Compliments of Jonathan Read, we have the Hilton starting line-up to play against Voortrekker (Pmb) in a warm-up game. Cameron Wright, the KZN Schools Craven Week and Sharks under-19 scrumhalf from 2012 has been named as the captain. Wright is one of the most promising young players in KwaZulu-Natal and has the attributes of a player that could one day make it all the way to the top level in professional rugby. Christiaan Wiessing, who is a capable lock and loose-forward will be the vice-captain. He will partner former Glenwood under-16A player Jayson Gouws in the second row. Another useful player to look out for is former St Davids student Nqobi Maseko who’ll operate at No.8. Maseko, who was selected for the KZN Academy Week team in 2012 but missed out on the action due to injury may be short but he more than makes up for it with strength on his feet in contact. All-in-all there are 10 returning players from 2012 with 1st XV experience. The nucleus of the team (12 players) played together in the Hilton under-16A team in 2011, providing an indication that there should already be a good team bond in existence between these boys. Perhaps the biggest surprise is therefore that there is only one under-17 player in the starting team: quality inside centre Tristan Blewett, who is a KZN Grant Khomo 2012 representative.
Hilton has a tough domestic schedule this season. Away games include Glenwood, Kearsney and Westville. Each of these three opponents looks to have at the very least marginally better teams than in 2012, a year during which Hilton lost narrowly at home to both Westville (14-16) and Glenwood (18-19) before beating Kearsney (13-6). In order to improve on the first two results, the feeling is that Hilton will have to be significantly better than they were in 2012, when they finished down in 6th place in KZN Tier-1 school rugby. However that said, a successful season in the eyes of many Hilton patriots might just boil down to how they perform against their Midlands private school rivals Michaelhouse in the two annual derbies, with little else mattering.
Team:
@beet, very well put. Can you confirm that Hilton refused to allow Marne to play against them last year.
I’m pretty sure that sometime back in 2007 when the schools decided that get rid of Post Matric rugby players, they wanted open age-group to be u18 but deemed it to be unfair to bona-fide schoolboys who were u19 in matric. So a gentleman’s agreement was made to allow u19s to play. Clearly the intention was to extend the privilege to an u19 who had gone thru the same school from junior to senior to play in an u18 league.
Fast forward to 2011, School A recruits an u18 player from outside the province specifically for rugby. He is u19 in matric. It goes against the intention of the gentleman’s agreement which was to keep rugby as u18 only but allow u19s who had spent a number of years at that school to play.
At more or less the same time in 2011, School B recruits an u17 player specifically for rugby purposes. He is a 100% KZN homegrown talent. 2 years later he is also u19 in matric. Again this goes against the spirit of the gentleman’s agreement which wanted the league to be u18 with exceptions being granted to u19 boys who were at the school all along. However by this time (2013) the gentleman’s agreement has been converted into a written and signed agreement with listed exceptions. In terms of a specific exception clause, School B’s player can play as he meets a minimum requirement condition for an u19 player, being he was at the school since Grade 10 (even tho he actually came to School B as a Grade 11).
THE BIG ISSUE: School B relied on the gentleman’s agreement to veto School A’s U19 player but while that same gentleman’s agreement was in place, School B used a loophole that was not available to School A, to ensure their recruit could play as an u19 in matric.
WHAT SHOULD BE DEBATED: should School B have acted the way they did towards School A by using the gentleman’s agreement as the backbone of their stance, when they had undermined the gentleman’s agreement themselves.
MY OPINION: if they had been more lenient in their treatment of School A, there would be no issue with School B right now.
I think that the key question is:
Did Cameron move to Hilton before or after the HMA ?
If it was before, then Hilton are off the hook.
If it was afterwards, then his case is no different from Marne’s. The difference is that Hilton have been more ” clever ” in the way they moved him back a grade.
@beet: Doesn’t the headmasters agreement refer specifically to U19’s, and say that any U19 turning out for the school has to have come through the system, i.e. have been at the school since Grade 10. I believe that is the point referred to in the Marne case and where I have been referring to in my statement.
In Marne’s case it was claimed that the parents had relocated to find a loophole, in Cameron’s case they have had him repeat Grade 10 (he would have been young for his grade anyway – yes??). The cynics amongst us (I might be a large crowd of 1 here) might be inclined to smile quietly.
