IRELAND Vs SOUTH AFRICA match thread

Strong Life in Dublin

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Ah come on, really?

Seeking to address historical injustice is not 'racism'. There is a need to ensure that the Springboks are a team for all the county, not just for the whites.

The whites have been far better at rugby than the blacks over the years because they had access to top quality food, top quality housing and jobs, great schools where rugby is played, great healthcare, top coaching, personal and political freedom from repression....etc. The blacks had nothing. How is that a 'meritocracy'?

Lets see what the Springboks will be lilke in 10 years time when the black kids have had the opportunity to compete for places on a level playing pitch.

Are you actually serious? it should be all about skill not the colour of someones skin. A national team is supposed to be a team of the best players in the country...

What you're saying is like look Irish team, there is too many people from private schools and non working class family's. We need more working class rugby players on the Irish team, so lets drop someone players because they are not from working class family's. Does that make sense?

irishbucsfan

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

Does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense, because it's not remotely the same thing.

snowflaker

Some say players from working class families (and I’m only state educated) are being overlooked in the current set up. Friend of mine, was in local tech. Never looked at. Repeated LC in private school- bang- development contract

Strong Life in Dublin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It doesn't make sense, because it's not remotely the same thing.

But it's similar, his argument was that the white players in SA have more money and thus they have more access to better foods and healthcare, so I pointed out that a lot of players in the Irish team would come from pretty high earning family's, e.g. they come from private school.

A high earning family in Ireland definitely has better access to healthcare than a working class family, because a working class family can only go public they could never afford private healthcare.

CIARAN_BOYLE

snowflaker wrote: »

Some say players from working class families (and I’m only state educated) are being overlooked in the current set up. Friend of mine, was in local tech. Never looked at. Repeated LC in private school- bang- development contract

First of all congratulations to your friend on his development contract.

Secondly I don't know what his rugby background is but in Leinster outside the top 15 schools you are much better off going through the club system than a school. Much more likely to make it.

irishbucsfan

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

But it's similar, his argument was that the white players in SA have more money and thus they have more access to better foods and healthcare, so I pointed out that a lot of players in the Irish team would come from pretty high earning family's, e.g. they come from private school.

A high earning family in Ireland definitely has better access to healthcare than a working class family, because a working class family can only go public they could never afford private healthcare.

I think it probably says more about your understanding of the issue that you would try to compare these things to the effects of apartheid.

Strong Life in Dublin

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think it probably says more about your understanding of the issue that you would try to compare these things to the effects of apartheid.

My point is it should be always about skill, skin colour should not matter. A national team should be a team of the countries best players, it shouldn't have to fill diversity quotas.

The other point I made is that some people are always going to have access to better things, but you can't punish them just because they might've having more money or whatever.

Peregrine

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It doesn't make sense, because it's not remotely the same thing.

The injustices aren't comparable but effect such a system would have on the national team is similar.

Development starts from the ground up. Not from the top down. Quotas are bull****. They need to focus on developing players from different backgrounds, ensuring they aren't overlooked due to bias and come down harshly on any racism. The rest has to come naturally unless they want to give more fodder to racists. Which is what they're doing now.

stephen_n

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

True it's speculative but there was a lot of good names amount the three named teams.

It does excellently highlight the scale the player drain facing South African rugby which I believe is the main problem faced by the springboks.

But that's probably financial more so than anything psychological. With the weak Rand it's pretty much a no brainer for young SA players to look north.

irishbucsfan

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

My point is it should be always about skill, skin colour should not matter. A national team should be a team of the countries best players, it shouldn't have to fill diversity quotas.

The other point I made is that some people are always going to have access to better things, but you can't punish them just because they might've having more money or whatever.

That's your opinion.

But in reality, rugby, internationally, has a very uncomfortable history in that country when it comes to apartheid and racial discrimination. And it's absolutely correct that the SARU should be made responsible for balancing things out, they're the NGB and its their responsibility. Sometimes that can be achieved without quotas, sometimes they are needed in order to keep the people at the top moving in the right direction, particularly if you don't trust the people in power to give the problem the focus it deserves.

irishbucsfan

Peregrine wrote: »

Development starts from the ground up. Not from the top down.

Wrong

MJohnston

Strong Life in Dublin wrote: »

My point is it should be always about skill, skin colour should not matter. A national team should be a team of the countries best players, it shouldn't have to fill diversity quotas.

The other point I made is that some people are always going to have access to better things, but you can't punish them just because they might've having more money or whatever.

"more money or whatever" is a seriously ignorant and reductive way of understanding what apartheid was.

