New South African Race Quota

First topic message reminder :

article Link : http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/04/07/hard-line-taken-on-white-sport

Looks like the current 50/50 quota of black and white players has been increased to 60% black, 40% white for the 'Boks, effective immediately.

As somebody who doesn't follow southern rugby to the same extent as northern, I have no idea if this will make a genuine difference? Will it effect the team?

Is it a positive move, or reverse discrimination?

kingraf wrote:I agree, I'm a bit surprised there aren't more ACI scrummies. You'd think, (completely generalizing) there'd be greater numbers in a spot that requires some nifty kicking skills and a low centre of gravity

I agree.... there should be a lot of chaps like Ricky Januarie especially. Bags of pace, 5.5ft tall, 5.5ft wide.

fa0019 wrote:

kingraf wrote:I agree, I'm a bit surprised there aren't more ACI scrummies. You'd think, (completely generalizing) there'd be greater numbers in a spot that requires some nifty kicking skills and a low centre of gravity

I agree.... there should be a lot of chaps like Ricky Januarie especially. Bags of pace, 5.5ft tall, 5.5ft wide.

You see a lot of coloured teams in the cape like that.

Locks 185cm. Rest of the team generally 170cm high and wide.

Tough as old nails.

You've got Heini Adams who I really rate

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't NZ invariably have race quotas via age grade weight restrictions? Or is it in AUS?

Due to the polynesians being 100kg aged 12-13 right?

Don't know about Aus but in NZ that's for safety reasons. But its not a quota of any kind and its not based on race.

nganboy wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Doesn't NZ invariably have race quotas via age grade weight restrictions? Or is it in AUS?

Due to the polynesians being 100kg aged 12-13 right?

Don't know about Aus but in NZ that's for safety reasons. But its not a quota of any kind and its not based on race.

True but whilst it doesn't have a racial impact it was done mainly on lines based around race and ethnicity.... because polynesian 11-14 yr olds can have the body sizes of white teenagers much older right. I agree its not a racist law as white or PI the same rules apply but it is due to issues surrounding race and all to do with making sure white kids stay in the sport and getting game time.

The three point line was created to give white players a shot...

This quota is just pure electioneering in the run up to elections (less than a month away). I'd be surprised if the ANC actually intend to enforce it. It takes a bit of focus off some other topics, not least of which are a couple of Fikile Mbalula's (Minister of Sport) own personal indiscretions. It would be surprising because in the recent survey done by the Department of sport into how well various sporting codes were developing their sport at grassroots level (ie amongst poor black people), the sport found to be doing the most (by a long way) was rugby - even ahead of soccer.

AS to why there aren't more black rugby players at the top level: Rugby in SA is predominantly an upper-middle class sport. The top players virtually all come from a very small selection of elite schools. The demographics of these schools do not reflect the demographics of the country ( they have a disproportionately high number of whites). Furthermore, for a black person who has graduated from one of these schools, the combination of BEE and a good education means that they have a very large range of lucrative career options to choose from. Hence to choose to be a pro rugby-player one would have to really love rugby, which would be rarer amongst black pupils (who are unlikely to have grown-up in rugby-worshipping families like, say, your average Afrikaaner).

For more analysis:
http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-04-08-quota-un-quota-mbalulas-constitution-what-constitution-moment/

Not rugby or race legislation related, but the Athletics board has long died, and our sprinters where mentioned earlier on, so not exactly irrelevant.

Simon Magakwe broke the ten second barrier in the 100m on Friday. Big run, given how early in the season it is. Akani Simbine, a lad I see every now and then at the HPC in Pretoria, also dipped below the old national record, running at 10.02. Given his age (21), he'll likely smash the ten barrier sooner rather than later, especially given the fact that he trains at the HPC. Looking at Anaso Jobodwana, who also runs very close to the ten mark, seems we're very close to getting a legit medal threatening relay team - no small feat given ASA's chronic ineptitude. Maybe SARU should take note

Where did he run it? The highveld is a great place for sprinting... But records actually don't count due to altitude... Well are marked with an A.

He ran it at LC de Villiers on Friday - about five km from Loftus. My initial thought was also that It wouldn't stand, for that exact reason - but ASA have their champs at altitude every year - seems rather defeatist if these times are *. Then again, it is ASA.