I am on record (nauseatingly often) that I believe that the boys should be allowed to play, but the schools should not try and build any moral high ground. Hilton refusing to play Marne last year (did they, or was it just Westville and House?) would have been very offsides.
Let the boys play, but schools – beware your reputation and don’t try and mount any high horses. The post-matric debacle has already shown what can happen – good men lost their jobs, reputations were damaged.
@ deecee Cameron left Westville while in Grade 11. He joined Hilton in the 3rd term. Beet is right Cameron’s situation is exactly the same as Marne’s situation. Some people claim that Marne was a post matric, that is a lie. Cameron played last year, so why is it a big issue this year? I’m a big fan of Cameron and I don’t want to see his name being in the newspaper for all the wrong reasons like Marne. Again I’ll say all this talking must stop and let the boys play rugby.
@deecee: Agreed. Just like Marne, Cameron has not done anything wrong and does not deserve to be the one in the middle. Not only has he flourished at school level, he has already proven himself at the first level after school, namely u19 Currie Cup rugby. Of all the good school 1st team players around the country, probably only 10% from every year make it to u19 CC level. To get there a year ahead of time (he was u18 last year) without being full-time at an academy or rugby institute speaks volumes about Cameron’s ability and potential.
With regards to Marne, he arrived at Glenwood in about August 2011. I think if you check the records you will see that Cameron left Westville for Hilton at around about the same time in 2011, so I don’t think the predating agreements is right.
When post-matrics were phased out of school rugby back in about 2007-2008 and the open age group was defined as being u19 level for bona fide school students, I’m sure that is when the gentleman’s agreement came into being.
I think the Wright issue is somewhat different to Marne in that it is my understanding he moved prior to any agreements and went back a year as his academics were not of the requisite standard. The boy is flourishing at the school and deserves to be left alone to play the game he loves. Having said that it is a pity to see that Hilton, like many others have been drawn into offering boys scholarships higher up the school. It happens in a number of sports. The lock, eighth man and scrum half are three such examples.
@Sir Pius: Interesting. You make some bold statements and say there must be less talking? Just saying, not interested in a drawn out discussion.
I am signing out now gentlemen. Have a great season.
Beet: keep up the good work.
@kcman: It’s not that big a jump that a few extra lessons on the side will not bridge it. Two of my daughters friends made the jump in Grade 11 (Danville to DGC) and got good Uni passes. If he was managing NSC fine the jump would not have been too bad at all. It was however pretty convenient, not so?
Has anybody considered that he stayed back a year because his academics were not up to standard?
Moving from NSC to IEB is a considerable jump for kids in Grade 11. Maybe the decisions are not rugby motivated?
Talking about twins, looks like GWD U14A will have two sets this year if all goes according to plan in the van Tonder and Viljoen twins
Are there 2 sets of twins in this side ?
@Westers: I agree with you.
I was not aware of that He actually left in Grade 11. IMHO Hilton pulled a fast one by then placing him in Grade 10.
Hello gentlemen. It’s good to be back and I hope you’re having a great 2013. I’m so happy for Cameron and I wish him all the best for the season. As for Marne the thing is no one knows the story yet people were coming up with different versions. Marne should have been allowed to play last year and his case was exactly the same as Cameron’s one. I hope that there will be less talking in KZN this year and let the boys play their rugby.
@GreenBlooded: Hilton is so big, PMB will get a whiff of that smell before the HC boys do
On a slightly different note: I have heard a ‘story’ regarding a disputed contract involving Hilton and a contractor who built a whole new series of septic tanks at the school last year. Problem seems to be that the septic tanks are not working – the waste is not being bio-degraded. Heard this from a mate of mine involved in such things. It would certainly not be proper for KZN’s finest to have nasty offensive odours wafting about the most expensive educational real-estate in the country!!
@ All – One thing is for sure. There is never a dull moment in KZN and it seems the EC is catching up fast.
@GreenBlooded, I heard Marne did not stay back in high school but wasn’t sure if he started late or stayed back in junior school. Thanks for the clarity. I think both cases are dodgy and that is why I believe Westville should not allow the boy to play. If they do they are applying double standards. Let’s wait and see what happens. Maybe he will have a “rolled ankle” on the day.
Gentlemen. We can call it a whole host of things but the Hilton situation regarding players from other schools is quite openly wrong. Hilton have been the loudest as far as not playing Glenwood etc over the years but are now suddenly bringing in players from KZN schools. Westville did this a few years ago at U16 level and then refused to play Glenwood. Hilton refused to play Glenwood and now do the same thing? I see inconsistency and a lack of good ethics. Just my personal opinion.
