I have been reading and I know that the quota system can and will never happen. My opening paragraph was addressing the subject and debate of the subject, not the implementation of the system. It will never happen but it doesn’t mean that people will stop taling about it.

The card system is in place to prevent cynical play. There are some dubious calls and some teams are disadvantaged from these calls, but imagine if there wasn’t a deterrent? There would be countless penalties and professional fouls without a team being punished.
I agree that this last series had some strange yellow cards handed out but it is in place to prevent the game getting out of hand and to keep teams within the rules as much as possible.
The card system works well and is open to mistakes as it is ultimately controlled by human beings who are susceptible to mistakes.

Stopping the clock for every stoppage of play is a false sense of “playing” rugby. Of course if the clock is stopped for a break in play and only started when the ball is in play, the time percentage will increase. It doesn’t address the problem that there are stoppages.

The clock is fine and teams can no longer waste time as the referee has been instructed to give a free kick if a team does so. Ruck ball has 5 seconds to clear and a thrower in a line out has a reasonable amount of time to receive the call and throw in. There have been a few examples of a referee telling a team to hurry up in the formation of a line out or scrum set.

The clock is fine and playing at a high pace for 30-odd minutes for a 80 minute match is hard work. Look at the active role of players in a match first before tampering with clock stoppages.

Chan Wee – The first test of the England/New Zealand match was a depleted, supposedly second string team and they took it to New Zealand. There are no excuses. Besides, the World XV featured players that were meant to be the best available and they had all been playing European leagues.
In the recent Wales match, Wales produced their best 30 minutes of rugby while South Africa produced a very poor quality game, but in the end the top team won. Not the best team, but the team that held their nerve and played on without buckling.

Weaknesses? Yes, but they were exposed without expense and now they have a chance to fix them before being made to pay for it.

It’s amazing how critical you are of only the Boks. New Zealand had to fight hard against England in the first test match and escaped, as did South Africa through a last moment try.
The Boks needed this kick up the ass and were bullied upfront. This is something that they need to work on ad I agree that Morne Steyn isn’t a hard hitting, attacking fly half. He reminds me of Naas Botha so much.
South Africa will only grow with games like these and hopefully learn from these games, but that is up to the coach. The tackling was atrocious and needs to be reworked so that the collision is dominated as it was before and this may mean dropping the old guard for the fearless tacklers coming through the ranks.
New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have faced tough tests in these tours and all three have come out on top, regardless of how they did it. These tests define the best and the best rose to the occasion.
Boks may not have been perfect but they got the job done.

I think that you may be right. He set the foundation for what flankers are today. Absolute legend.

I think that Josh Kronfeld was responsible for the rule changes that you refer to.

Pictures are selected by The Roar editors. I have no say. Sorry.

Old Bugger.
I’m with you on that – maybe I should have angled the article and “most influential”, but what is done is done.
If I were to choose these type of players I would add to your list with Pienaar, Teichmann, Smit (yes, they are South African, but so am I)
I might write another article dealing with the most influential one day.

This is a debate that resonates throughout professional sport. As you said, the players look after their financial future as they have a short time to make as much money as possible from their career.
It’s almost fighting against the tide if rugby only selects local players as professional sports have incentive and rewards for players in more lucrative markets. Even though New Zealand, England and Australia only pick local talent, they fringe players that just miss out on squad selection sign up for European or Japanese duty. Loyalty is blown out of the window: they didn’t get the nod so chased the money, instead of remaining loyal and playing harder.

The flip side to this argument is that with players leaving voids in their teams, local, developing players have a chance to shine and create something special. Handre Pollard is filling in the Bulls role nicely with Steyn’s departure and the lock stocks are increasing with local talent. There are chances created for the developing players with the more experienced players looking for a pay day. I cannot say anything about Meyer’s stubbornness for not looking at the better players in the local scene i.e. Reinach, but he’ll make his decisions and mistakes with the whole of South Africa watching him, so he is always under the pump.

I’m still 50/50 on this type of subject, but with the professional era upon us and most players not able to back themselves up with alternate forms of income, I expect a lot to look for big pay cheques before retiring or being stopped by injury.

I’ve written before that loyalty has fallen in this money-age and I expect it to continue.

I agree. There aren’t enough teams to make up a 32-nation tournament but with the expansion of Sevens, these ‘minnow’ nations have a chance at rugby glory, even it be on the short form of the game.
Most nations pour huge amounts of investment into an Olympic sport and this is the case with the Sevens being introduced into the 2016 Olympics. With rugby then reaching a larger audience with the short form, these people and nations might take up the orthodox game and then we may see an expansion of the XV-game.
Until this realistically happens, the immediate idea of expansion is a pipe dream. Maybe in the next 4 World Cups, there could be a chance of expansion.

“Running rugby” is a term that is somewhat redundant. I’ve never really seen a match where people walk – unless it’s a fatty at the end of match and there is no more energy.
The entertaining rugby is when the ball is passed wide and players probe for gaps and create a buzz in the crowd, but it isn’t always a result generating game.
Rugby is a technical game and some teams rely on the technical set pieces to set up close plays like rucks and mauls, other teams avoid the contact area and play wide and in space. Both are acceptable rugby games and both can create results.
The only time I really hear the term “running rugby” is from commentators and arm chair critics. A better term could be “expansive rugby”…?

