose to those teams with better scouting systems. Do you actually think most managers of South African rugby clubs aren't out there scouring for black talent to get an edge? I'll grant you there may be one or two racists out there that don't(The Boston Red Sox in MLB were infamous for refusing to field Black players...and as a consequence their on field performace vis a vis teams that had no such compunctions suffered). I honestly can't beleive that South African rugby scouts can be that stupid, and if so will you please call one of them and get him to show up at these schools they are missing!!!

I believe that the fault comes from club scouts failing to put the effort in to finding the skilled black players, and clubs failing to engage black-majority schools. I bet that scouts keep their eyes on the same white-majority schools, year after year, and thus fail to notice the skilled black players. I bet that white-majority schools also have the best facilities and thus the best teams, easier for a player to get noticed. I bet that there are countless black players that are potential rugby giants and do have the skills, but are never given the opportunity to show their skills. Hell, I bet a lot of black-majority schools hardly even put much effort into running a rugby program. If this quota results in clubs taking an active interest in scouting black players and encouraging black-majority schools to take up rugby, then the ends most likely justify the means, and I believe that it will increase the standard of the team in the long-run.

You are treating the White players(or other races not icluded in the quota) that will not get spots as pawns on a chess board and not as flesh and blood human beings. I cannot justify the means to a guy who's worked his ass off for a Vodacom cup spot and tell him "sorry Jacques, but we had to give your spot to Thabo, simply because it makes us feel better about ourselves and previous injustices..." Just as I couldn't jusify the means to Thabo in 1995 when Jacques may have gotten the spot. I can't beleive you would so callously dismiss "Jacques" part of the bargain. That dosen't mean if Thabo was getting excluded for being black we shouldn't be outraged, and we might even actively encourage him to take up the sport or help him get started bu to take something away from someone and give it to someone who didn't earn it is highly immoral.

EDIT: sorry for a bit of swearing. Read it as comic exaggeration rather than frustration. I wish we could get the smileys back.

No worries about the swearing, and agreed on the Smiley's

 

[smartcooky]

As I said, 57 per cent of rugby players, U11 to U19, are black. This becomes an even higher percentage if you include mixed race people. There is an active interest there, it just seemingly doesn't transfer between U19 and the rugby academies. In other words, it seems that the scouting system is broken. The quota ensures that clubs actually give a damn about the U19 black people.

And you think this is a problem that is unique to South African rugby?

Which ball sport do you think is the most popular in the 5 to 15 age bracket in NZ?

If you said "Rugby" you would be wrong. Soccer (Football) is THE most popular ball sport in NZ at that age group. There are more Junior football players than there are Rugby, Rugby League, Hockey, Softball and Basketball.... combined!!! In 2007, there were over 127,000 junior footballers, only (74,000 junior rugby players in the same age group)

- in case you miss the point here, its that the youth popularity of a sport does not always translate directly into adult participation!

****

Anyway, you might be "normally against positive discrimination", but I am totally against ANY kind of discrimination. There IS no such thing as "good" racism, especially when it comes to sports team selections. Any way you slice it, positive discrimination for one person will always have a negative impact on someone else.

People like Madeba, Buthelezi and Desmond Tutu struggled all of their adult lives to put an end to discrimination and racism in South Africa. Its an effing disgrace that these buffoons are taking the Republic right back down the same path they already trod.

I would hate to be a rugby coach/selector in South Africa right now, juggling which superior rugby players you are going to leave out to include their inferior counterparts.

If they (SARU and the SA government) want a REAL solution to the under-representation of black and coloured players in South Africa, then I have a one word answer for them. Once you strip away all the inane BS about scouts and academies and opportunities for black and coloured players, you will always be left with the problem that the black and coloured youth have to WANT to play the game... it all boils down to one word.....and that word is MARKETING!!!

 

[TRF_heineken]

If anything, this quota system should be invoked at the lower levels... If they're good enough to make a Vodacom Cup squad, then surely their lack of money isn't the problem.

This is where the problem lies. And where Conrad Smith has the entire spectrum very wrong.

In Primary Schools all you need is a rugby ball or a soccer ball and a mouth guard. Kids play barefoot rugby or soccer. Now the problem here is, the predominantly white schools only have rugby and cricket fields, while black schools only have soccer fields. this is based on their historic situation, the size of the school and the area in which the school is in.

At High school where the kids start to wear rugby boots, shoulder pads, headgear etc... you will get some schools that will have a rugby and soccer pitch. Some guys will play both sports as rugby is a Winter sport and soccer is a summer sport. At High school level, the kids and coaches/parents have a pretty good idea already of what type of sport the kids will excel at.

the other problem is the 2010 fifa world cup. I say "is" because now after the spectacle, Fifa gave SA a lot of money for development. I see weekly stories on tv and in newspapers about a rural area getting a brand new soccer pitch, or state of the art training facilities. This just adds more fuel to the fire as with the massive amount of money from soccer coming in, more and more kids go the soccer route.

If you drive through the rural areas you will only see soccer fields. not a single rugby field. So the quota system is used to throw an overcast around the fact that the government, along with soccer are actually putting rugby into this position.

Now there is also a psychological part that must be taken into account, and this has actually been a study at a local university. Black people's demeanor is to shy away from contact sports. They choose soccer, as it is the least harmful sport they can play which is freely available to them. I was in a primary school which was 60% black 40% white, and those black kids were **** scared to make a tackle. they were basically forced to do it.

it will be interesting to see how long this quota system will last, as there are always an uproar when this system is implemented, and now even more so, it will become an issue as there is a steady decline in popularity for the Zuma-administration and the recent faction wars within the ANC.