Was a bit of surprise, if I'm honest - he's been going sub 10.10 for a few years now, but he's always promising to dip below 10, so it began to seem like a bit like the Proteas promising to win every ICC event they enter, "yeah, sure, whatever"...

kingraf wrote:He ran it at LC de Villiers on Friday - about five km from Loftus. My initial thought was also that It wouldn't stand, for that exact reason - but ASA have their champs at altitude every year - seems rather defeatist if these times are *. Then again, it is ASA.

Was a bit of surprise, if I'm honest - he's been going sub 10.10 for a few years now, but he's always promising to dip below 10, so it began to seem like a bit like the Proteas promising to win every ICC event they enter, "yeah, sure, whatever"...

Should get onto the European circuit then... interesting to see how he fans out at sea level tracks.

The times always stand but it has a big A on it. The main records are non altitude/non headwind ones.

Not sure if this article has been posted.

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/blog/details/transform-through-craft-not-colour

Half decent article for once by Keo.. well bar from calling Ndugane a damn fine rugby player.

He's not a complete joke, he has a decent defence but trying hard isn't good enough at this level. He's slow and it costs the sharks dearly.

He hasn't scored more than 3 tries in a season for 6 years (during which he's played in 62 matches, starting the majoirty of them). The sharks aren't a bad side, they're constantly up there as a title contender, they have a good balance and get lots of chances.

His test career ended years ago... the reason he's still in Super rugby and not in Europe making a killing is that quite simply no European team would have him.

Ndugane is the definition of a player who has been promoted for racial purposes I'm afraid. Pietersen, Habana, De Jongh etc... no but Ndugane, certainly.

This HAS to be a bad joke. I can understand mandating a number of coloreds in academies, but then to also impose a quota on senior teams... that's just madness.

RuggerFan wrote:This HAS to be a bad joke. I can understand mandating a number of coloreds in academies, but then to also impose a quota on senior teams... that's just madness.

Not if your ultimate goal has nothing to do with winning matches...for me thats totally understandable.

Taylorman wrote:

RuggerFan wrote:This HAS to be a bad joke. I can understand mandating a number of coloreds in academies, but then to also impose a quota on senior teams... that's just madness.

Not if your ultimate goal has nothing to do with winning matches...for me thats totally understandable.

And what is the goal, other than to create even more division? Surely this can only lead to even more bitterness. There is still very much an "us and them" aspect to this and it will resolve absolutely nothing.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

RuggerFan wrote:This HAS to be a bad joke. I can understand mandating a number of coloreds in academies, but then to also impose a quota on senior teams... that's just madness.

Not if your ultimate goal has nothing to do with winning matches...for me thats totally understandable.

And what is the goal, other than to create even more division?  Surely this can only lead to even more bitterness.  There is still very much an "us and them" aspect to this and it will resolve absolutely nothing.

What it will resolve is the political agenda of those who believe South Africas representation on the global stage should be more reflective of its country's ethnic make up- a perfectly reasonable and sound basis for an agenda. Of course there will be bitterness. Thats understandable also.

Why compete in sport then?

To become the easy beats?

There will be no supporters left, then no money, then the politicians won't bother anymore.

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

RuggerFan wrote:This HAS to be a bad joke. I can understand mandating a number of coloreds in academies, but then to also impose a quota on senior teams... that's just madness.

Not if your ultimate goal has nothing to do with winning matches...for me thats totally understandable.

And what is the goal, other than to create even more division?  Surely this can only lead to even more bitterness.  There is still very much an "us and them" aspect to this and it will resolve absolutely nothing.

What it will resolve is the political agenda of those who believe South Africas representation on the global stage should be more reflective of its country's ethnic make up- a perfectly reasonable and sound basis for an agenda. Of course there will be bitterness. Thats understandable also.

Sounds like that idea was generated in East Germany in the 80s. The world has moved on.

The problem is that that notion is totally against the ethos of competitive sport.

What people have to realise is that shock horror, people of different ethnic groups are different, some are taller, stronger, quicker... It's just so that the Polynesian and the Boere are almost the perfect makeup for the sport... Imagine a nation with those two groups in abundance... NZ in 2030 perhaps!!!

If SA is what they want to make themselves out to be... Then fielding a team of whites/Africans only should not be a problem as long as they are the best available... Until that is so and other extreme cases SA will remain a deeply devided and racially separate nation. Shame but true.

