Rassie talks quota's

[SomeOke]

http://www.rugby365.com/countries/south-africa/84509-audio-rassie-opens-up-on-quotas-and-captaincy

Anyway so basically Rassie has come out and said exactly what his quota is, and it's essentially the average composition of the team throughout the year must be 45% players of colour.

Now because it's an average, what that does mean is he can try to stack the games against minnows with more players of colour whether he will get away with this is another story but he could for instance play 23/23 players of colour against Italy (no offense just probably the easiest fixture we have) to get his average up.

In all likelihood I think he'll go for a middle ground maybe just add slightly more POC's in his easier fixtures and slightly less in his hard ones at his discretion.

I actually think the baseline to basically have our strongest team (or near our strongest team) is already there.
45% is 10.5avg per game so:


1) Beast
6) Siya
13) Am
11/14) Leyds/Ismaiel/Rhule/Nkosi/Mampimpi/Dyantyi etc etc etc

Then you add either Gelant at 15 or Elton at 10 and you have 6.
Four on your bench (and here we compromise a little) and you're golden.

Manageable but annoying. Thoughts?

 

[TRF_heineken]

http://www.rugby365.com/countries/south-africa/84509-audio-rassie-opens-up-on-quotas-and-captaincy

Anyway so basically Rassie has come out and said exactly what his quota is, and it's essentially the average composition of the team throughout the year must be 45% players of colour.

Now because it's an average, what that does mean is he can try to stack the games against minnows with more players of colour whether he will get away with this is another story but he could for instance play 23/23 players of colour against Italy (no offense just probably the easiest fixture we have) to get his average up.

In all likelihood I think he'll go for a middle ground maybe just add slightly more POC's in his easier fixtures and slightly less in his hard ones at his discretion.

I actually think the baseline to basically have our strongest team (or near our strongest team) is already there.
45% is 10.5avg per game so:


1) Beast
6) Siya
13) Am
11/14) Leyds/Ismaiel/Rhule/Nkosi/Mampimpi/Dyantyi etc etc etc

Then you add either Gelant at 15 or Elton at 10 and you have 6.
Four on your bench (and here we compromise a little) and you're golden.

Manageable but annoying. Thoughts?

Rassie has been quite popular this past few days with interviews. He even had a discussion with this journalist who I think has a hidden agenda when it comes to SA Rugby and the topic of transformation: https://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/rassie-revels-in-pressure-20180428

Here he asked Rassie about transformation and the effects on Super Rugby, and I just love the way Rassie answers this pitfall of a question.

I think the guys who would make the bok squad this year are:

1. Lizo Gqoboka, Beast Mtawarira, Ox Nche
3. Trevor Nyakane
6/7/8. Siya Kolisi, Teboho Mohoje, Tembelani Bholi, Tera Mtembu
9. Embrose Papier
10. Elton Jantjies, Damian Willemse
12/13. Lukhanyo Am, Juan De Jongh
11/14. Nkosi, Mapimpi, Dyanti, Tambwe, Ishmaiel, Rhule, Leyds
15. Warrick Gelant, Cheslin Kolbe, Sergeal Petersen

I think Beast might not be such a prominent feature anymore in the Bok Setup. And there are a few new names I've added that are in real contention for a spot. I think Bholi has been a real find this year for the Bulls, and has been such a consistent performer, it would be very hard to overlook him, and he can play 7/8.

We are so busy with Super Rugby and the guys performing there, we are completely forgetting about the Cheetahs in the Pro14 and the Overseas based players. There has been some noise the past few weeks about Juan De Jongh and some of the other players playing overseas, and it would be interesting how Rassie will be compiling his team.

I think a lot will matter on the fitness and availability of other players. Take Nyakane for an example, I don't see him as the first pick at tighthead for the Boks, and should be behind Wilco Louw, Frans Malherbe and even Vincent Koch. But if they are unavailable, then he will be the prime candidate, and he's in real good shape.