The very fact that it's got to the point where quotas are necessary tells you all you need to know about how little South African whites have done to improve the grassroots condition of rugby for non-whites.

Former Former

South Africa shouldn't apply quotas because it's against the rules.

At the moment, everyone is looking the other way because they're applying a politically correct racial quota and anyone who says it's bad will be branded a racist, but it's still a racial quota.

When you start being selective about how you apply the rules or to whom they apply, you're asking for trouble down the line.

CIARAN_BOYLE

stephen_n wrote: »

But that's probably financial more so than anything psychological. With the weak Rand it's pretty much a no brainer for young SA players to look north.

Agreed economics is more of an issue than racial quotas but the quotas feed into it too.

A few years ago I remember an article where a fringe super rugby broke down his salary. He was the fifth back row forward for a super rugby team. He started in Currie cup and Vodacom cup when he was made available.

He got the equivalent of €30,000 from his Super Rugby team and €21,000 from his Currie Cup team and €9,000 from the Vodacom cup team. That's a total of €60,000. Not too bad for a fringe player.

If the same article was posted today currency alone would see that fall from €60,000 to €40,000. Thing is the secondary competitions have collapsed for salaries. The Currie cup teams are paying roughly half the salaries they were (take currencies into account and its a third) and the the Vodacom cup is gone. It didn't exist in 2016 and was replaced 2017 by a cup where the super rugby players are essentially playing to keep match fit.

The player drain is the problem. Quotas feed into that but it's mainly financial.

The saru plan is more teams, in pro 14 and super rugby and letting the Currie cup wither as a semi professional/amateur competition.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

South Africa shouldn't apply quotas because it's against the rules.

At the moment, everyone is looking the other way because they're applying a politically correct racial quota and anyone who says it's bad will be branded a racist, but it's still a racial quota.

When you start being selective about how you apply the rules or to whom they apply, you're asking for trouble down the line.

So the rugby world should just ignore the South African government? I can't see how that could possibly look bad, or end up going terribly! :pac:

MadYaker

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Ah come on, really?

Seeking to address historical injustice is not 'racism'. There is a need to ensure that the Springboks are a team for all the county, not just for the whites.

The whites have been far better at rugby than the blacks over the years because they had access to top quality food, top quality housing and jobs, great schools where rugby is played, great healthcare, top coaching, personal and political freedom from repression....etc. The blacks had nothing. How is that a 'meritocracy'?

Lets see what the Springboks will be lilke in 10 years time when the black kids have had the opportunity to compete for places on a level playing pitch.

So change the system from the bottom up then instead of bringing in stupid quotas at the top level that are just a token gesture in a vain and shallow attempt to right years of wrongs. Make proper facilities available to everyone and let the cream rise to the top naturally regardless of skin colour.

It's not a level playing pitch if players and coaches are being picked because of the colour of the skin instead of their inherent ability. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what way it goes and it's pretty obvious that the current system is doing damage.

irishbucsfan

MadYaker wrote: »

So change the system from the bottom up then instead of bringing in stupid quotas at the top level that are just a token gesture in a vain and shallow attempt to right years of wrongs. Make proper facilities available to everyone and let the cream rise to the top naturally regardless of skin colour.

It's not a level playing pitch if players and coaches are being picked because of the colour of the skin instead of their inherent ability. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what way it goes and it's pretty obvious that the current system is doing damage.

This is exactly what they tried originally.

But let's indulge you and pretend 25 years of history hasn't happened. What if 20 years of trying this produced very few results, and you realised that the people in charge of doing this were actually not interested in levelling the playing field and they themselves were only making token gestures, what would you do next?

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So the rugby world should just ignore the South African government? I can't see how that could possibly look bad, or end up going terribly! :pac:

Pretty much, yeah. But World Rugby is so utterly spineless that it would never happen. They are total cowards when it comes to taking on the big unions. They've a very bad track record here.

And taking a stance out of cowardice doesn't usually mean that it's the correct stance.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Pretty much, yeah. But World Rugby is so utterly spineless that it would never happen. They are total cowards when it comes to taking on the big unions. They've a very bad track record here.

And taking a stance out of cowardice doesn't usually mean that it's the correct stance.

It's nothing to do with cowardice. Rugby played a part in apartheid and it would be massively inappropriate and completely tone-deaf to stand in the way of driving towards equality in the country if that's what the government want to do.

cameramonkey

watching the game back definite forward pass the inside ball to Stockdale for Ruddocks try.

Neil3030

Former Former wrote: »

South Africa shouldn't apply quotas because it's against the rules.

