Ploegskaar offers his views on the subject of recruitment:
As another schoolboy rugby season draws to a close and we reflect on the relative success (or lack thereof) of the respective schools we support, I cannot help but be frustrated by the one constant negative, poor recruitment, that has reared its ugly head yet again this season.
First off I want to make it clear that I have no problem with recruitment per se, it has been practiced for decades by responsible schools, recruiters and parents, and because of the discretion of all involved, practically went unnoticed.
Over the past decade and specifically over the past five years, the ambitious, the bored and the vulgar nouveau riche, a motley crew of clueless novices, have also unfortunately joined the recruitment game and placed it in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.
Maybe it’s overdue, but especially for the latter group, three basic unwritten rules to adhere to in order to avoid the constant bad press:
1. Make sure that those that are involved with and driving recruitment are in it for the long run. Avoid ambitious dads, that will move on with Boetie after five years and bored businessmen, who will shift to their next goal once they’ve ticked a box.
2. Don’t recruit high profile players, don’t recruit from high profile schools, don’t recruit at high profile festivals and don’t allow any school staff to get involved with recruitment.
3. Don’t recruit players later than grade 9.
@Springkahn: I don’t believe we are overly fixated on school sports. It is just a natural progression and parents today show a lot more interest in their children’s schooling than in my days. When I was at school, parents evenings were optional for most and highly recommended for parents of the naughty buggers or strugglers. Not so today. Swimming galas – never saw any parents at my school galas, same for athletics ( although must add that these were all done during school day and very low profile) Today these events are evenings or weekend affairs.
I do agree that there is some fixation around being the best and certainly some schools have resorted to pumping up the flagship first and a teams to show this perceived strength. The really good schools are however those who have a tendency to deliver good results across all their teams – viz GCB, Affies, Paarl Gym and others.
I think Ploegskaar made a sound point here with these guidelines – not rules btw. The point is that schools are marketable entities, and whilst we would like to believe that we are filling the schools with the next generation in a long line of old boys, this simply is not the case. many first timers are looking for a choice school and, like it or not, the schools multi-disciplinary “market face’ is what prospective parents will look at. It is for this reason that schools need to attract the very best they can at the various disciplines. If the school believes that they need to recruit the best of the bunch of rugby players and that their other dsiciplines will attract natural talent, then so be it – BUT, and here is where Ploeg’s unwritten rule 3 comes in – leave it at recruiting before grade 9. Also remember that in many regions (and here I can only really look at KZN for specifics) kids from outer lying areas are often ok to do junior school at the local, but for high school look for something more high profile – which is where boarding school comes in. It is inevitable that the city high school would want to attract the very best of the farm boykies, hence recruitment as you call it.
Just my thoughts on the matter
– I agree however, don’t let the fixation of being the best run away with you and start chasing players in gr11 for next years big team build – not cool at all !!! 
@Springkahn: From your questions it is clear that your perceptions are based on poor recruitment, not recruitment according to the tried and tested unwritten guidelines that have been practiced for decades. The guidelines have always been there, they are not rules to be implemented, and the purpose of the post was a bit of free advice for the the novices to follow in order to keep out of the news/receive bad press.
The purpose of recruitment is to augment an age group team, no later than u16, while offering a learner a better educational environment, coaching, conditioning and the opportunity to be part of, or associated with, success. The latter logically provides a better (but obviously not guaranteed) opportunity for the learner to succeed, either in sports or academics, after school.
If the guidelines are followed, recruitment does not make waves, disrupt schools, sour relationships or unsettle teams. Obviously a recruiter will have gained proper knowledge of a learners personal, family and financial circumstances, and if the balance of benefit is not weighted substantially in favour of the learner, or he has nothing to gain (by way of recognition, sports or educational opportunity), the learner will not even be considered.