 

[unrated]

@Bruce_ma_goose are you still in denial about the presence of quotas In South African sport?
This is as clear as you are going to gets from an official source.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

@Bruce_ma_goose are you still in denial about the presence of quotas In South African sport?
This is as clear as you are going to gets from an official source.

That is a fair shout unrated. It does now sound near identical to the Proteas setup of an average of 45% (which I was happy to call a quota in the other thread).

I suspect there has been an internal sliding scale from 6 in 2016, to 8 in 2017 to 10 in 2018 and this would explain the pretty significant fluctuations between I think 5 and 12 players over the past years which have fooled me.

Rassie doesn't say that he'll lose his job if he misses this KPI any more than he'd lose his job if he missed the KPI of being third in the world rankings, but his choice of wording is pretty clear that he considers his hands tied on the matter. So I'm happy to call that a quota even if the SARU and government deny that terminology. Assuming Rassie does average out at a minimum of 45% non-white selection.

As I've said before I've sympathies for those who oppose it.

But I continue to hear that the best youth coaching in the country is reserved for the same small number of schools and that these schools continue to fail abjectly to nurture non-white talent as recently as some tournament in Easter (probably in a similar way to how Scotland historically has failed to nurture talent outside of the same handful of fee paying schools).

As long as that continues I think intervention is required - although I'd accept arguments that it might be more successful if handled differently (e.g. with more emphasis on the school/youth sectors - although that is catered for to some extent in the KPIs). I don't see how it is acceptable for the Boks to be in the same position as they were at the last RWC for another 20+ years and the contrast with the successful 7s setup is a little bizarre. I also think that SA rugby has a lot of big problems that are nothing to do with player selection that have contributed more to their recent slip relative to the World's top 5.

But, yup. If folks want to call it a quota now they'll get no arguments from me given this latest evidence. Thanks for posting it.

 

[User1245]

http://www.rugby365.com/countries/south-africa/84509-audio-rassie-opens-up-on-quotas-and-captaincy

Anyway so basically Rassie has come out and said exactly what his quota is, and it's essentially the average composition of the team throughout the year must be 45% players of colour.

Now because it's an average, what that does mean is he can try to stack the games against minnows with more players of colour whether he will get away with this is another story but he could for instance play 23/23 players of colour against Italy (no offense just probably the easiest fixture we have) to get his average up.

In all likelihood I think he'll go for a middle ground maybe just add slightly more POC's in his easier fixtures and slightly less in his hard ones at his discretion.

I actually think the baseline to basically have our strongest team (or near our strongest team) is already there.
45% is 10.5avg per game so:


1) Beast
6) Siya
13) Am
11/14) Leyds/Ismaiel/Rhule/Nkosi/Mampimpi/Dyantyi etc etc etc

Then you add either Gelant at 15 or Elton at 10 and you have 6.
Four on your bench (and here we compromise a little) and you're golden.

Manageable but annoying. Thoughts?

No, just no. Don't allow the ANC's racist policies normalise the quota system. It is not normal and should opposed at every turn. As a South African you know what is really happening in the country. The rest of the world still seems to have a romantic view of the ANC with it being associated with Madiba when they are in fact a vile, corrupt and racist regime who's president of 9 years openly sang about killing whites.

That is a fair shout unrated. It does now sound near identical to the Proteas setup of an average of 45% (which I was happy to call a quota in the other thread).

I suspect there has been an internal sliding scale from 6 in 2016, to 8 in 2017 to 10 in 2018 and this would explain the pretty significant fluctuations between I think 5 and 12 players over the past years which have fooled me.

Rassie doesn't say that he'll lose his job if he misses this KPI any more than he'd lose his job if he missed the KPI of being third in the world rankings, but his choice of wording is pretty clear that he considers his hands tied on the matter. So I'm happy to call that a quota even if the SARU and government deny that terminology. Assuming Rassie does average out at a minimum of 45% non-white selection.