At the moment, everyone is looking the other way because they're applying a politically correct racial quota and anyone who says it's bad will be branded a racist, but it's still a racial quota.

When you start being selective about how you apply the rules or to whom they apply, you're asking for trouble down the line.

Do you think the rules should be changed to allow SA impose a quota system?

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's nothing to do with cowardice. Rugby played a part in apartheid and it would be massively inappropriate and completely tone-deaf to stand in the way of driving towards equality in the country if that's what the government want to do.

You're dead right that rugby had a lot to answer for during apartheid. The IRB did very little and the other unions continued to play the Boks long after they should have been ostracised.

And now if World Rugby stepped in about this racial discrimination, the first thing that would be thrown at them would be "oh, you'll get involved very quickly when it's the white guy losing out, where were you in the 1970s..."

They would be terrified of that particular PR nightmare and so they'll not only look the other way, they'll heartily endorse the breach of their own rules and political interference in a member union.

Again.

cameramonkey

cameramonkey wrote: »

watching the game back definite forward pass the inside ball to Stockdale for Ruddocks try.

Totally obvious watching it live in real time, surprised they didn't check it. I told the guy I was with to watch the match back when he gets home to check out how far forward it was.

Former Former

Neil3030 wrote: »

Do you think the rules should be changed to allow SA impose a quota system?

I would rather the rules were applied.

If racial quotas are now ok, then let's change the rules.

And when we say "hey look, white guys are under represented in the Australian and NZ teams, we have to limit their numbers of Pacific Islanders", will we all be ok with that?

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

I would rather the rules were applied.

If racial quotas are now ok, then let's change the rules.

And when we say "hey look, white guys are under represented in the Australian and NZ teams, we have to limit their numbers of Pacific Islanders", will we all be ok with that?

Which rule specifically are you looking to be applied though?

I'd say there's more than enough room in the current regulations to allow for this.

As for Australia and New Zealand... Not sure where to start with that. It wasn't against the rules for white people to play for either country for most of their history...

Those jerseys were awfully similar

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which rule specifically are you looking to be applied though?

The one that forbids ethnic and racial discrimination I guess.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I'd say there's more than enough room in the current regulations to allow for this.

No doubt. But you shouldn't be parsing the rule book looking for a loophole just to squirm out of compliance. I'm sure you could equally argue that actually they should be allowed exclude all black players too, that wouldn't make it right.

The Australia New Zealand comment was a non -serious example to show how people recoil from the "wrong" sort of discrimination, which you did, but love the "right" form.

MadYaker

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is exactly what they tried originally.

But let's indulge you and pretend 25 years of history hasn't happened. What if 20 years of trying this produced very few results, and you realised that the people in charge of doing this were actually not interested in levelling the playing field and they themselves were only making token gestures, what would you do next?

So they provided good facilities and equal opportunities in all parts of the country where anyone who wants to, regardless of backround, can get involved in rugby and it failed to raise the number of black kids getting involved?

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

The one that forbids ethnic and racial discrimination I guess.



No doubt. But you shouldn't be parsing the rule book looking for a loophole just to squirm out of compliance. I'm sure you could equally argue that actually they should be allowed exclude all black players too, that wouldn't make it right.

You're right, I don't want to parse the rule book looking for a loophole. So which regulation is the one you're applying to? Is there a regulation that deals with this specifically? I'm not aware of any.

Obviously the very simple answer that will be given is that the quotas are an attempting to resolve decades and decades of racial discrimination that are still ongoing throughout the sport in the country. And World Rugby will obviously accept that argument because it is entirely plausible.

irishbucsfan

MadYaker wrote: »

So they provided good facilities and equal opportunities in all parts of the country where anyone who wants to, regardless of backround, can get involved in rugby and it failed to raise the number of black kids getting involved?

No, you misunderstand. I'm asking you if you as a government watched for 20 years as a sport failed to do that sufficiently, what would your next step be?

MadYaker

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, you misunderstand. I'm asking you if you as a government watched for 20 years as a sport failed to do that sufficiently, what would your next step be?

I don't think there is an easy answer here because picking up and sticking with sport is more than just having the right facilities in the right places. There are serious socio-economic factors that are also limiting uptake.

That said I don't agree with the quotas.

Regardless of the colour of my skin, If I was in a team that had people picked not on ability and merit but on the colour of their skin I would struggle to care, it's not a team - it's a political statement and I've never heard of a political statement that was good at rugby.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Maoris team ?
Particularly when there isnt an equivalent colonials-only team.

