KwaZulu-Natal is unique in a sense because it has a Headmasters’ Agreement (HMA). Amongst other things this regulates the participation of under-19 rugby players.
The desire of the agreement with regards to rugby is to eliminate the opportunity for post-matric type players to once again enter the fray.
In all provinces in South Africa including KZN, under-19 boys are allowed to play school rugby.
However I’ve found that it’s easier to understand the KZN situation if one assumes that open age group rugby is reserved for an under-18 age limit and that by privilege not right under-19’s are permitted to play.
One of the terms of the Headmaster’s Agreement states that an under-19 must not be a Grade 12 repeat.
This exception is extremely important in the specific and unique case that has come up recently.
Other background information worth knowing is that generally KZN schools do not permit Grade 12 (matric) students to repeat the grade. I’m not sure if this is governed by law or by the individual schools choice but I know that Westville, Kearsney and Glenwood adopt this approach. Also schools hold dear their 100% or as close as possible to 100% matric pass rates, which surprisingly is still a marketing tool used ever though there are other far more important academic indicators for prospective parents to seek and rely on before making choices on high schools. These two factors result in a lot of pressure being placed on students to pass matric at their first attempt.
Anyway with all this in mind, here is the case.
- It involves an above average rugby player at Westville.
- He holds down a 1st XV place for part of the 2014 season and earns a fair number of caps.
- He is under-18.
- This is his second year of open age-group rugby.
- At the start of the 2014 academic year, he is in Grade 12.
- During the course of the academic year he decides to go back to Grade 11.
- He will therefore be under-19 and in Grade 12 in 2015.
The HMA in this regard again: under-19 must not be a Grade 12 repeat.
Strict application of the HMA means the player will not be allowed to play any rugby in 2014.
However since the agreement is only binding between KZN schools, it means the player can still turn out for his school against schools from outside the province, which could be as many as 50% of Westville games.
The topic of matric repeats was raised at a recent KZN headmaster’s meeting and it’s unclear where the matter now stands although its highly likely that nothing would have changed.
The boy’s parents now have an option to accept the HMA or pursue a legal route to contest the HMA on the basis that it denies a bona fide school boy who is within the prescribed age-limit the basic right to participate in the sport of his choice, at the level at which he is most proficient. If they win, KZN schools will have a difficult maybe impossible time enforcing the HMA.
@GreenBlooded: @Gungets Tuft: @beet: As far as I know, no school has ever had an issue with Kingswood or any other school using post matrics. Largely because the big boys’ schools have themselves used them (Dale last had a post matric class in 2001 for example). Reasons for most of the schools discontinuing the PM classes had nothing to do with rugby, but merely each schools’ change in policy, mostly because parents complained of exactly what GB has brought up in his post. For some, it was a matter of just not wanting to direct resources to the programme.
That said, I am against the PM policy, unless a kid stays back to purely focus on improving his marks. But if you want to play sports, join a club.
But to clear it up, there is no “No Post Matrics” policy in the EC, and there is no school with an issue with another. Which is where the problem lied in regions where this is not practiced anymore.
@beet: Who plays against them – and do they condone it?
OK – concede it’s wrong to paint them all with the same brush, but why do the others put up with it?
@Gungets Tuft: I think that’s a misdirected comment. Only 1 school as far as I’m aware has PM in the EC region and it’s the kind of school that once kids get there they love it so much that they never want to leave, so its not their boys who can be bracketed as being disloyal. Kingswood themselves have had their issues with being accused of poaching from another EC school.
Anyway KCMan who can confirm that I’ve been anti their use of PMs for a few years now will hopefully fill us in on why the practice of using PMs is tolerated. I believe it’s along the lines of SARU’s decision being a recommendation rather than a rule and it being up to the individual unions to enforce.
@GreenBlooded: Ja, and it adds another dimension to the complaints from the region when their players respond to poaching attempts and leave – because it’s hardly the way to encourage player loyalty. And someone has just taken a bulldozer to some high ground in the EC.