I pose this to the forum and look for an answer. Surely we have to start at why should we recruit? What is the real purpose of recruiting. I think it has very little to do with the boys best interests. Most recruiters will justify this but the real question is why do the schools and the coaches want to recruit? They want their schools and teams to be the best, it has absolutely nothing to do with the boys best interests. In all likelihood they had no insight into the kids back ground or environment prior to him be targeted for recruitment, so it cannot be disguised as the boys best interests. Again I beat the drum that we are over fixated with school sport and it is not in both rugby or our boys best interests for school sport to be placed on such a pedestal. we are heading in the wrong direction if we think we should create rules for rugby recruitment? We have missed the plot completely and it is akin to saying we should have guidelines for acceptable criminal behaviour. Recruitment is wrong at school full stop!!!! We will justify to ourselves and others that it is not wrong and we are helping the kids but in reality we are only helping our school results.
@akw: The Grey side was average on position by position basis except for Immelman?
Get real my friend. If they were so average on position by position basis, why then did the players on a position by position basis receive provincial contracts from strong unions? I think the scouts and most of us have seen something you didn’t.
And please specify these mercenary schools with more talent they have beaten?
As for the other point – how long have our Springboks received top coaching, also at school level. And yet the coach has to revert to the old guys – not because of experience, but because of a lack of natural talent and skills in certain positions – that can’t be trained.
Victor Matfield just have that something the other locks don’t have. The backline performs just better with Fourie du Preez at scrumhalf. Etc.
@Djou: If a school cannot address a positional shortcoming in 3 years through skills coaching or through proper recruitment in Gr 7 it is a piss-poor school to start off with.
The Grey side this year was average on a position by position basis, with the exception of Immelman, but it outperformed teams with more talent from mercenary schools.
Go figure.
@akw: Not kidding at all. But I gather then you support the fact that 6 boys can’t showcase their true potential because of 1 boy – as shown in the example.
What the replacement tells the 6 boys is that they are actually good and not mediocre – as they previously thought.
What does it tell the boy being replaced. Sorry, you are not good enough for the professional era! Nothing wrong with that – rather than making him believe he is good. That is education too!
@Djou: You are kidding, right?
Do you read what you write before you post it? The majority suffering? It is schoolboy rugby you are talking about. Please tell me what this replacement teaches the boy being replaced, and the life lessons this boy learns in the process.
@GreenBlooded: I don mean to be sinister, but there seems to be no confusion when words like “Schoolboy Rugby Powerhouses” get thrown around. Same goes for when we talk of “premier festivals” or even what the KZNers always refer to as “Tier 1 schools”. Please let’s not be anal about this. I can think of one example that is close to home of a high profile player from a high profile school snatched from a high profile festival. But I would rather find solutions than play the finger pointing game.
@Noordwes: You are way behind the curve, mate.
The gentleman’s agreement was broken long before Garsies’ emergence. And it was broken by almost all the schools. Nevertheless, I think one should as far as possible stick to Ploegskaar’s suggestions.
That was the gentlemans agreement until a kid(Garsfontein) decided that they also want a piece of the rugby pie.Now the gentlemen dont like to share the pie.
@akw: So you are in favour of the principle that the majority should suffer (not reach their potential) because of one person!
And by the way, I am not for poaching! I support intelligent recruitment in the interest of the boy – and if the school benefits, great for both of them!
And off course a school’s first priority is education – academics first!
@GreenBlooded: I disagree with you, a school’s first priority is a proper education and bowing to the expedience of poaching a player after Gr7 is unacceptable.
Interesting reading….
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11316804
@GreenBlooded: They were not previously published, nevermind discussed, because there was no need to do so. These guidelines are not rocket science to be honest, just good common sense and applied logic, that has always worked perfectly with a healthy dash of discretion added to the mix. Point is, follow these guidelines and you will not get flack for poor recruitment practice. As stated previously, not the recruitment bible according to, just sage advise (maybe because of misguided pity).