PhlegmyMoses

Former Former wrote: »

South Africa shouldn't apply quotas because it's against the rules.

At the moment, everyone is looking the other way because they're applying a politically correct racial quota and anyone who says it's bad will be branded a racist, but it's still a racial quota.

When you start being selective about how you apply the rules or to whom they apply, you're asking for trouble down the line.

This 2/3rds rule is written into their constitution and Bill of Rights, isn't it? Like, even if they were to be completely banned for their use of quotas, they would need to get an amendment through their National Assembly etc.

That's likely why the IRB aren't touching it with a barge pole.

ThisRegard

Former Former wrote: »

South Africa shouldn't apply quotas because it's against the rules.

At the moment, everyone is looking the other way because they're applying a politically correct racial quota and anyone who says it's bad will be branded a racist, but it's still a racial quota.

When you start being selective about how you apply the rules or to whom they apply, you're asking for trouble down the line.

The argument seems to be that because of apartheid (and nobody denies what a disgrace that was) it's now OK to discriminate the opposite way.

There's no two ways about it, a player can be denied a place on the national team because of their colour. But because that colour is now white it's given a pass because people say it's correcting previous injustices, while ironically being an injustice.

The Rape of Lucretia

ThisRegard wrote: »

The argument seems to be that because of apartheid (and nobody denies what a disgrace that was) it's now OK to discriminate the opposite way.

There's no two ways about it, a player can be denied a place on the national team because of their colour. But because that colour is now white it's given a pass because people say it's correcting previous injustices, while ironically being an injustice.

They must subscribe to the two wrongs make a right viewpoint.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think there is an easy answer here because picking up and sticking with sport is more than just having the right facilities in the right places. There are serious socio-economic factors that are also limiting uptake.

That said I don't agree with the quotas.

Regardless of the colour of my skin, If I was in a team that had people picked not on ability and merit but on the colour of their skin I would struggle to care, it's not a team - it's a political statement and I've never heard of a political statement that was good at rugby.

Quotas aren't nice. In an ideal world the people in charge of SARU would have taken equality seriously and they would have acted long before quotas ever became necessary. But they didn't, despite a decade of warnings from their own board members (for example Ali Bacher).

They will get to a stage one day where they aren't required, what they call 'post-racial' SA, but its going to get a hell of a lot more painful before it gets better. And it still won't ever be remotely as painful as it could have been if no actions were taken at all and things came to a head.

MadYaker

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, you misunderstand. I'm asking you if you as a government watched for 20 years as a sport failed to do that sufficiently, what would your next step be?

As I understand it the sport is controlled the by the governing body which is controlled by government so they shouldn't just be watching they should be taking action. They control the money so they control where facilities can be targetted. Bringing in quotas at the top level is racial discrimination and isn't going to fix anything.

irishbucsfan

ThisRegard wrote: »

The argument seems to be that because of apartheid (and nobody denies what a disgrace that was) it's now OK to discriminate the opposite way.

No. It's not actually the argument.

If you, as an exercise, sit down and take it seriously and actually re-attempt to make the other side's argument you might take a step towards understanding it properly.

irishbucsfan

MadYaker wrote: »

As I understand it the sport is controlled the by the governing body which is controlled by government so they shouldn't just be watching they should be taking action. They control the money so they control where facilities can be targetted. Bringing in quotas at the top level is racial discrimination and isn't going to fix anything.

No, an NGB is not controlled by the government. Do you think the IRFU are controlled by the Irish government?

ThisRegard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No. It's not actually the argument.

If you, as an exercise, sit down and take it seriously and actually re-attempt to make the other side's argument you might take a step towards understanding it properly.

So you're saying that a player cannot be denied a slot on a squad because of their colour?

irishbucsfan

ThisRegard wrote: »

So you're saying that a player cannot be denied a slot on a squad because of their colour?

No,? I didn't say that anywhere

ThisRegard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No,? I didn't say that anywhere

Ok, so why do some people who see it as a way of redressing history not have a problem with that?

irishbucsfan

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ok, so why do some people who see it as a way of redressing history not have a problem with that?

Quotas are always bad, on their own with no context.

It's just too easy for some people to ignore the fact that it was illegal for non-whites to play sport for South Africa for more than 50 years and the same culture that created that situation is still evident in some areas. And undoing that is a long, painful and complicated process... something we're fairly aware of here in Ireland given some bans we had in our own sports.