When it comes to schoolboy rugby I guess nothing is ever as it seems. Using tertiary students at school is Ed Zachary what caused all the trouble in KZN to start with.
@beet: I’m with Gungets on this. Maybe we have a similar OCD prescription?
If there are rules then the rules must apply to everyone – no special cases. Otherwise there must be no rules and it’s a free-for-all. Anarchy will reign and I for one will take to spending my Saturday’s on my MTB.
There is so much wrong with this. How different is it for the displaced boy who has spent his entire career waiting for his shot in the 1st team jumper is he gets displaced by a Post Matric from another province or a Gr11/12 recruit? Many of the moral/ethical arguments applied to the recruitment debate apply here. Again – it’s not directed at anyone. I’m just shocked that it’s allowed and that the folk down in the EC are so cool with it.
@GreenBlooded: I’ve tackled a Kingswood old boy on this and it has come up on the blog before re: their use of post matrics. It however seems that in the Eastern Cape, the use of post-matrics is acceptable. Kingswood have a series of traditional fixtures in their region that have been unaffected by their use of post-matrics.
Noord-Kaap is another school that made use of post-matrics (may still do) and this was covered in a report about their fallout with Diamandveld over the player’s eligibility for a game.
Last year I asked SARU for a copy of the Post-Matric legislation which was meant to be enforced nationwide. I did not get a response.
It occurred to me that if it’s not a mainstream school involved, the practice is acceptable
Case in point – Bishop’s overseas matric which essentially resembled that of a bona fide matric accept that boys studied towards and wrote A-level exams. However the W Cape moved swiftly and Bishops was frowned upon for allowing these players to play. I think one or schools even objected to the boys playing.
Kingswood and Noord-Kaap using under grad tertiary education students but not drawing much attention.
@Buffel: But it’s always the exception that tests the rule, and the fine lines that divide.
1. A top class player lives in Klerksdorp, been a GK and CW player (Gr11). His folks (legitimately) get transferred to Durban. He joins Glenwoodand his school career is over due to the rule of having had to be at the school for 2 years. Patently unfair, so an exception gets made because of the forced move. He likes it so much that he convinces a mate to also move. So the second lightie moves, and his dad organises a smoke and mirrors “transfer” to the Durban office of the company he works for.
2. Real life scenario – your boy, born with perfect timing for rugby on 2nd January, just 11 days later than a kid at the same school. One can play CW, the other may not. Accident of birth, one kid gets more opportunity because he is up to a year older than his team mates. Do you compromise, or is the 1st January just the date, and such is life. Whats wrong with the 7th November as a cut off date, or 20th May, or the first day of the 2nd Term of every school year?
The HMA is quite clear. My understanding – I don’t have acopy but can get one.
1. If you repeat Matric and are U19 in the 2nd year of matric, then you may not play. If you do one term of matric and decide to move down a gread, then you are repeating matric the 1st day you walk into school the following year. If you say that one term, or two, is acceptable, then whats wrong with 3 terms, or even 4, as long as you don’t write your matric exam?
2. If you arrive at a school in Grade 11 or 12, then you may not play in your U19 year, unless you can prove (properly prove – and I suggest a FICA proof – if it’s good enough for the banks and the tax man), that your family has moved.
It just means that you need to plan Wrig … er .. properly. Move in the last week of Grade 11, spend that final week twiddling your thumbs in Grade 10 at your new school, then repeat Grade 11.
Age tests – good luck with that. My views – settle on an age verification process, appoint an independent agency to provide that verification. I believe this is getting easier and easier.
1. Hospital records of birth
)
2. Medical Aid claims records
3. Newspaper announcements (I would be in the poo, we changed my son’s name after already printing the newspaper announcement, but I am sure most parents are not as ADD as us ..
