So the Western Province High Schools Rugby Association, I see, has taken a resolution aimed at stopping what it calls the poaching of players at its affiliated schools.
In essence, a player that has been found to be poached, following
a complaint from the school he was at, and an investigation, will not be
invited to the province’s trials for its U16 Grant Khomo or U18 Craven Week teams.
It’s not a bad idea, but I doubt that it will have much
effect. The selection and management of the teams that go to SA Rugby’s Youth
Weeks is the only area in which the provincial schools unions hold any sway,
really, so I guess that has to be what they are looking at. Whether what they
are proposing will be enough of a disincentive to make schools change their recruitment
policies and practices is, however, dubious.
The biggest flaw is believing that possible provincial
selection is the main attraction. It’s part of it, sure, and schools with a
track record of providing players to provincial teams certainly use that in
their sales pitches. But it’s based on the quaint notion that offers made are
in the interests of the players. They are not. Victories for the school’s 1st
rugby team is the goal and everything is in service of that.
You can’t, in any event, guarantee that every bursary player
will become a provincial player, and to promise that is dishonest.
The proposals are based on another misconception. A Craven
Week cap is not what it used to be. The ever-increasing racial quotas in those
teams have meant that fewer and fewer white players can be chosen and that,
rightly or wrongly, has had consequences. Some players at the top rugby schools
have different targets now. Success for the school team at the big interschool
festivals – Easter, Noord-Suid, Wildeklawer – on national TV - is as prestigious
these days. And recruitment deals by the Universities and the senior unions, including
overseas clubs, take place there now – the Craven Week is too late.
So, it’s quite possible that a talented white player (any
colour of player, actually) can be persuaded to change schools even if that
will close the Craven Week door for him.
The practice of poaching, for the school, is about buying
future victories. At the same time, for the player and his parents it’s about money.
School and hostel fees, kit and equipment, medical care, pocket money, and
other things, are what are offered. Followed by a good chance at a Varsity Cup
or junior provincial contract. And, of course, they say he will be getting a better all-round education than he was getting at the school he came from. I don’t think the threat of not being picked for
the Grant Khomo Week necessarily trumps all of that.
Then, they have put in the loophole that they had to – movements
of learners for reasons not related to poaching are OK. They cite two examples:
a genuine case of changing schools because of relocation to a new town (or
suburb), and movements that are academically in the best interests of the learner.
Granting a bursary to a boy from an economically disadvantaged family that will
give him access to an undeniable better education would also have to be
acceptable – and that’s the justification very frequently used.
So, while it’s a start, and a move in the right direction, the
sanctions proposed in Cape Town are a bit of a dead seagull, I’m afraid.