@akw: Lots of things ‘worked that way’ for 100 years. Times change. Things change. The landscape changes. In rugby terms, club rugby has all but collapsed and school rugby has come into focus as the supplier of talented players into the provincial teams. The top end of the game also went pro back in ’95. Then there is the issue of quota’s. None of those situations existed for the last 100 years. It would be naive to think that with in the context of this dynamic, SBR would remain traditional.
I don’t like it, but we need to embrace it or at least understand why it is happening. I think people like TK and TH might not be as stupid and renegade as we all think – and probably have more of an idea about running a school in the 21st century than us palookas.
@Ploegskaar: “schools in the spotlight either veered from the guidelines, ignored the guidelines or were not aware of the guidelines.”
I’m going to go with ‘were not aware of the guidelines’ for the simple reason that these guidelines are ‘the world according to Ploegskaar’ – which were hitherto unpublished and, with respect, not exactly binding. I’m going to guess that the world according to TK may differ somewhat, as will the world according to TH, Gungets Tuft, Greenblooded and everyone else. Hence the need to have a set of RULES that are AGREED UPON by everyone and contain SANCTIONS for those that do not comply and are APPLIED equally to everyone without fear or favour.
Going in circles here…..
@Djou: Tjaa boet, the gentlemens agreement worked for years, it’s hard to figure out when it broke. It might be as simple as the Post Matric era, it might have been 1995 when our rugby really started to go pro. That date might also coincide with the big rise of Model C schools and the need for schools to aggressively market themselves. Perhaps that sports science graduate doing the thesis on sport as a marketing tool needs to team up with a sociology grad to expand the scope of the thesis.
@Djou: i believe that is the way it worked for 100 years in school rugby. Can you honestly advocate buying/poaching a player because the one you have is not up to your standards?
That is such a sad state of affairs.
@Djou: You don’t have to deny if you are not/cannot be accused, schools in the spotlight either veered from the guidelines, ignored the guidelines or were not aware of the guidelines. Recruitment does not attract attention, poor recruitment does, so if you get pinged you’re doing it wrong.
@Ploegskaar: Another reason why some schools stayed out of the news, is because they denied doing it, or blaming someone else. In fact, you assisted in identifying a school in Pretoria who claimed that they are not recruiting or giving bursaries – and they were out of the news up to that point.
Basically all the top schools are recruiting not following the way suggested by you.
@Gungets Tuft: I just wanted to show that everything is not Black or White.
If nobody obeys the rules, then surely something is wrong with the punishment, or disincentive!
I do like Ploegskaar’s suggestions though, but I agree a gentlemen’s agreement will not work.
@Ploegskaar: I agree 99% with your list, but if we in KZXAN are unable to stick to a very simple 3 line set of rules, the. A gentlemens agreement is out of the question. It’s like comparing the Queensbury rules to the rules for MMA.
@Djou: I like that principle, but it’s been tried, and shades of grey here have not proved to be better. The rules laid down by the HMA have never been something to aspire to, but rather something to circumvent, via lies, deceit and dodgy tactics. There is no reason to believe that it will get any better if we just ask everyone to be nice. Our resident umgodoyi is advocating either flexible rules ( as long as you judge yourself to be safe outside the law, go ahead and break the law), or no law at all, just everyone set their own limits. That, to quote another scientist, is the definition of insanity, because if no rules being obeyed got us into this mess then how is the absence of rules going to get us out of it.
@Gungets Tuft: Once again, these are not rules to be implemented, it’s guidelines that have been followed for years by those getting it right and staying out of the news. Advies, gratis en verniet, otherwise remain in the touch-the-toes position and canvas Vaseline for a permanent sponsorship.
@akw: True, but you need to take something else into account. If boy A is scrumhalf and the best in his school, but not very good – and even coaching can’t improve him to the next level – then the whole backline suffers and their true potential is not measured.
When boy A is however replaced by the recruited boy B – who is better than A – the whole backline performs and can be measured according to their true potential.
Do you then prefer 6 boys to suffer because of 1 boy? Is that right or wrong?
I have been following this argument with interest and most posts refer to the interests of the boy.