4. Birth Registration – it’s the law, and it is also necessary for social grants.
5. Innoculation records
6. Absence of at least 2 of those, then a medical verification.
7. Publication of agents names for moves. A ban for them if they don’t do their jobs properly.
If age cannot be verified then the kid is restricted to a proven age group – verified by whatever records can be proved. But my gut tells me that once the age verification process is agreed then parents and agents will stop trying it on.
But I stick to my statement – the more rules we have, the more loopholes we introduce for exploitation. The unscrupulous will carry on doing what they do, and find a grand explanation for doing it. That explanation will always have something to do with uplifting communities, lifting standards, elevating the skills of whole provinces (eeisch, that’s noble all on it’s own, especially because there’s no school benefit
).
Make it U19 and the drama just shifts up an age group. I don’t care either way, but make sure the rules can be reliably imposed.
And in KZN if your boy joined a local school and played as he could apparently do at Kingswood, that’s called post-matric, and it’s what caused all the trouble to start with. That statement on it’s own should prompt an investigation into rugby in the EC WRT age and elligibility …
@Buffel: “My son is going to the E.P. Kings and as a study option can be enrolled at Kingswood and play in the school competition.”
I am dumbstruck!! Not at the specific case of your son – but that this is actually OK with everyone.
@Buffel: What happens if the poached player who is U19 plays for the second side?
@Gungets Tuft: Just saying it should be an U19 comp like the rest of the country. My son is going to the E.P. Kings and as a study option can be enrolled at Kingswood and play in the school competition. He will be 19 as of the 2 Jan 2015. He won’t be taking up this option as he is going to NMMU but it is there . No grey areas.
It is too complicated here .
Once again- 1. no boy can be poached in his grade 10,11 or 12 year. He needs to be at the school a full 2 years before consideration for the senior 1st XV. 2. Birth certificates need to be verified as true and correct to avoid 20-23 year old’s playing against schoolboys. Get that right then it should clean up the issue for the HMA.
And apologies, info clarified, one and the same.
@Buffel: The HMA Is clear, conform, simple. If the tenets of the HMA are not adhered to it is not longer an agreement or a set of rules, but rather a selectively applied set of penalties. White ant the foundations and the house comes crashing down.
And I think Umbiloburger might just be right, there is confusion out there as to who the boy is because there is more than one – at least that’s the info at my disposal. Rumour and conjecture, no names, no pack-drill.
@Gungets Tuft: If he is of age then let him play. The country must be standardised. U19 or U18 ,which will it be.
I think KZN must conform to the rest.@umbiloburger: Not really- this boy is a very talented cricketer and given the right breaks by the school would surely play at provicial level.
I have been in touch with people in the know and his marks have improved drastically. From a fail in some subjects to an A pass. I think the right call was made by the boy. Yes, it was his decission to go back after trying desperatly to make the grade in class.He has not transfered from another school in grade 10 or 11 nor have his parents been transfered from Pretoria to Durban as in some cases. They are Westville people through and through. Wright was allowed to play-let him play for Pete’s sake.
@Buffel: We seem to only be focussing on the rugby player, and I understand that is a rugby blog, but perhaps we can get clarity from Scrum Doc on how many boys were sent back to Grade 11. I’ve heard 1 more than several have gone back!!!!
@GreenBlooded: I hear you, but that doesn’t happen when your swim coach uses the school pool and is a member of the schools pay roll.
.
@Buffel: How will you handle another boy that perseveres for his matric year in hope, but gets poor marks and repeats. Can he play, and what is the difference?
@Pedantic: So what you are saying is that when he started playing the local season he was officially a grade 11 boy. I think that gives his grievance a lot of credence.
grade 10. Work with what you have and if you have not done a good enough job at recruiting then so be it.
The rest of the country play their schoolboy rugby at U19 level. Why must we be different.
