The Orc has spoken: Saffas are dirty cheating cvnts!

[Scarfman]

GDP per capita:

14. Australia
70. Kazakhstan
80. South Africa

Fair enough. Also, if rugby is funded by fans, then doubly fair enough.

 

[PaarlBok]

The 6 year olds here have waaayyyy more choice than their counterparts in SA. In a lot of cases kids end up playing rugby or soccer in SA because there are no other choices.

Dont agree, even from my own school days we use to have rugby, cricket and what Scarf called olympics sports, athletics in nearly all our schools.

I would suggest Blue is in a better position to judge.

I never try and argue here that Blue isnt in a better position to do the comparison between the two countries, I know sweet nothing about the Aus situation but I can promise you I know a lot about the SA one. Have a passion for our schoolboy lot and was refer to his qoute that our kids dont have choises.

Its not about your balls is bigger then mine so I suggest that if you cant contribute positives to rather stay ouit of the conversation.

 

[PaarlBok]

Well .... I'm just playing devil's advocate here, mostly, but I imagine that rugby has the higest economic demand, but perhaps not the highest social demand. Maybe the majority population would appreciate some development of sports they might be more interested in. Rugby is deeply rooted in their psyche, but maybe not for good reasons.

On the other hand, if the ANC see rugby as the appropriate vehicle for the sporting development of their constituents, then I've got no problem with it.

Soccer. Huge sport. Richest league in Africa. Frightfully corrupt. May I remind you we are in Africa.

Rugby is still mainly a white sport. Can't imagine it uses too much iro government funding. The money that should go into developing other sports is not being used by rugby. Probably used to fly first class and buy new german luxury vehicles and send gifts to Bob Mugabe.

Ja would have total agreed with Scarf if he used poofball.

Perfect example is this Poofball WC. Building this mega Stadiums with tax payers money. Cape Town have Newlands they build one in Greenpoint, Durban have the Shark Tank, they build a huge one walking distance from that one , even Witbank the same story. They could have save Billions if they had just upgrade the rugby ones.

Anyway I'll go back to my first one, be it Australia or SA, if you want to grow any specific sport, you have to target the bottom end of the structure. They tend to go for the top ladder and that waisting money and quick fix while the bottom is lifetime investments.

SA should target the schools in the black townships. Dunno where Australia should target, just think about the amounts of money they waisted trying to convert League players like Sailor, Lote and Rogers and where they end up in the end. Trying to change rugby rules I dunno.

 

[Blue]

GDP per capita:

14. Australia
70. Kazakhstan
80. South Africa

Fair enough. Also, if rugby is funded by fans, then doubly fair enough.

I find your obsession with Kazhakstan mildly disturbing. Please stop.

 

[cyclopath]

The 6 year olds here have waaayyyy more choice than their counterparts in SA. In a lot of cases kids end up playing rugby or soccer in SA because there are no other choices.

Dont agree, even from my own school days we use to have rugby, cricket and what Scarf called olympics sports, athletics in nearly all our schools.

I would suggest Blue is in a better position to judge.

I never try and argue here that Blue isnt in a better position to do the comparison between the two countries, I know sweet nothing about the Aus situation but I can promise you I know a lot about the SA one. Have a passion for our schoolboy lot and was refer to his qoute that our kids dont have choises.

Its not about your balls is bigger then mine so I suggest that if you cant contribute positives to rather stay ouit of the conversation.

PB, Blue said they have MORE choices here, not that they have NO choices in SA. I am just trying to keep you on the path of goodness here - it was boring when you went away!!

 

[PaarlBok]

The 6 year olds here have waaayyyy more choice than their counterparts in SA. In a lot of cases kids end up playing rugby or soccer in SA because there are no other choices.

Dont agree, even from my own school days we use to have rugby, cricket and what Scarf called olympics sports, athletics in nearly all our schools.

I would suggest Blue is in a better position to judge.

I never try and argue here that Blue isnt in a better position to do the comparison between the two countries, I know sweet nothing about the Aus situation but I can promise you I know a lot about the SA one. Have a passion for our schoolboy lot and was refer to his qoute that our kids dont have choises.

Its not about your balls is bigger then mine so I suggest that if you cant contribute positives to rather stay ouit of the conversation.

PB, Blue said they have MORE choices here, not that they have NO choices in SA. I am just trying to keep you on the path of goodness here - it was boring when you went away!!

Go back three spaces and look in the bolded part, Cyc. I never went away but try my very best to ignore the net on weekends. :lmao:

 

[Blue]

The 6 year olds here have waaayyyy more choice than their counterparts in SA. In a lot of cases kids end up playing rugby or soccer in SA because there are no other choices.

