Andy Capostagno
Now that the Tri-Nations is over for South Africa, it’s back to politics. Never mind the fact that the Springboks finished last in the tournament, let’s get into a tizzy about players being poached by British clubs. Let’s ignore the fact that two months ago the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu) gave its permission for Joost van der Westhuizen to play for Newport. Let’s instead quote the International Rugby Board (IRB) and act wounded.
IRB regulation 49 (1) states: “No union, rugby body, club, agent or any other person or entity, whether acting on its own account or on behalf of any third party, shall induce or attempt to induce any contract player or other person who has a written agreement with a union, rugby body or club to leave his union, rugby body or club unless the written consent of that union, rugby body or club has been obtained.”
Way back in May when Harry Viljoen announced his first Springbok squad of the season, there was no place for Braam van Straaten, while Cobus Visagie was still fighting a two-year drug ban. At the age of 29 and 27 respectively, both felt that they still had a lot of rugby in them and that a season or two abroad earning pounds would not go amiss.
At the end of the Tri-Nations season Viljoen and Sarfu have belatedly seen the worth of both players and have accordingly attempted to keep them in the country. Why? Because Sarfu wishes to enshrine parochialism above talent.
It is official Sarfu policy that no player who plies his trade outside South Africa may be considered for the Springboks. When questioned about this restrictive practice, the identical policy of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) is invariably used in vindication. Again the question has to be asked: why?
In the early 1990s the NZRFU was worried about the number of players it was losing to the Japanese leagues. It got very high and mighty right up until the point of selecting a team for the 1995 World Cup. Around that time there was a dearth of scrumhalves in New Zealand, so the NZRFU turned a blind eye and summoned Graham Bachop from Japan.
And in case Sarfu should protest that it could never happen here, the South African team for the 1999 World Cup included Fritz van Heerden of Leicester, Brendan Venter of London Irish and Jannie de Beer who, in the official media guide to the tournament was described as “unattached”, having recently left the employ of London Irish.
So why does Sarfu insist on making an issue of all this? Are we really such an insular race that we believe nothing good has ever come out of Europe?
Back in May Viljoen said: “Players should be given the opportunity to broaden their experience. Instead of playing against the same players in the same environment week after week, why don’t we give them the opportunity, if it will give them new life, to go and play overseas? As long as we have first choice and don’t lose control. What we need is flexibility with control.”
In other words, if Lucas Radebe can be released by Leeds to play for Bafana Bafana once in a while, why can’t Visagie and Van Straaten be released by South Africa to play for Leeds?
Too much emotional baggage is being carried along the corridors of power. Those who have never forgiven Francois Pienaar and Joel Stransky for opening the floodgates to England need to remember that you can take a Springbok out of South Africa, but you can’t take South Africa out of the Springbok.