There was a great post elsewhere (reddit) about this back when Mbalula announced his controversial ban on unions going for competitions:

It's different in SA though, the comparison is not the same as in any other country really. Rugby has for a very long time been the prized sport of Afrikaners (Afrikaans speaking) South Africans well before the end of apartheid, it's a huge part of their culture so much so that non-Afrikaner, white South Africans (what Afrikaners would refer to as English) were even discriminated against in provincial, school, national sides just because they were outside of that culture that due to a history of international migration is quite insular and resistant to outside change.

That being said, particularly in the Western and Eastern Cape, there are historically plenty of non-white South Africans that have played rugby, albeit on community levels without the same opportunities as private, rugby academies that white South Africans can afford and have been going to for a long time.
So following apartheid's fall (Which was a million times worse than having a few extra nonwhite Springboks and people are treating it like it's comparable at times in my opinion), you still have a team that is not only Afrikaner and white dominated on the national level, but on many of the provincial and super rugby levels as well.

Of course this takes time and is a very complicated issue due to access, resources, poverty, grassroots development, etc. and transformation of the national team will not solve problems overnight. But the argument is that there are still long held biases in a lot of South African teams and coaches, even if they aren't conscious biases about selecting white player over black players, and not all black players getting the same playing opportunities. This is remarked by a few rugby officials that at the school level, there are a lot more players of colour than there are in other levels of the game, and there's a dropoff at some point due to not enough opportunities, etc.

The main idea behind transformation is to show that if you expand the pool of players in SA with grassroots development, access, and more opportunities for nonwhites in addition to incorporating more black or coloured players into the squad, you won't need to pick someone over someone else based on their skin color, because the pool and talent numbers (compared to much smaller countries like NZ, Ireland, etc.) necessitate that the same level of quality is there, just in different groups, and that the national team should better reflect the country it is playing for.

That being said, picking only on merit would be great and no one would argue against that IF South Africa was a post-racial society and that a greater good couldn't be achieved by trying to create a more representative squad to overcome long-standing historical injustice. The fact is South Africa is not a post-racial society and may not be for a long time, and this is a sacrifice that people with historical privilege (white/Afrikaner) will need to make and accept and get on and over with to improve the game in the long term, as what is grass roots development or top level transformation without one or the other?

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're right, I don't want to parse the rule book looking for a loophole. So which regulation is the one you're applying to? Is there a regulation that deals with this specifically? I'm not aware of any.

Obviously the very simple answer that will be given is that the quotas are an attempting to resolve decades and decades of racial discrimination that are still ongoing throughout the sport in the country. And World Rugby will obviously accept that argument because it is entirely plausible.

WR bye law 3f requires them to
"prevent discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or groups of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason."

They need to change that, or grow a pair.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You're right, I don't want to parse the rule book looking for a loophole. So which regulation is the one you're applying to? Is there a regulation that deals with this specifically? I'm not aware of any.

Obviously the very simple answer that will be given is that the quotas are an attempting to resolve decades and decades of racial discrimination that are still ongoing throughout the sport in the country. And World Rugby will obviously accept that argument because it is entirely plausible.

WR bye law 3f requires them to
"prevent discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or groups of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason."

They need to change that, or grow a pair.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

WR bye law 3f requires them to
"prevent discrimination of any kind against a country, private person or groups of people on account of ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, politics or any other reason."

They need to change that, or grow a pair.

Transformation is a project that is entirely designed in order to end decades of discrimination against multiple groups of people. Its been pointed out before that this bye-law can actually be interpreted to support the project.

So it doesn't need to change at all. And this whole "grow a pair" "cowardice" shtick does absolutely nothing to further that argument.

Neil3030

Former Former wrote: »

The Australia New Zealand comment was a non -serious example to show how people recoil from the "wrong" sort of discrimination, which you did, but love the "right" form.

But do you accept that this goes far deeper than simply the current ethnic profile of the national side?

Taking your non-serious example, for example, I don't think many would recoil from a positive discrimination for white Australians and New Zealanders, had they been treated as unfairly as black South Africans through the years.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Transformation is a project that is entirely designed in order to end decades of discrimination against multiple groups of people. Its been pointed out before that this bye-law can actually be interpreted to support the project.

So it doesn't need to change at all. And this whole "grow a pair" "cowardice" shtick does absolutely nothing to further that argument.

You asked for the rule that's being violated.

I didn't expect you to reconsider your position.

You can argue that they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. We all want to get more diversity into the game and no one thinks the blacks of SA were treated anything other than terribly. Fair enough.

The fact remains that it's selective non-enforcement of a core rule. That's fine now but what happens when the next discrimination is less right-on?

Former Former

And World Rugby are not only turning a blind eye, they are actively encouraging and rewarding it.