As I've said before I've sympathies for those who oppose it.

But I continue to hear that the best youth coaching in the country is reserved for the same small number of schools and that these schools continue to fail abjectly to nurture non-white talent as recently as some tournament in Easter (probably in a similar way to how Scotland historically has failed to nurture talent outside of the same handful of fee paying schools).

As long as that continues I think intervention is required - although I'd accept arguments that it might be more successful if handled differently (e.g. with more emphasis on the school/youth sectors - although that is catered for to some extent in the KPIs). I don't see how it is acceptable for the Boks to be in the same position as they were at the last RWC for another 20+ years and the contrast with the successful 7s setup is a little bizarre. I also think that SA rugby has a lot of big problems that are nothing to do with player selection that have contributed more to their recent slip relative to the World's top 5.

But, yup. If folks want to call it a quota now they'll get no arguments from me given this latest evidence. Thanks for posting it.

You continue to hear? From who?

You must be one of those foreigners who still believes that the whites still have some kind of mystery power over the country. Get a grip mate. The black ANC elite are in control of the country, the black middle class is several times bigger than the white middle class, the biggest rugby schools are public schools, the government owns most of the land in the country, etc. Nobody is being stopped from doing anything. You've been given facts over and over again. You're the most racist person on this forum because you make no bones about different races being treated differently.

 

[SomeOke]

@Steve-o, I don't want to start a flame war mate, but I think you're looking at this issue from a pretty narrow lens.
Personally as white male in South Africa with an Afrikaans surname, life's not to shabby.

I'm not saying the ANC are great (they're ****), or that quotas are a good thing (probably not the MOST effective way) but I am saying we aren't exactly getting killed on the street.

 

[TRF_heineken]

@Steve-o, I don't want to start a flame war mate, but I think you're looking at this issue from a pretty narrow lens.
Personally as white male in South Africa with an Afrikaans surname, life's not to shabby.

I'm not saying the ANC are great (they're ****), or that quotas are a good thing (probably not the MOST effective way) but I am saying we aren't exactly getting killed on the street.

Yup. But then again, most of us aren't living on farms in the countryside...

But yeah, life is good in SA in the cities.

 

[SomeOke]

I'm just saying, white's in SA love to complain (myself included trust me), but our lives are still on average pretty good, where as the lives of most black people are still pretty awful.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I assume this has been discussed before, but doesn't Rassie's addmitance of a quota violate some discrimination law? Just 'positive' racism at the end of the day really, which is just a nice word for racism that liberals try to justify...

 

[TRF_heineken]

I assume this has been discussed before, but doesn't Rassie's addmitance of a quota violate some discrimination law? Just 'positive' racism at the end of the day really, which is just a nice word for racism that liberals try to justify...

His admission, is based on targets being set. Whether he meets them or not, would be the measurement of how it is being implemented.

But yeah, it is discriminatory, but we all know the spineless at WR won't do anything at all...

 

[profitius]

I'm just saying, white's in SA love to complain (myself included trust me), but our lives are still on average pretty good, where as the lives of most black people are still pretty awful.

It's a hell of a lot better then if they lived in another African country. In fact most South African blacks today originally emigrated from some other country to (the racist) SA because of the higher standard of living. Their population then exploded and they proceeded to blame whites for wealth inequality. You couldn't make it up.

 

[User1245]

@Steve-o, I don't want to start a flame war mate, but I think you're looking at this issue from a pretty narrow lens.
Personally as white male in South Africa with an Afrikaans surname, life's not to shabby.

I'm not saying the ANC are great (they're ****), or that quotas are a good thing (probably not the MOST effective way) but I am saying we aren't exactly getting killed on the street.

I'm glad to hear that you are doing well.