This isn't about the political will of the people... It's about the political will of the few.... The cronies in power who want to erase boere from SA.
SA is a very young country... The majority of the people weren't even alive in 1994 as crazy as that sounds. Even the politicans who like Zuma were locked up in the old days are now few and far between. Today most Africans coming into politics were schooled in the finest former all white schools, were given huge BEE tenders from their daddies friends and have become immensely wealthy.

Ask the average coloured chap or African chap and in my experience they love the boks and never say... Oh it's got too many white people in it!!! It's a white dominated sport by numbers of players and fans.

Fans want victories not a political procession especially when they get thumped.

fa0019 wrote:This isn't about the political will of the people... It's about the political will of the few.... The cronies in power who want to erase boere from SA.
SA is a very young country... The majority of the people weren't even alive in 1994 as crazy as that sounds. Even the politicans who like Zuma were locked up in the old days are now few and far between. Today most Africans coming into politics were schooled in the finest former all white schools, were given huge BEE tenders from their daddies friends and have become immensely wealthy.

Ask the average coloured chap or African chap and in my experience they love the boks and never say... Oh it's got too many white people in it!!! It's a white dominated sport by numbers of players and fans.

Fans want victories not a political procession especially when they get thumped.

Geez...that speaks for itself.
...and by the way...how many have you asked fa?

fa0019 wrote: Then fielding a team of whites/Africans only should not be a problem as long as they are the best available... Until that is so and other extreme cases SA will remain a deeply devided and racially separate nation. Shame but true.

So during the 20th century...how come that wasnt the case either- or was the shoe on the right foot during that period. 'Best available' wasnt the rule then...'White only' was the rule. Were you just as outspoken then? On one hand its ok, but when it doesnt suit....? You confuse me Fa...

As a 'nice' comparison, before they were 'allowed' to play there were never more than a handful of non white american football players in the NFL- excerpts from Wiki...

"The Redskins had no black players until Interior Secretary Stewart Udall threatened to evict them from D. C. Stadium unless they signed a black player. The Redskins eventually signed Bobby Mitchell and two other African American players by 1962."

Today, recent surveys have shown that the NFL is approximately 57–61% non-white, including African Americans, This statistic is in contrast to the general population of the United States, which is 28% non-white.

(And what is the % make up in SA today?)

So if we have 'fairness' today in the NFL, it was obviously not the case 50 years ago, and quota's were indeed part of what it took to get that fairness, like it or not, if only to speed up the process.

Now you could say non whites in SA 'don't play rugby' but that doesnt wash either, because that was the same case in the NFL 50 years ago.

Unfortunately, when you buy into a regime of oppression, expect to cop the fallout. This might go away this year, but it will be back in some form, watered down or spiced up, depending on the political minds of the day, but it will be back...history has a way of setting the balance, rightly or wrongly.

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote: Then fielding a team of whites/Africans only should not be a problem as long as they are the best available... Until that is so and other extreme cases SA will remain a deeply devided and racially separate nation. Shame but true.

So during the 20th century...how come that wasnt the case either- or was the shoe on the right foot during that period. 'Best available' wasnt the rule then...'White only' was the rule. Were you just as outspoken then? On one hand its ok, but when it doesnt suit....? You confuse me Fa...

Of course it wasn't right in the past taylorman... But two wrongs don't make a right. That's just voodoo logic. But don't you think it's double standards on your point.... It's fine to take a moral stand against an all white South African team but no one in the international community will raise an eyebrow with the tables turned. It's ok because ah well they suffered in the past..loco!

Mate I'm not South African, moved there post 94. Too young to have known the boks pre introduction at the time as I got into rugby in the late 80s... And politics and rugby really didn't enter the same equation until I moved to SA.
When I first learnt about it I was like... Well if the boks want to weaken their team, All good for he rest of us.

I don't have the white persons chip of guilt on the shoulder as I'm a foreigner in SA so it's easier for me to say these things then locals but it's just not right, it's like seeing token chaps in the Olympics like Eric the eel, eddie the eagle and sorry to say (and I said this at the time not just hindsight) Oscar Pistorius. This isn't WWE.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but black Americans at your time of quotation were like cape coloureds (ie habana, Chester Williams) in the 80s.... Deep involvement in the sport and an abundance of talent barred for competition... This isn't the same for Africans.

They kept to their own sports during apartheid because they were the sports of the oppressors. They played football mainly and still do. They didn't want to play rugby.

By the late 60s black Americans were already some of the best players in the sport... Guys like OJ Simpson no?

