SARU admits provinces rule the roost
Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:17
CJ van der Linde - a Bok, not a Cheetah. (c) Gallo
The South African Rugby Union has admitted that the call for a blanket ban on contracted Springboks playing in the Currie Cup was made by the provinces.
This follows the rugby365.com report on Wednesday, which revealed that most of the country's leading players stood united in their objection to the absurd decision to withdraw all the contracted Springboks from the Currie Cup.
SARU on Thursday contacted the South African Rugby Players' Association to express its "surprise and alarm" at their representation of the Springbok conditioning programme.
However, SARU also admitted that the call was made by provinces - who served their own interests, but for reasons that had little to do with the greater good of the national team.
"The provinces were asked in a conference call this week to treat player resting on a case-by-case basis," said SARU in a statement, adding: "Provinces preferred to uniformly rest the players to prevent unfair advantages or disadvantages being created in the Currie Cup."
As was reported by rugby365.com on Wednesday, the proverbial pawpaw hit the fan when the Free State Cheetahs objected to the inclusion of Springboks like Bakkies Botha and Wynand Olivier in the Blue Bulls team. These two teams, last year's finalists, meet in a crunch match in Bloemfontein on Saturday.
Once the call was made to withdraw 'all contracted Boks', only then did the Cheetahs realise they would be losing two key players in Juan Smith and CJ van der Linde - with the latter having already been named in the Cheetahs starting XV and Smith set to return to the fray in a week or two.
The fall-out over Tuesday's decision also saw the Sharks and Western Province up in arms - with players like Bismarck du Plessis, Tendai Mtawarira, JP Pietersen, Adrian Jacobs (all Sharks) and Ricky Januarie (WP) in desperate need of game time.
Perfect examples are Du Plessis, back from neck surgery, and Mtawarira, spending most of his time in the Bok Tri-Nations touring party, but without playing - who have been impressive in the Currie Cup, but they are likely to stagnate with no game time.
SARU said in a statement, headlined: 'Springbok conditioning programme – the facts', that the organisation shared SARPA's disappointment that certain contracted players were unable to currently enjoy much-needed match practice.
However, SARU suggested that the SARPA release was a gross distortion of the facts.
According to SARU, the facts are:
1) All players are primarily contracted to provinces.
2) A number of elite players also accept Springbok contracts
3) SARU cannot prescribe when, or how often, these contracted Springboks
appear for their provinces
4) In order to lighten the workload of players SARU set the goal of managing players on an individual basis in 2010 as per the pattern of the 2006 season.
5) Provinces agreed to the proposal earlier this year and are compensated for the time that the players are not available to them.
6) The outline plan was shared with the contracted players and SARPA CEO Piet Heymans in February 2010.
7) Individual conditioning programmes have been provided for the players. The hope was that players' workloads could be managed on an individual basis in conjunction with their provinces.
9) SARU announced on July 2 that contracted Springboks would be rested for a month, following the Tri-Nations. SARPA made no comment at that time nor has SARPA contacted SARU in the intervening nine weeks to raise an objection.
10) The provinces
were asked in a conference call this week to treat player resting on a case-by-case basis. Provinces preferred to uniformly rest the players to prevent unfair advantages or disadvantages being created in the Currie Cup.
11) No Springbok player has spoken to team management or the national teams department objecting to the principle either now or at any point in the last nine weeks.
Paragraph 10 in the SARU statement is the real clincher - which makes it clear the provinces were serving their own interests, but for reasons that had little to do with the greater good of the national team.
At the same time paragraphs three and nine in the SARU statement also seems to contradict each other.
SARPA CEO Piet Heymans told rugby365.com that their objection, as outlined in Wednesday's release, was not aimed at discrediting the conditioning programme, but merely served to highlight the unfairness of a blanket ban - which means that players in desperate need of game time are deprived of such an opportunity.
Heymans said SARPA welcomed the fact that SARU clarified the facts regarding the Springbok conditioning programme.
However, while SARPA support the need for a conditioning programme, they would also like to point out that the players' concerns and unhappiness centres on the fact that contracted Springbok players in need of game time should be allowed to participate in the Currie Cup.
"SARU have been forthcoming in their response, but in this, they have also missed the point of our concerns," Heymans said.
"We are supportive of the conditioning programme for the majority of players. But we believe that this should be done on an individual basis, and not purely a blanket ban as has been decided.
"It is in the interest of these players, needing game time, and their careers that they have the opportunity to get proper game time in order to condition for the Rugby World Cup in 2011.
"SARPA is disappointed that the perception is now created that it has problems with the conditioning programme which is not the fact.
"It is rather in the interest of the Springbok team and each player's career that exceptions need to be made on a player by player basis. A blanket exclusion from the Currie Cup clearly disadvantages these players in need of game time."
SARPA said they would further like to reiterate that no other meaning should be read into the unhappiness and concerns, bar the fact that in the interests of rugby certain players are in need of game time. The decision, SARPA believes, is not a good rugby decision.
"SARPA was not party to the agreement that was announced on 2 July 2010 pertaining to the conditioning programme, but this agreement did not deal specifically with players in need of game time. Rather it centred on a general ban for all contracted players," explained Heymans.
"Therefore SARPA still believes this decision is not a good rugby decision. The fact that the provinces preferred a blanket rest on all players to prevent unfair advantages or disadvantages in the Currie Cup creates the impression that Springbok rugby is now sacrificed in favour of provincial rugby."
SARPA again called for a review of the agreement to allow individual players to get game time where required to benefit the Springbok cause.
By Jan de Koning
Contact Us | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Advertising
