Tendai ‘Beast’ Mtawarira
Jannie du Plessis
The return of the 2 experienced Springbok props, Beast Mtawarira and Jannie du Plessis, are the only things that the Vodacom Bulls should take for granted about the Cell C Sharks team they will clash with in their Super Rugby derby in Durban at the weekend.
The Sharks did not train on Monday, as was the case the previous week, and at Tuesday’s training session those who watched it struggled to make out what director of rugby Gary Gold is planning for Saturday – except that the 2 Bok props will definitely be back.
No 8 Ryan Kankowski missed last week’s clash with the Emirates Lions in Johannesburg after pulling out following the captain’s practice. He is fit to face the Bulls but apparently he and Renaldo Bothma, who played at No 8 against the Lions and did well there, rotated during the training session. It is also not clear if JP Pietersen, the other fit Bok to miss the Lions clash, will be back in the starting team.
What does appear clear is that hooker Kyle Cooper and fullback SP Marais, 2 stalwart foot soldiers at the Sharks over the past few seasons, have fallen out of favour. Even though Bismarck du Plessis is out suspended and will be for another week, Cooper did not feature in the match day 23 last week – and it looks like he will miss out again for the Bulls.
Odwa Ndungane appeared to offer a different attacking dynamic for the Sharks from fullback against the Lions and he is expected to continue in that role against the Bulls.
Willem Alberts, after completing a solid 1st half performance against the Lions, is likely to continue in the No 7 jersey against the Bulls, with him and the 2 Bok props likely to be heavily relied on to offset the loss of Bismarck du Plessis and Pieter-Steph du Toit since the Sharks played the Bulls in the 1st Round match in Pretoria.
SuperSport
The Cell C Sharks
15. Odwa Ndungane
14. S’bura Sithole
13. Waylon Murray
12. Andre Esterhuizen
11. Lwazi Mvovo
10. Fred Zeilinga
9. Cobus Reinach
8. Renaldo Bothma
7. Willem Alberts
6. Marcell Coetzee
5. Marco Wentzel (Captain)
4. Mouritz Botha
3. Jannie du Plessis
2. Franco Marais
1. Beast Mtawarira
Replacements
16. Monde Hadebe
17. Thomas du Toit
18. Lourens Adriaanse
19. Lubabalo Mtyanda
20. Etienne Oosthuizen
21. Conrad Hoffmann
22. Lionel Cronje
23. SP Marais
– See more at: http://www.sharksrugby.co.za/index.php/component/articles/?view=article&id=2842659#sthash.vZOQq9k9.dpuf
Sharks (Rugby) Board gets tough:
No Play, No Pay for Sharks
“Sharks players that are suspended from rugby because of foul play will now find their wages docked…
Board chairman Stephen Saad told The Mercury that it agreed fully with the public opinion that the RECKLESS BEHAVIOUR of some of the players was INTOLERABLE. Saad went further and said that the suspensions given to the players by Sanzar were NOT ENOUGH.
We have decided that going forward there must be a policy of ‘no pay for no play’ should a player be suspended for foul play…
Saad said this would be a prerequisite in future player contracts at the Sharks and that the current players would be ‘asked’ to have the clause accepted in their contracts…
As it stands, the suspended players are on full pay. It is known that a senior Springbok can earn up to R500 000 a month from provincial and national contracts, a fortune however you look at it, but particularly if he is IDLE AT HOME because of a reckless act on the field …
88
I can’t see some of the prima donnas agreeing to this novation of contract – in the premises they may have played their last games for the Sharks. And if that comes to pass – good riddance.
@ Angostura:
Eish thats pretty much a stand most union bosses will fear to take… but what can they do?
Should also see players putting in a lot of effort regarding appeals… sjoe it is a tough one, especially when you start withholding pay from professional people and when there is inconsistency in punishments dished out.
More reason to go to Europe.
MacroBull wrote:
Let them go …
@ Angostura:
I think the possible threat of losing R100 000 a week when you know your team mate did it as well could be a threat.
I think if such a policy is to succeed then internal disciplinary action will have to be taken as SANZAR justice cant be reliable… it just has the threat of building resentment of your team mates, especially when big sums of money are concerned.
The system in principle is awesome though and a good effort by the Sharks to save face.. I am just pessimistic about the practicality of it.
Interesting,,
raised few questions:
1. Did JS agree to that decision OR was the decision forced on him?
2. Has the astute Mr Sad considered the effect on the Sharks’ commitment? did he realise that rugby is a tough contact game and referees make plenty of mistakes, let alone that circus called a ‘Disciplinary Committee’ that dishing out suspensions with bias?