@Westers: Marne never repeated a year. He started school a year late due to a problem with an under-developed eye if memory serves. The Wright case is far more dodgy if you ask me.
@star, with regard to your question of should Westville push the spirit issue, given the stance they took against Glenwood last year, they absolutely should. In my opinion the spirit of the agreement is the core to the agreement itself.
@beet: Hilton subscribe to the Golden Rule which states “The person who has the gold makes the rules”.
To have Wright repeat a year to “allow” him to stay within the rules of U19 but having come through the ranks is just cynical, and in my mind even worse than Marne – who was held back a year in about grade 5 or something. No respect from me, especially when they act all wounded and refuse to play against Marne.
@beet: That is the million dollar question we would all like to have answered!!
@star, I think this is a case of smoke and mirrors. He was in Grade 11 in 2011 at Westville. Why would he leave towards the end of the year and go back to Grade 10 at Hilton. I have never heard of a kid going backwards towards the end of a year. Why did he not go to Hilton at the start of 2012 and stay back a year? Simply to skirt the HMA I would suggest.
My understanding of the Marne case was he started school late or stayed back a year very early in his career. He would therefore only have played 5 years of high school rugby. Wright is now entering his 6th.
If Westville allow him to play they are applying double standards and are leaving themselves open to criticism and ridicule.
@beet: @star: Anyway I don’t want to put Cameron in the middle of this but I’d love to hear how Hilton distinguished between the 2 situations last year.
@star: I’m very much pro the HMA because in principle it closes a loophole. At the same time I would hate to see Cameron not play rugby.
However in terms of the agreement letter and spirit, I fail to see a clear-cut difference between Marne and Cameron’s cases.
@ beet- there is actually a years difference and I was told that he went into Grade 10 in 2011.I know it might be semantics but the letter of the agreement is in tact. Do Westville push the spirit issue which could go either way and have a negative impact on a talented kid? I am not so sure. Also the problem with Marne was that it was openly a professional move whereas Cameron did not go to Hilton so he could play for the Sharks. Quite the opposite in fact.
@star: How many of those flying corks on Gilfillan were aimed at you last year?
I obviously believe you when you say Hilton has a case that Cameron is not in violation of the HMA, especially after they made a fuss about Marne.
BUT examine each case for what it is.
Glenwood bring in an SA Schools prop who is u18 in gr11 when he arrives at the school in August.
Hilton brings in a player who later goes on to play Sharks u19 with distinction when he is u17 in gr11 towards the end of the school year. He repeats a grade and is then u18 in Gr11, just like Marne. Now just like Marne he did not arrive at the school as a gr10 and he is u19 in matric.
What is the difference that we are talking about here that makes these 2 cases so different. If it’s about one being a local player all along, then this needs to be incorporated into the rules, coz then it would surely have meant that in a different case along the same lines the DHS player would have stayed at Glenwood and not returned to his old school this year.
@ Greenies- I was not happy with the move by Cameron to Hilton and I think it did affect Westville’s season as he can also play flyhalf( his partnership with McHardy would have been interesting). I think it was Pius that said that he spoken to him and was comfortable with his reasons. He is also not in breach of any agreement and that was the principle involved in the Marne issue. I am on record as saying that Hilton are one of the most aggressive in this regard( with a big war chest to support it) and that any boundary that is pushed creates undue tension between schools which in turn is not good for SBR in the long run.
I’m sure Gouws will want to perform well against Glenwood as will his former team mates against him. Calvin Smith and now Gouws, maybe Glenwood should kick up a fuss about their poaching. Westville seem to be ok to with the poaching of good players like Wright. Anyway, looks a strong Hilton side that will be dark horses not to write off, pity about the strength of the rest of their teams though….
@star: No comment on the imports?
Team dynamics and leadership are so undervalued in SBR. In 2011 House had one of their worst years. Their was a lot of antagonism between the Grade 11s and 12s and very little quality leadership to deal with it. A year later that was gone and a strong core meant that games that should have been lost were won. I have a sence that Hilton has got the formula right this year. I always enjoy the Hilton v Westville game as I can swing between supporters and can enjoy champers with the Hilton okes or a beer with the Westville blokes