|
31/01/2008 09:09
JJ Harmse
Who on earth decided that South Africa should participate in this ELVs (Experimental Law Variations) farce?
Why did we say yes to the introduction of this new version of 'Aussie rugby' when we have just won the Rugby World Cup with brain AND brawn? Who at SA Rugby spoke to the top players to discuss the effect and impact the changes will have? And why would we want to change a game that has just brought us world fame, national unity and a lot of money?
We have to understand that the players should have some impact when it comes to their livelihood. If the new rules were threatening to the continued existence of traditional props, why would they support it? And in the team environment, where props are often the jokers of the team or the real stimulators to team cohesion, why would we want to change that? It is part of the psyche of the game!
Helpless feeling
In the South African work place, where BEE and AA abounds, people will have a good understanding of that helpless feeling that you are just someone's puppet in a game you don't know or want anything to do with.
The same with a rugby player who has now returned to the field to find that his 'office' has moved to another floor in another building without being told.
After watching two games of limited ELV impact I can tell you now, this is bull.
If Australia want to play touch rugby, let them do it. They are the ones who are (again) almost A$7m in the red. They are the ones who have their sport ranked a distant third to Aussie Rules and Rugby League. They are the ones who cannot even play the game in all their states and had to forfeit a second season of domestic provincial rugby.
Disgrace
Yes, they are great at cricket and swimming. Little wonder then that they have not suggested changing the rules of those sports. Already considered the ultimate sledgers in cricket, they have not once asked for that aspect of the game to be banned. Neither did they suggest that swimming should be canned as an Olympic sport. Why would they? They excel in both. Good on them.
However, what they are trying to do to rugby is a disgrace. An even bigger disgrace is that we've allowed them to manipulate us. I don't know why and how, but they just manage to get their way every time. Stuff them.
Unfortunately, there has been a big mind-swing in recent years that we should play the Australian way.
Aussie influence
Harry Viljoen appointed three Aussies on his management team and Jake White frequented the Brumbies and Eddie Jones quite often. After a decade of trying to play the Aussie way, we failed miserably. We still can scrum. We still have the best lineout in the world. We still win World Cups.
Sorry, nothing of the above was due to the Aussie influence in the game. And the Aussies never had any of the above in the last century, so why would they not try to change it?
Their version of development is buying second-rate league players. What did they do to improve Clyde Rathbone? They have bulked him up to such and extent that he has lost all his pace!
We are just not wired to this new game where every player needs to be a decision maker. Long may it continue. I believe in a game where a prop can scrum, a lock can jump, a flank can fetch, a scrumhalf can pass, a flyhalf can kick, a centre can take a gap, a wing can score a try and a fullback can catch. It worked for me for many, many years and I still go back for more.
Canned immediately
You can ask yourself the following questions. Do you go to a game to see Bakkies Botha take the outside gap or do you go to see him physically dominate his opponent? Do you go to a game where the rules prevent attacking teams from setting up phase play?
I am sorry, but these ELVs should be canned immediately. The fact that three sets of rules will apply in one domestic season is just silly. The Vodacom Cup will have the full set of ELVs, the Super 14 only some and the inbound Test matches will be played according to the 'old' rules. This is just madness!
Did anyone think of the spectators trying to get through that maze?
To even imagine how the Heineken Cup will be played with the new variations just boggles the mind, especially considering current weather conditions.
Attract athletes
A question to the IRB. If they have just made the biggest profit ever from a World Cup, why change the reason for it? There were great games, great tries and great moments. Even the dull games, like Australia against England, had a mental edge, especially when it became clear that Andrew Sheridan was killing his Wallaby opponent. And that England were winning the game because of it. Every time Sheridan squeezed, the Wallabies had to cheat to get out of trouble. And Jonny Wilkinson punished them.
The fact that Australia cannot manage to grow the game in their country and cannot attract athletes capable of playing in the front row should not be allowed to dictate the future of the game.
Argentina offer the rugby world much more at this stage than the Aussies. Did anyone ask them about the new rules?
Read JJ every Sunday in Rapport.
Send JJ your thoughts
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
|
COMMENTS