Basically it’s an owner who follows the social media sentiments, repercussion from the players will follow 😉
@ Hondo:
To kick a player in the face or head has got nothing to do with commitment.. it is plain ill discipline and thuggery.
The argument that disciplinary committees are inconsistent also does not hold water. As Macrobull suggested there can also be an internal hearing before they implement the “no play no pay” policy.
@ robzim:
But Hondo has a good point about the player commitment,
if you look at Bissies tackle on Carter a couple of years ago… a good hard tackle, but it was right on the edge, we ended up paying deerly for the yellow card…. (Also look at Vermeulen’s penalized tackle on Slipper last year), could easily have ended up more seriously.
Now in addition, players risk losing R100 000 + for abrasiveness.
@ MacroBull:
That is where an internal hearing at Franchise level can be of value… it can act as another form of “appeal” and can determine whether the suspension handed out by SANZAR or even SARU is a ” no pay” -suspension or not.
Personally i support the Sharks’ board on this initiative… it might be a first for professional sport… in English premiership football for example players draw their full wages during periods of suspension..the captain of my favourite team is at the moment earning about £150,000 a week for 4 weeks sitting out a suspension.
@ robzim:
Yep it could be internally controlled, but WHAT IF SANZAR bans you 4 weeks, and internally the suspension is 1 week… that could cause public damnation and ridicule.
And in turn saNZAr could ban you two weeks but the board decides you deserve 4 weeks, and will not be paid for 4 weeks… facing damnation from the players and the fans.
Like I said, it is a good initiative in “satisfying” the public, but it a system many other teams will stay away from as it is a balsy act to get favor from supporters, but can turn on you.
SA Labour law actually staes that the terms of employment / contract cannot be changed without the specific consent of both the employer and the employee.
This indicates to me that if the players turn around and say “up yours”, they would get paid anyway.
Of course, one would hope that senior players would buy in to the larger picture and agree to the change, and hopefully modify their behaviour accordingly.
@ Scrumdown:
yep looks like that clause will only be included in future contracts.
Nothing to prevent a quality player that the Sharks may really want to buy from saying fark off with that clause as well during negotiations.
MacroBull wrote:
You are both overstating & understating the situation:
1. The risk & sanction is not for ‘abrasiveness’ – it is for suspension pursuant to proven foul play, in other words both the match day officials & a subsequent disciplinary hearing had to find that there was indeed foul play; and in any event, if the employer (the Sharks) disagrees with the disciplinary hearing’s suspension of the player, such employer does not have to enforce the contractual “no pay” term in such a case – that is the employer’s prerogative;
2. The approximately R115 000 (not R100k) per week is reportedly for Senior Springboks only;
3. And that (R115k p.w.) they earn from both national & franchise contracts;
4. The Sharks’ boardroom decision does not affect the Bok contract (for obvious reasons);
5. I don’t know what the remuneration split is between the national & franchise contract, but let us assume that it is R200k/R300k p.a. with the result that a Senior Bok will cost the Sharks, say, R69k a week;
6. So a for-foul-play-suspended senior Bok at the Sharks will stand to lose R69k (nor R100k) a week, lesser Bokke will forfeit less, & non Bokke & rookies even less, depending on contractual remuneration;
6. And for R300-500k a month, is it too much to ask that a PROFESSIONAL player learns the difference between abrasive & foul play, and then contains his temper and/or over the top & out of control aggression accordingly? I think not;
7. A professional sports person (at the Sharks) is not the only person that can & will suffer financially for improper conduct (so what’s the big deal?); in all civilized countries proper professionals are subject to disciplinary procedures and they can be fined, or their reputation (the basis of their earning power) be legally impinged, or they may even be disbarred from their profession. That goes with the territory. I you want to be a professional live up to the standard … or suffer the consequences. And even ordinary employers have rules for ordinary salaried folk. You disgrace your employer and see what happens to you (as André Watson may soon learn): Why should it be different for sports people? Why should they be Royal Game?
k^k man…
MacroBull wrote:
You really think the Sharks have not considered that?
Let’s just call ‘that clause’ part of the sifting process – either you (the prospective recruit) pass muster, or you don’t …
“Board chairman Stephen Saad told The Mercury that it agreed fully with the public opinion that the RECKLESS BEHAVIOUR of some of the players was INTOLERABLE. Saad went further and said that the suspensions given to the players by Sanzar were NOT ENOUGH.”
Are you listening, Mr Hoskins?
Next time think before you jump on your soapbox & shout your mouth off to the press. As a born-and-bred Natalian it’s understandable that you ranted & raved only because “your” teams’ players have been caught out.
Angostura wrote:
You are right.