After a number of reports that have come out, there isn’t a clear story of what is happening with Frans Steyn so I will reserve judgement for now and retract what I can from the article.
But my point remains – the national crest vs. money. Which is more valuable on a monetary and “spiritual” level?

Moreton – those are the questions that I pose. I have no answer and I fully understand that an athlete’s career or in your case, a modeling career is short and needs to be exploited.
A mercenary sells their talent to the highest bidder, so I understand if you want more money.

The current environment of the Bok camp is in shambles and is held together by these old dogs. Injuries have taken out some of the young talent that would have normally filled in the void and personal dissatisfaction has made headlines. Meyer will be truly tested against Wales with what little resources he has. His captain is out, his first, second and third choice centres are out, the depth in the scrum half area hasn’t been fully developed, his fly half depth goes as far as two men. The back line is thin but and they need help from the old guard up front.
If the World XV match is anything to go by, the old guard have learnt a lot with Bakkies now more mobile than he was before after a stint in Toulon. Matfield is still the supreme air commander, Louw and company will always be a threat. Experience counts for a lot and I think that with some players playing in other leagues, they have grown and add a dimension to the Springbok game plan.

I would support the young guys coming through, but most of the promising ones are injured and the future stars are still battling it our at the JWC in New Zealand. There is a development gap and the old guys need to see through, but there is hope.
The open game play of the recent Boks has made the difference from previous years. Kicking has become a defensive and exit tactic but when the quick ball is available, then the running begins with some awesome strike power out wide.

I know the stats – I think that there is a typo. I may have added an ‘s’ instead of just keeping the word ‘final’. They have had promise to win it all but have fallen short. This may be their year or they might fall into the same pattern.

I worry that he is on the same path as Ferris and forced into retirement due to consistent concussion problems. I hope not, but it could happen.

Every rugby nation is one-eyed and self-serving. People complain about having neutral referees, but I wonder what having neutral commentators would do for rugby? The English language commentary for the Japanese games lacks so much passion and is a neutral broadcast and it’s boring.
Having these media outlets back their nation adds to the flavour of the game. I like all three top nations commentators for different reasons but the English commentary do bug me – that includes the papers and print media.

I doubt that the English will win a game. It’s difficult for any nation to win a game in New Zealand, no matter how close they get. England need to use this tour as a guiding post for the World Cup next year and build from here.

As you say, the New Zealand conference is so evenly matched that the last three games (which are mostly local derbies) will decide the top winner. They will trip each other up to get to the top, which I think is a healthy state of rugby in the country. All teams have everything to play for and everything to lose.

That’s about the time that McKenzie was handing over the reigns to Graham. McKenzie took up the director of rugby job and gave Graham the coaching role…again this is a bit of a strange coincidence.

Chivas, I don’t really like Ewen McKenzie – neither as a player or coach but the coincidence of his departure and the form of Reds leads me to believe that having Graham as a coach is a major factor. Graham coached the Force for two years after John Mitchell. The Force haven’t been a great team until this year. Basically Graham couldn’t do a thing with them finishing 12th and 14th during his tenure.

There are back door discussions, I’m sure but speculation and wild guesses isn’t what I’m all about. I don’t believe in coincidences either, so to see the Reds begin to fall after a successful campaign with a new coach, I take it for what it is.

Bad referee calls and all the consequential stuff effects ALL teams, so get over it and look at the results and form. Cooper isn’t that good this year compared to the championship season. Genia is so far out of form that he has been dropped from the Wallabies. The Reds scrum resembles a chew toy for the bigger packs. Overall the team form is low and the belief to win only showed up in round 16.

On a side note, it amazes me how many people have commented on the Reds’ form in the comments. It seems to be a sore point for the supporters and I can understand. They have the talent to get back to the top but need guidance and correct coaching. I’m sure that the rot starts at the head, but I honestly don’t know enough of the boardroom politics to comment and write about what I see in the public arena backed with stats.

Ewen McKenzie brought the Reds out of the wilderness lifting them from 13th to 5th in his first year and then champions in their next year. They finished 3rd in his last year and since Graham took over, they’ve headed into a downward trend. People can blame the referees or injuries but those are not good enough excuses for poor form. They haven’t played well enough this year and showed signs of what they were capable of against the Highlanders, but that performance hasn’t been evident throughout the year.

Even if they make it into the play off rounds, they have the tough task of three do-or-die games and most likely will travel around the globe to play them as did the Sharks two years ago. It’s tough to play performance rugby in three weeks in three different countries and still win.

The Southern Hemisphere want to move the tours to July but the Northern Hemispheres aren’t eager at the moment. I don’t know the reason why.

I used to support the current expansion in it’s format but I can see it failing in spectacular fashion. I’m all for expansion and making the game bigger but what SANZAR are asking from potential unions is a mistake.
Articles and pieces like this one highlight the fact that Super Rugby isn’t everyone’s league and isn’t as big as SNAZAR think it is. There might have to a 7th South African team – the unions that are left out combined together, a Vodacom Cup/Currie Cup representative team???

I hope that the competition remains but the format that they are proposing has way too many holes in it to be viable.