OK I rephrase:

Limited choices if you are not privileged to be in a private school or if you are in a public school that gets cash injections from rich parents.

 

[Scarfman]

Given that I stirred a fair bit of this up, I have to admit that I was shocked by my ignorance of South African economics. Their GDP is about a quarter of Australia's, so no wonder they don't have zillions of dollars to produce winning athletes in too many areas. Even in Australia, we're looking to radically cut Olympic prgrograms, so we'll drop down the list a bit to more normal / reasonable levels.

 

[cyclopath]

Ah, yes, I misread Blue's post, or at least the second part. Fair call!

 

[PaarlBok]

The 6 year olds here have waaayyyy more choice than their counterparts in SA. In a lot of cases kids end up playing rugby or soccer in SA because there are no other choices.

OK I rephrase:

Limited choices if you are not privileged to be in a private school or if you are in a public school that gets cash injections from rich parents.

Thats more like it.

Anyway your welcome to compare. My kids go to Paarl Gym Prymary (KleinGym), who you can classified as a average public school in SA. Cost you R8,000 per annum (no school in SA may reject pupils and if you earn below a certain amount, they qualify for discounts and even free schooling in all public schools) and the school sport they present are
Summer: Cricket, Swimming, Athletics, Tennis, Tweekamp (dunno the english word)
Winter: Rugby, field hockey, netball, Landloop (road running?)
Other: Chess, ballet, karate, golf

It all boil down to coaching and we have the best, parents and old boys getting involved.

http://www.paarlgim.co.za/lskool/sport.php

We have a astro hockey track now at the High School (own funding project), so we getting there. Most kids will do two winter and two summer sports in KleinGim.

If you want me to put up the very poor (free) or very rich (R120,000 pa) I'll put it up.

 

[PaarlBok]

Look like the Orc has spoken and end up with egg on his face. :

Rugbyheaven

Waugh fears new tackle law interpretation is turning rugby into league RUPERT GUINNESS

CAPE TOWN: Waratahs captain Phil Waugh is concerned the new law interpretations by referees in the tackle have gone from one extreme to the other by excessively favouring the attacking team.

He fears that unless interpretations favour defence and attack on a 50-50 basis, contests in the game will be lost. The aim of the new interpretations is to free up the breakdown in favour of attacking rugby.

By enforcing the laws strictly, defending teams are more liable to be punished for slowing the ball down by lying over it or failing to release the tackled player. That, it is hoped, will make for a more entertaining spectacle.

Waugh suspects that with the way the interpretations have been so zealously enforced in the first two rounds of the Super 14 - where a number of players have been penalised for not rolling away in the tackle - the game runs the risk of losing trademark combativeness at the breakdown.

''The beauty of rugby union is the contest - and the contest within the contest - and the battles of the breakdown,'' Waugh, the NSW openside breakaway, said after the Waratahs' loss to the Stormers at Newlands on Saturday (early Sunday, Sydney time).

''We have to be careful that we don't get too caught up on the defensive side, only watching the defensive side [for illegal play]. At the moment, passive ball carries are getting rewarded, [and] dominant tackles aren't getting rewarded.

''I think in the game itself that we [should] reward dominant tackles, and perhaps that's not happening at the moment.

''But as the laws are applied and the competition goes on, I think that contest will become more equal.''

Waugh was clearly frustrated during the Waratahs' loss to the Stormers. He was penalised on several occasions by New Zealand referee Keith Brown, who awarded 24 penalties in the match.

On at least one occasion it appeared Waugh was unfairly pinged - late in the first half when NSW were 10-3 down, and the Stormers kicked the penalty to go 13-3 up.

He was penalised for not releasing in the tackle, but it was five-eighth Berrick Barnes who was the principal tackler. Waugh assisted in the tackle, but was on his feet for the ball. At half-time, he spent most of the walk back to the locker rooms talking with Brown.

''Passive ball carry isolated in front of our posts … We turn the ball over and it's three points to them. It's frustrating, I suppose, because it's one of the great contests of the game,'' he said, adding that he was not criticising Brown, but simply frustrated by the law's interpretation.

''The last thing you want is for the game to end up like rugby league where no one contests the ball. It seems players are getting smashed for someone with a passive ball carry. It's [about being] legitimately on their feet, release the player, have a crack. The focus … seems to be on the defensive team.''

 

[Pfitzy]

I see his point. Wouldn't have made a difference to Saturday's result, but as the attacker you are a protected breed and the refs have to make sure they're rewarding good defensive play too.