I'm not saying whites are being slaughtered in the streets. What I'm getting at is that the way the ANC's (ex)leader behaves should be very illuminating to their motives. How can you not call the ANC a racist regime? Yes he is no longer in charge BUT nobody from the ANC opposed this kind of behaviour AND his support base only very narrowly lost in getting his ex-wife in as president.

South Africans have been desensitised to this kind of stuff. I get that. But it's not normal or okay for a democratically elected president to sing about killing a minority.

The ANC have no interest in advancing the sport for black players. They have contributed no value on any level, especially at grass roots and have only overseen a steady decline. They blame all their failings on apartheid. It is all about power and having their cronies pulling the strings under the guise "politically correct" discrimination. World Rugby dare not say a word. Double standards.

I certainly don't expect everyone to be experts on the situation in SA but call a spade, a spade.

It's a hell of a lot better then if they lived in another African country. In fact most South African blacks today originally emigrated from some other country to (the racist) SA because of the higher standard of living. Their population then exploded and they proceeded to blame whites for wealth inequality. You couldn't make it up.

Unfortunately there is something about African nations/governments in that they are unable or unwilling to create a new "pie". Instead everybody takes from the existing "pie" until it's all gone and then dictators rule over the crumbs. Leaders aren't held accountable because they are the big boss. Seems like the general theme in African cultures. This mentality does not work in democracies. The Middle East is dealing with the same issues.

Ghana and South Korea started on a similar footing back in the 1950's, and well, we all know where they are now.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

You continue to hear? From who?

I continue to hear about a failure to expose non-white kids to top level school level rugby and training from a South African rugby journalist (see link below). Now, unless you have information to the contrary I have no reason to believe that this journalist is going out of his way to manufacture misinformation.



"I was disgusted to see many of SA's top rugby schools field almost entirely white XVs at the various easter school festivals"

I'm not on the noise up here whatever you may think and my last post conceded the right for those on the other side of the argument to be more irritated at the ANC/SARU transformation policy given Rassie's admission. I assume Rassie's approach is that candour and openness is the way to go and is less damaging than speculation and uncertainty. But that is a bit of a gamble.

Ghana and South Korea started on a similar footing back in the 1950's, and well, we all know where they are now.

Ghana, like most of Africa, was colonised by European powers who cultivated ethnic and tribal rivalry as part of a policy of "divide and conquer", with various peoples thrown together into a hotch-potch of completely arbitrary "national" borders devised by their European overlords. Non-African countries that suffered a similar fate (like Pakistan or Afghanistan) are a more suitable comparison and similarly struggle to develop a stable society over 50 years later.

Korea wasn't colonised by Europeans, but by Japan who didn't employ the same sort of political tactics as the British (more just relying on brute force). South Korea received massive Western financial assistance post-WWII and then again post-Korean war to help it serve as a robust barrier against the Communist "hordes" all whilst remaining fairly ethnically homogenous. None of which is remotely comparable with the Ghanian experience.

Similarly, the Americas countries don't struggle so much because the Europeans largely liquidated the indigenous peoples through violence and disease, permitting more homogenous nation-states to develop (although obviously some are not without their troubles). That's not to say that African populations haven't repeatedly made horrific decisions at the ballot box, but I think the "developed" world is showing in recent years that Africans don't have a monopoly on that front.

As an aside, if you call me racist again I'll ask for your inflammatory posts to be deleted. Meantime, you might be well served to take your own advice rather than dish it out and, "get a grip mate".

 

[TRF_heineken]

I continue to hear about a failure to expose non-white kids to top level school level rugby and training from a South African rugby journalist (see link below). Now, unless you have information to the contrary I have no reason to believe that this journalist is going out of his way to manufacture misinformation.



"I was disgusted to see many of SA's top rugby schools field almost entirely white XVs at the various easter school festivals"

I'm not on the noise up here whatever you may think and my last post conceded the right for those on the other side of the argument to be more irritated at the ANC/SARU transformation policy given Rassie's admission. I assume Rassie's approach is that candour and openness is the way to go and is less damaging than speculation and uncertainty. But that is a bit of a gamble.