My spin on the whole saga would be to let the boys play if they are 19 in matric but CW remains an u18 tournament. Also no boy can represent their school if he transferred after grade 10 but under special circumstance, get the approval of the headmasters if there is a genuine case to be heard. No recruiting of boys from
As far as representative sport is concerned, an u19 boy can challenge for honours in the various u19 tournaments that are held around the country as did Mr.Wright of Hilton. My case is closed on the subject.
@umbiloburger: There is a huge difference between the Northwood waterpolo player and the Westville rugby player. He is actually U17 this year (was a year ahead) and his grades are not what they should be. The decision to drop back to GR11 this year had nothing to do with waterpolo at all – he received sports bursary offers from a number of institutions. But he needs better grades. He will be U18 next year.
@GreenBlooded: I understand he did the 1st term in G12 and went back to G11 from the start of the 2nd term.
@Buffel: When ‘common sense prevails’ – subjectivity is introduced and anarchy results. And having read a lot of bloggers comments on this issue and others – the criteria used by most for ‘judging each case on it’s merits’ is becoming abundantly clear!!
There must either be rules, application and sanction OR there must be no rules, anything goes and no bitching and whining.
I’m less interested in the specific case of this boy (an unfortunate victim of circumstance as were many of the others if you ask me) than I am in the consistent application of the rules although I am intrigued with one small detail: at what point in the year did he decide that he was going to have another go at Gr 11?
@Buffel: Marcel is a terrible example. He turns 19 in December so officially will never be 19 at school, he will have left before his birthday. But for a few weeks he would have been in the frame for CW, but wasn’t. He has not repeated a year, he has been at College from Grade 8. If he had gone to school when he was “elligible” he would have been up to a year younger than his peers. In fact, just a year before he started school the government made it law that he was not allowed to go to school as he was too young. My daughter, one year older, was prevented from starting school as she had not yet turned 7 (May baby).
Wright is another ball game completely – and Hilton used exactly the same explanation as the Westville boy is using. I could give a rats actually, I find it quite amusing that Westville is being hoisted with their own petard – who would have expected the wheel to turn this quickly. I feel for the boy, I did for Marne, victim of crimes commited years ago. The main issue is – should a legal challenge invalidate the HMA, what manner of beasties we will let loose, should we have to rely on the good intentions of school rugby administrators. I am not filled with happy thoughts. The schools in target zones will be upping their security.
@Pedantic: You hit the nail on the head. It was through poor marks that he has decided to go back. At Glenwood you have many examples of u19???? boys playing, who have been brought into the school at grade 10 and above. But this boy has been through Westville senior primary onto the high school and has represented his school with pride only to be vilified because his marks are not up to scratch and his parents want him to get a good matric pass. Sorry, Marcel Coetzee is how old- Wright was how old. Come now guys. common sense must prevail.
To be honest-I think his goose has been cooked and the way forward is for him to complete his schooling and play his sport at club level. As a top class cricketer he will shine at club level and rugby to him is an enjoyment that he can do at club level too, if he so wishes.
@GreenBlooded: Not a concern in the Border as all the major rugby playing high schools have primary schools as feeders. If you’re at Cambridge Junior and you’re 14, you get yourself a pair of socks and boots, and trek to the high school fields.Whether you’re going to that school for your high school matters not.
@umbiloburger: I can’t think of a worse place to try and further a swimming career than the school system. The school events are always relay events – never individual, and the school coaching can never match that from a decent swimming club. If you want to be the next Chad, train hard with your professional club coach and pull on your school costume and swim the galas for them when required. I know the pro coaches don’t like the school swimming season at all. Or rugby season. Or anything else for that matter. I have personal experience of one coach who schedules his squad training sessions from 15:00 to 17:30 every day – the idea being that he only works with serious swimmers who don’t (can’t) do any sport for their schools.
@kosie: The situation with U14 boys at primary schools is a difficult one. Primary school is age banded as U13 and there are major issues with boys playing for the high school. I feel sorry for the guys – as a referee I’ve have on more than one occasion had to stop them running onto a field. Not good – always tears, often a pissed off old man waiting for me afterwards.