What is only mentioned sporadically is the interests of the boy being replaced by the recruited boy, a loyal student and pupil whose interests are ignored by the school.
That is why I believe that recruiting should only be allowed in Gr 7.
@Gungets Tuft; @Greenblooded: Niels Bohr, winner of the Nobel for physics, after many discoveries said: “Sometimes the opposite of a truth is a greater truth”. So you can have a right and a greater right. The world is way too complex to see only a right and wrong.
Rules are needed to avoid complete chaos. Recruitment can be good and even better, but it can be bad or worse.
I suppose the end result will depend on the objective, the rules should inform such objective. Should the objective be “the interest of the boy first” and the assumption is made that the interest of the boy is good, the rules should be easy.
@Umgodoyi: It’s possible for some, but not for most. In the absence of a rule, who decides. In just the same way, If everyone behaves ethically then the poaching drama will never happen . But just as your safe speed is not the same as mine, so might your ethics not be the same as mine. So we make rules, and then apply them. You are looking for a way to justify breaking speed controls, so some are looking for loopholes to behave ethically. And so it will be as long as you blow the “are you saying” smoke into the discussion. Like GB I am binary, so for me there are only 10 ways of doing something, either the right way, or the wrong way
@GreenBlooded: Well, to use an apt analogy in your case, it’s a bit like officiating to the letter of the law, while still appreciating the spirit of the game. You seem to manage that, not?
Fact is, there are lesser-known schools (tier 2/3/4/5), low-key festivals (and it does not have to be festivals, think lower-tier games/lower-tier school trials), and many talented players at said schools/events that have not previously received recognition (don’t play for a top-tier school/have not been drafted into an Elite Squad System/have not played at provincial level).
@GreenBlooded: So you’d be unable to drive safely without the imposition of a speed limit??!!
@Ploegskaar: Forgive me. I was cursed with a scientific mind and a rather binary one at that. You will see this manfest in may of my posts. Things are either right or wrong, yes or no, can or cannot, true or false, zero or one.
So when someone says to me that I cannot recruit a ‘high profile’ player from a ‘high profile’ school, I need to know exactly what that means so that I don’t do it. In the absence of such a definition, individual interpretation creeps in and my CPU crashes.
@GreenBlooded: You are missing the point, these are not suggestions to be implemented, rather tried and tested guidelines that are followed by those that do not make the news about matters related to recruitment, never mind poor recruitment. But that is to my mind stating the obvious, again.
@Ploegskaar – Rule no.4 – don’t hold your breath….
@GreenBlooded: Your point is made, but it would be preferable that we could drive safely without the imposition of any speed limits! Rules are always going to be broken…..it would be great if schoolboy rugby could be run as it always used to be.
@Umgodoyi: I think you missed the point I was trying to make. If you are going to have hard and fast rules with terms such as these then you need to define those terms or you leave it open to individual interpretation. It’s the same as the distinction between “You are not allowed to drive fast on the road” and “You are not allowed to drive faster than 120km/hr on the road”.
@GreenBlooded: Perhaps he means the methods by which that high profile and well established Natal institution has recently (by that I mean the past eight or ten years) gone about its business. It has not endeared itself and should, perhaps, take stock and review it’s methods. Although this is certainly not a popularity contest a little discretion would achieve a huge amount of goodwill.
What is a high profile player? Who get’s to decide this?
What is a high profile school? Who get’s to decide this?
What is a high profile festival? Who get’s to decide this?
I would agree with most of these rules. Although not explicitly mentioned, it indirectly comes through in point 1 – make sure it is in the interest of the boy and not just in the interest of the school.
Perhaps recruitment up to grade 10 can be seconded – if it is in the interest of the boy. And both the boy and parents must agree.
Schools that recruit and then throw the boy away should they not live up to expectations should be named and shamed – in order for parents and boys to know to avoid these schools.
Perhaps a list should be compiled of such schools – and these schools should motivate why they shouldn’t be on the list.