Ghana, like most of Africa, was colonised by European powers who cultivated ethnic and tribal rivalry as part of a policy of "divide and conquer", with various peoples thrown together into a hotch-potch of completely arbitrary "national" borders devised by their European overlords. Non-African countries that suffered a similar fate (like Pakistan or Afghanistan) are a more suitable comparison and similarly struggle to develop a stable society over 50 years later.

Korea wasn't colonised by Europeans, but by Japan who didn't employ the same sort of political tactics as the British (more just relying on brute force). South Korea received massive Western financial assistance post-WWII and then again post-Korean war to help it serve as a robust barrier against the Communist "hordes" all whilst remaining fairly ethnically homogenous. None of which is remotely comparable with the Ghanian experience.

Similarly, the Americas countries don't struggle so much because the Europeans largely liquidated the indigenous peoples through violence and disease, permitting more homogenous nation-states to develop (although obviously some are not without their troubles). That's not to say that African populations haven't repeatedly made horrific decisions at the ballot box, but I think the "developed" world is showing in recent years that Africans don't have a monopoly on that front.

As an aside, if you call me racist again I'll ask for your inflammatory posts to be deleted. Meantime, you might be well served to take your own advice rather than dish it out and, "get a grip mate".

Perhaps you should stop nit-picking on articles and videos about this topic. This video you posted about the moron at SARugbyMag is forgetting something about the so-called top rugby schools and the players they fielded:
1. Some of these schools doesn't have a whole lot of black kids in the school, especially if those schools are private schools.
2. Private Schools doesn't have to conform to the policies public schools must adhere to. And Private schools governing bodies can setup their own protocols when it comes to sport code of conduct and who can play.
3. The School who hosts the rugby festival have a choice on whether to enforce these policies, and the teams they invite will get a copy of the policies ahead of time to ensure they adhere to those rules before they go to the festival.

The journo is trying to draw a line where there really isn't one. But he does have a point in that SA Rugby's administrators are a bunch of amateurs. There are so many loopholes when it comes to transformation policies at the moment at lower levels, that they keep on focusing on the highest level, the Springbokke, and keeps on hammering on it.

Let's take my high school as an example. It's the premier high school in the capital of our Province. It has more than a 1500 learners from age 14-18 of which 40% of the learners are male. It's the only High School in town that is competing against the big schools from Gauteng. Yet it only has about 3% of learners who are black. And it's a public school. But because the other high schools in town are all at least 95% black, the black kids rather go to the other Schools. So how do they expect this high school to field a team of rugby players in each age group with the prescribed amount of black players, when there aren't enough black kids in the school???

 

[SomeOke]

This thread should probably be closed, sorry for starting it.

 

[mdaclarke]

I assume this has been discussed before, but doesn't Rassie's addmitance of a quota violate some discrimination law? Just 'positive' racism at the end of the day really, which is just a nice word for racism that liberals try to justify...

My gut feeling is that they have left themselves just enough wiggle room for it legally not to be a quota. A quota would be 100% illegal in both WR and IOC (rugby is an olympic sport), having it as a KPI means that if Rassie fails to meet it but say wins the Rugby Championship 5 games to 1 or 6 -0 not an awful lot would happen.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Perhaps you should stop nit-picking on articles and videos about this topic. This video you posted about the moron at SARugbyMag is forgetting something about the so-called top rugby schools and the players they fielded:
1. Some of these schools doesn't have a whole lot of black kids in the school, especially if those schools are private schools.
2. Private Schools doesn't have to conform to the policies public schools must adhere to. And Private schools governing bodies can setup their own protocols when it comes to sport code of conduct and who can play.
3. The School who hosts the rugby festival have a choice on whether to enforce these policies, and the teams they invite will get a copy of the policies ahead of time to ensure they adhere to those rules before they go to the festival.