The following problems are associated with boys playing for a High School:
1. Objections from parents with registered boys being displaced in teams by kids who are not students at the school.
2. The high school that the kid plays for while at primary school may not end up being the high school he ends up attending.
3. Logistics of getting the kids between Primary school and the High School.
4. “In loco parentis” issues.
It’s a difficult one. High schools adapted to exactly the same issue by extending the age band to 3 years – but this is not an option at primary school. Around the U12/13/14 age group is where puberty strikes – and the difference between an U12 and an U14 is often enormous.
@kosie: Finding an ideal situation is difficult.
Let me try rope in some advice from a couple of experienced primary school coaches in KZN and come back to you.
@beet: What happens to a kid in primary school who is U/14 for what ever reason? If he is A team material he goes and plays for a High School, with consent of the two Head Masters. If he is not A team material he plays B team. A Head master from a well know primary school said that that ruling is a big headache for him as well as it could lead to serious injury as an U/14 kid play against an U/12 kid. The difference is just too big between the 2.
I am talking from a Noordvaal perspective. This brings me to the point that we should rather pin the playing years to 10 for school kids. If you started school late for what ever reason, you can still play for 10 years U/9 to U/18 at school. Your playing days will just start a year before your peers, but then also end a year before your peers. Why must a some kids, for what ever reason, have the opportunity to play for 11 years and others only for 10.
Strictly speaking, the boy is not repeating G12 as he never completed G12 – I would also be interested to know if he actually participated in the 1st XV as a G11 or G12? The Wright timing so to speak …
This case can hardly be compared to Marnegate or the Wright way as the boy has been at Westville all along.
If I was a parent in this situation, I would also be looking to challenge the HMA – if he was struggling, they did the right thing for the boy by holding him back in G11 and there is no way he should be denied the right to participate in his final G12 year.
@Scrum Doctor: The u19 topic is one that is still being debated. Recently the Noordvaal schools had their say on the matter for their cup competitions.
The Western Cape and Free State schools still list their teams as u19A, B, C etc so a very different vibe there about the acceptance of u19s.
Personally I feel that u19’s should be allowed to play SBR but I praise the HMA and those uphold it because it does try to ensure that u19’s playing SBR in do not have the “huursoldate” tag.
One must also bear in mind that for any top notch rugby player who is considering pursuing a career in rugby after school, being u19 at school is the worse possible situation to be in. While his peers are full-time pros at a rugby institution, he is stuck in a classroom for half the day and playing at a lower level of competitiveness. In the past that lost year was one that those types of players never caught up. Fortunately things are gradually changing to accommodate these types of u19 players.
If we really believe that it was his school marks that were the reason for going back to grade 11 then I cant see any responsible parent letting him put in the hours that are required for playing 1st team as he obviously cannot afford the time which would be better spent studying towards a good matric pass. I suspect there might also be a few more !!
As a result of this issue I would like to see the HMA adjusted to allow u19’s who don’t meet the set criteria to play in rugby team no higher than the 2nd XV, provided they have been at the school since Gr.10 . Not letting them play rugby altogether is just to harsh.
They make use of a similar rule in the Noordvaal Tuks-Reeks. U19s are not allowed to play 1sts but they can play 2nd XV. It’s not to say 2nd XV rugby isn’t important but in relation to the A-team emphasis, it ranks behind u14A in level of importance to those who follow SBR.
@GreenBlooded: Building on what you’re saying, I’m would have expected WBHS to inform the parents and boy of the consequences of going back to Gr.11 at the time of the decision-making. As I understand it, this was not the case. The aggrieved party were led to believe he would be eligible to play rugby.
@umbiloburger: I am not sure whether the HMA covers all sport or just rugby – but I agree, the principle remains the same.