@ Angostura:
The boardroom i am sure have considered it, but will they actively enforce it when signing marquee players? I highly doubt it.
With such a competitive market we have now here, and also from Europe and unless everyone is on board, it is like a poisoned chalice.
USA will eventually enter the market in 10-20 years in my opinion and buy up all the players.
So you have a player going to the sharks who could miss out on possibly R69k a week if he cleans out a player too hard?
McCaw last year nearly broke Marcel Coetsees neck in the Rugby Championship with no sanction, indeed NZ went on to score what would be the match winning try… bongi mbonambi, and Elstadt committed similar offences and Elstadt got a 3 week suspension, that is possibly 3 weeks without pay at the Sharks.
It leaves little to no protection for the players who are the employees from the employer.
The board can sift out the players they want, they will end up being a happy team like Japan, who everyone likes to watch, a nice clean team that are never in trouble, but will unlikely win anything of note.
MacroBull wrote:
So … to be a winning team, you have to be an unhappy, dirty team, that nobody likes to watch (kinda sounds like The Sharks SR 2015 vintage … but, oh, wait! only #9/15 on the log! eish …)
{Puzzled look on face}
Anyway, “the proof of the pudding … etc.”
@ Angostura:
No no no, to be a winning team you need to draw quality players, not try to sign players who could possibly face 2 weeks without pay for cleaning out too hard, or jumping to catch a ball and have the opposition player come off worse… Never said dirty play was A-Okay.
Dirty play like kicking a player needs to be driven out of the game and deserves harsh punishment, but not by threatening prospective players.
Somebteams have a fines system for cards it used to be 5 grand for a yellow 10 or do years ago and the money went to charity.
This is probably a neater solution.
I wonder what union rugby players will join?
SARPA
Macro you are sounding very militant today.
Have you misplaced your knobkerrie?
I doubt Oom Piet and the crowd at Sarpa will do much.
After all most jobs will give you some sort of pk when you assault a work colleague.
Look what happened to Jeremy Clarkson.
😆
19 @ MacroBull:
Look mate – this is an endeavour to (like you say) “drive out dirty play like kicking a player” – the endeavours that exist right now aren’t working – I can mention a litany foul play from non Sharks-Bokke over the years like biting, eye gouging, stamping, head butting an unsuspecting small player from behind (cheap shot), etc. – all of these incidents of foul play were as, or in some cases even more, despicable than the conduct of the 3 red carded & suspended Sharks players – it cannot continue unabated – something has to be done & the Sharks are doing it, & deserve credit, not cynicism, for it.
And as I said in the introductory post on this topic, the existing Sharks players are being asked to consent to the inclusion of the “no pay”-clause into their contracts (& that is the SIFTING PROCESS starting right there, right now), which conceivably may culminate as follows:
“I can’t see some of the prima donnas agreeing to this novation of contract – in the premises they may have played their last games for the Sharks. And if that comes to pass – good riddance.”
88
Nobody is bigger than the game, & nobody should be allowed to ride roughshod over the rules & ethos of the game …
There can be no exception to the no pay rule, otherwise it will cause even greater harm. This is the acid test.
@ Angostura:
You have differentiate between certain offenses.
For example Bismark and Frankie’s cards.
@ gunther:
Haha well just trying to look at it from another perspective, “what Could go wrong?”
@ Angostura:
This is a short term publicity stunt imo to satisfy sponsors. U less you can clearly distinguish instances of foul play from intentional cases and from recklessness it wont be successful and unless you dont have everyone on board.
This looks good, but is it practical? Does it look at the root cauae of the problem? Or is it simply remedial action?
Im just saying it has the potential to cause more problems with player relations.
27 We’ll see, MB
A publicity stunt will backfire terribly on the Sharks (they’ll lose substantial support from sponsors, players & supporters)
I can’t believe the Board is that stupid …
Of course, for it to work, they’ll need voluntary buy in from most of their existing players – I also can’t believe that the Board would make and announce this decision without first obtaining the buy-in from most of their medium- to long term contracted players … but the okes bound to leave after the RWC are not important in this from a Sharks long term perspective … the Sharks are already halfway through their dismal SR season, & it is mostly those who’ll pack up leave after the RWC who have already let them down …
gunther wrote:
Ag, ou Fransie gaan na Steekpalmwoud 🙂
why should an employer pay for a someone who is unable to do their job for an extended period of time?
Look at Nortier who spent the best years of his life at HQ blogging on Keo and terrorizing every superbru pool from the senior darts tour to disabled Jukslei circuit.
😆
Users Online
Total 48 users including 0 member, 48 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,504,212 Page Impressions
_