The journo is trying to draw a line where there really isn't one. But he does have a point in that SA Rugby's administrators are a bunch of amateurs. There are so many loopholes when it comes to transformation policies at the moment at lower levels, that they keep on focusing on the highest level, the Springbokke, and keeps on hammering on it.

Let's take my high school as an example. It's the premier high school in the capital of our Province. It has more than a 1500 learners from age 14-18 of which 40% of the learners are male. It's the only High School in town that is competing against the big schools from Gauteng. Yet it only has about 3% of learners who are black. And it's a public school. But because the other high schools in town are all at least 95% black, the black kids rather go to the other Schools. So how do they expect this high school to field a team of rugby players in each age group with the prescribed amount of black players, when there aren't enough black kids in the school???

I appreciate the response, but I merely posted the video as the previous poster seemed to think I was pulling stuff out my backside. I didn't actively seek it out in order to post it.

I struggle to believe that black kids and families are avoiding enrolling in the "premier school in the state" so that they can enjoy a lower standard of education elsewhere in the state, but otherwise I think your post is fairly well made. There will be a black middle class and likely every middle class a large part of it will be extremely motivated to get the best possible education for their kids (in the UK this tragically routinely involves inventing a religious affiliation to be eligible to get into a certain school).

I'll spare you a full blown diatribe of my thoughts on private schools, but I think they are the bane of society in the UK, and suspect it is similar globally. I suspect that, like me, the bloke in the video wishes that more could be done to coerce Private schools to "get with the programme" of building a successful society (including on the rugby pitch) rather than actively sustaining divisions in society as I consider they do globally (preserving "old money" and "old boys" networks - the subtext to my rant today in the Scottish rugby thread is effectively ALL about that).

I don't know the situation in SA. Here we have one poster saying I'm racist for not acknowledging that new black elites and middle classes are sweeping through the private school system and your point number 1 completely contradicts that (and sounds more credible to me).

My sincere apologies to the OP if I have contributed to the derailing of the thread. I've no real interest in posting in it further and will remain that way unless someone insinuates I'm an eedjit, does @myname or starts making posts that I consider generally unsavoury.

Although I'm not opposed to quotas I'm frankly a little saddened that it appears the government considers them to be necessary rather than just targets. It's not good for rugby or South Africa that "transformation" couldn't just develop more organically.

 

[AM_Bokke]

Strong response @Bruce_ma_goose

Yeah, race based quotas are certainly NOT ideal but what is SARU supposed to do? They need to fit into the country and they have ZERO money.

Yeah, investing in the grassroots is great but not only does SARU not have the money they also don't have the incentives. There is no incentive to invest in grassroots rugby in the SH because they lose whatever assets they produce (players) to other unions and countries without financial compensation.

Rugby is just a mess. It's a game
that was designed and developed for young, privledged men to play at school (and it was/is great at that because it's an awesome "game" for many reasons). But it will continue to be a mess until the next thing it is supposed to be is obvious and apparent. That has not happened yet.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Strong response @Bruce_ma_goose

Yeah, race based quotas are certainly NOT ideal but what is SARU supposed to do? They need to fit into the country and they have ZERO money.

Yeah, investing in the grassroots is great but not only does SARU not have the money they also don't have the incentives. There is no incentive to invest in grassroots rugby in the SH because they lose whatever assets they produce (players) to other unions and countries without financial compensation.

Rugby is just a mess. It's a game
that was designed and developed for young, privledged men to play at school (and it was/is great at that because it's an awesome "game" for many reasons). But it will continue to be a mess until the next thing it is supposed to be is obvious and apparent. That has not happened yet.

What do you mean "what are they supposed to do". That's like saying it's ok to be a nazi because everyone else is...

 

[AM_Bokke]

What do you mean "what are they supposed to do". That's like saying it's ok to be a nazi because everyone else is...

If you want to finance some scholarships for black kids at top rugby schools in SA go right ahead. I'm sure that they'll take your money.