I must confess that the thought of a swimmer or polo player repeating a year just for school sport boggles my mind, hockey would be the same. These are all self-funded sports, it’s not as if the kids stand to make millions getting picked for national teams. I have a friend who had 2 daughters playing hockey, 1 for the Boks, 1 as a reserve. They stopped playing because it became unaffordable, so much was self funded. Would be a better idea go overseas and do an A-level year there under a scholarship and play club there, or go to a sponsored College in the States and swim. Hockey – go to Germany or Holland – even their club players make money. Eeisch … I dunno, perhaps someone can explain the logic to me … but if it is just the school marks, then out of duty they should be stopped from playing sport to put their academics right.
@Gungets Tuft: This is another loop hole that has been unearthed and shut down. Westville aren’t alone in this as I believe Northwood have done the same with a provincial water polo player. @GreenBlooded: this article mentions the rugby player, but there are other sports involved, like swimming I am sure.
@Redblack White: Pandora’s box.
When he played his last match for Westville this season, as a matric boy, that was it. If they make an exception for this then there is no rule, there are just cases that need to be referred to a forum for approval, with no terms of reference. The exception will become the rule.
The school, under legal duress, might well agree to pick him, but there is no rule, and no law, and no legal challenge that prevents the other HMA school from withdrawing if he plays against them. Then Westville will need to contemplate the damage to morale done by changing the First 15 week in and out to accomodate the boy.
There’s a Wright way and a wrong way to do exactly this – this is the wrong way, left it 8 months too late – 25th November 2013 would have been the Wright time.
This is going to be a never ending discussion ! What is the point of having an agreement if you only want to apply parts of it? Stick to the rules or scrap the agreement – the choice is clear . People are finding ways around this agreement anyway so just as scrap it and LIMIT SCHOOLBOY RUGBY TO U 18 ONLY
@Buffel: @Redblack White: Let the kid play is fine – but let’s not forget that the self same school kicked up a stink to the point of refusing to play when another U19 player appeared in the 1st XV of another school under dubious circumstances. We can’t start tailoring the HMA to suit each case. And it definitely can’t be a case of “Well that player was very very very good and this one is only very good” either – because that will open another can of worms and the region of Grey will get challenged on each successive case. What was agreed on must be stuck to – by all parties and in all cases. Until it gets taken to court……..
Each case should be treated on its merits though – wise parents to let the boy repeat Gr 11 now rather than wait for a debacle to happen. Chances are they would rather let the bloke get the marks and no court challenge will happen. But surely the signatories to the HMA can agree on the merits of this case.
Sure, if suddenly 6 of your first team need to repeat because of poor grades there will be issues, but I’m inclined to go with Buffel here – let the kid play.
@Buffel: Nope. The age of the boy is the age he turns during the calendar year in question – by what you have said (18 years until Oct 2015) he will be U19 next year. If he was born is 1996 – he will be U19 in 2015. If he was born in 1997 – he will be U18 in 2015.
@Beet: “generally KZN schools do not permit Grade 12 (matric) students to repeat the grade.” – another ruling begging to be challenged in court I would think.
@Buffel: He turns 19 in October next year.
The age groups work on calendar years.
There is no distinction between the boy born on 01-Jan and 31-Dec. He will be u19 next year.
I know the boy and family well and as far as I am know will be 18 years of age as of October 2015. He is still 17 and went back to grade 11 because of poor marks this year. There is no altenative reason for going back to grade 11.
So the rules state that the boy needs to be 18 years of age when the rugby season is concluded. What seems to be the problem. Let the kid play.
Interesting. With our very liberal constitution, I have my doubts that the HMA would survive a court challenge. Can the school be forced to allow the boy to play? Probably yes. Can they force the school to pick him in the First XV? Probably not. Can a court ruling prevent schools from refusing to play matches against schools in protest? Probably not. If it goes to court and wins – it will be a free for all again.
Interestingly, the U19 problem was contemplated in the Boksmart Age Banding Regulations – it is the only 3 year age band. The others are all 2 years.