Who is the best african South African player of all time would you say, this is mind 22 years after race rules were removed from the sport and 20 since active promotion of African involvement in he sport was promoted, welcomed and in many parts begged for... In SA it helps with sponsorship if you are a well integrated team.

Probably Beast... But he was raised in Zim under the old english public school system.

Take away the Zimbabweans like mujati, beast and chavanga and we're left with floors, the ndugane twins, nokwe (supreme talent but brittle like chalk), chilliboy and kolisi.

Kolisi is well above the pack but only at best in a pack of the next best backrow players in SA after vermeulen, louw and Alberts.

There is no mass train on talent yet to be unleashed.

As I mentioned earlier, part of this is participation, genetics, poverty as the best rugby schools are afrikaans dominated and private and also AIDS as SA loses lots of their mainly African young here before they get a chance to pick up a ball.
It will improve as those issues are neutralised but they're not being held back, if anything it's the opposite.

I think that part of the problem is that people see American sports and think, dominated by black players, all black people are good at sport etc. for a long time I was one of them, growing up in awe of chaps like Michael Jordan who even today is still peerless.

However I think it's quite an unfair example on Africans. Firstly most American sports are pretty exclusive of genuine world competition... See how teams like Spain and Argentina compete at basketball with the nba all stars USA team with a fraction of the support and pretty much whites only. Compare that to football, rugby, cricket etc who have many different racial groups and countries.

Added to this, black people of the Americas are very different to those from Africa. They underwent huge changes, challenges and experienced much mixing with other ethnic groups over the last 400 odd years.

I watched a documentary on it a while back by Michael Johnson the famed American sprinter on youtube. In essence he argued with scientists that it's not quite simply that black people are more athletic... It's that those who came from slavery were ancestors of only the strongest people as most died during the journey from Africa, the hardships of slavery etc and only the top physical specimens survived to be able to pass on their genes. In essence creating unusually large and athletic people... Who dominate US sport and sprint power athletics.

If the USA picked up rugby yes they would dominate like only they could.. Imagine every forward like Courtney lawes and every back having Olympic athlete speed.
But as I mentioned earlier it's not simply because they are african.

Expecting the same of South Africans for me is simply not realistic... We would have seen more talent come through over the last 20 years and it just hasn't happened.
In WP we see huge numbers of talented coloured chaps come through but very few Africans, save kolisi it's literally zero. It's not racism, if they were there WP would beg, steal and borrow to acquire their services... These guys add so much to the financial security of unions now in SA, Juan De Jongh is the major poster boy in cape because he represents many of the youngsters in SA today, Kolisi is becoming the poster boy for Africans in the cape but at the moment he's on his own.

I would admit one thing though.. In 2005 SA won the U21 JRWC with I think 8 or 9 players of colour if the first XV albeit mainly coloured... Yet the only players of note to come from that side with Ruan pienaar and Morne steyn. Something goes on between  junior rugby and senior rugby which acts against them.. A bit like England in the junior ranks today, easily the best in the NH but come senior rugby those same players at best hold their own to chaps they were besting only 2-3 years before.

Taylorman wrote:

fa0019 wrote: Then fielding a team of whites/Africans only should not be a problem as long as they are the best available... Until that is so and other extreme cases SA will remain a deeply devided and racially separate nation. Shame but true.

So during the 20th century...how come that wasnt the case either- or was the shoe on the right foot during that period. 'Best available' wasnt the rule then...'White only' was the rule. Were you just as outspoken then? On one hand its ok, but when it doesnt suit....? You confuse me Fa...

Why so caught up in the past all the time??? Much of the problems in SA today can be attributed back to British rule. I don't see why all of what you suggest should happen, should happen and at the continued expense of white/boer people in SA. I sympathise with these groups in SA, I've heard some awful tales of the violence and political BS they have to put up with.

Taylorman wrote:

Today, recent surveys have shown that the NFL is approximately 57–61% non-white, including African Americans, This statistic is in contrast to the general population of the United States, which is 28% non-white.

So going by what you say, this is unfair and the US government needs to impose initiatives and quotas to get mostly white people into American Football as this represents the racial demographic of the country's population?

To be fair to taylorman he didn't say that, he said he understood why those previously oppressed would want to place racial orders on selection.

But also suggested that Africans in SA are being held back somewhat.

I agree with the first point, disagree with the second... At least if that's the case.