What's the Policy on the Boks for the CC finals

No 'contracted' Springboks allowed which is a bit farcical since Pat Lambie who got splinters from the Bok bench all season is not allowed to play, but wunderkind Handre Pollard has been released to the Bulls.

Same with the somewhat useless JJ Engelbrecht (who has been playing for the Bulls all season) had to be withdrawn, while Jan Serfontein is allowed to play.

Cant be sure, but it seemed this suited the agenda of the powers that be considering that this approach provided a radical boost to the Bulls but really did nothing for anyone else. As I say - could be pure coincidence but seemed very 'convenient'.

Put it this way, Heyneke Meyer who has been dramatically outspoken about the use of Springboks by the provincial unions was very quiet when the Bulls picked an injured Handre Pollard - the incumbent Bok flyhalf !

SARU pays part of the salaries of the contracted players, thus giving them part of teh "control" over those players. Handre Pollard is still under contract with the Junior Boks and does not have a Bok contract.... yet. He was not in the picture when the last round of Bok contracts were signed. The only ones who have "a say" in Handre Pollard, at this stage, are the Bulls, the Blue Bulls (there is a difference) and Dawie Theron (until Pollard's Junior Bok contract runs out).

Everybody has forever been complaining when only certain contracted players were released. There was always this squealing about certain unions being screwed, etc. This time around there are no "grey areas". No contracted Bok is allowed to play in the CC. Finish and klaar. That is the best way to go, IMO. If you want to exclude the non-contracted Boks, you have to exclude all Boks from playing in the CC. Think about that impact.

That would remove Dean Greyling, Werner Kruger and Bandise Maku from the Blue Bulls.

The Sharks would loose Lourens Adriaanse, Jean Deysel and Tonderai Chavanga.

Almost every union would loose a few players.

The WP would, for instance loose Juan de Jongh. Can you imagine the crocodile tears?

Ceradyne - I completely agree with you however this is not to say that this policy doesn't suit certain unions this particular year. From being openly outspoken about unions utilising certain 'critical' players, Heyneke Meyer was suddenly very quiet when the Bulls selected Handre Pollard who is carrying an injury.

I hope the bone that Meyer's head is made of is porous enough that he has at least thought of the repercussions of serious injury to Pollard in light of a certain tournament that is scheduled to happen next year. Both WP and the Bulls, full of hot blooded youngsters with more testosterone than brains will kill themselves this weekend to get their team into the final. Lets hope Pollard doesn't suffer a broken leg or something like that. I am quite sure this rock solid policy would come into question then.

All I am saying is, there are still undertones of provincialism in Springbok management which is ultimately not good for SA rugby. It existed before and it still does until today. Nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

Currently the policy of release no contracted Springboks seems like it negates the possibility of provincialism or any other kind of 'ism' however, there is of course another approach to this. Release ALL players to their unions and live with the fall out. They are rugby players after all and they were contracted to their unions before they were Springboks too.

 The so-called undertones of provincialism is, IMO, between the ears of supporters. I cannot for one moment believe that anybody would accept the job as the national coach and then jeopardise himself by giving in to provincial favouritism despite the possibility of failing in his own vision and mission.

 Mozart
All the above why there is one policy only, namely  those players with Springbok contracts will not be allowed to play in CC matches.  
Those players without such contracts is released from the Springbok squad.   There is a training camp next week - and if the Bulls for instance lose tomorrow - the Bulls players in the Springbok squad will be released to attend the camp - like happened also with three Cheetahs players.   The same applies to the other team losing the semi-final on Saturday.
Incidentally JJ does have a SARU contract - even though he was not in the latest Springbok squad  - that is why he had to be released from the Bulls team.  

Its impossible to prove or disprove, and would create a circular argument of epic proportions that I am not willing to engage in at this stage.

It obviously makes sense that a coach would not risk their career for favoritism however there are more than one example I can give you where favoritism has occurred and has impacted a coaches career. Almost like a moth to a flame, they simply cannot help themselves.

Go ask Nick Mallet - he will tell you all about it. Go ask him about the test vs. England that had South Africa on the cusp of breaking the world record for most consecutive wins. He took such flack before that game for including Percy Montgommery before Andre Joubert. Monty did not have a good game but because of a hard head, he sat and watched South Africa go down against England with a fit Andre Joubert sitting on the bench. He made a similar and even worse error prior to the world cup in 1999 when he replaced the then most successful Springbok captain ever with a young, and partially injured Bob Skinstad. Mallet himself has admitted this was his biggest error ever so no mystery there.

The biggest impact on the team was in fact not the exclusion of Gary Teichman but the sour taste it left in the Natal players mouths nearly resulting in a walk out. Because of this clash of wills and egos, Mallet then refused to pick Honiball. Of course he was vindicated by Jannie De Beer kicking 5 drop goals against England but when drop goals couldn't win it for us against Australia, he refused to replace De Beer with Honiball.

For the record - I personally value Percy Montgommery as one of the best Springboks of all time. That sentiment is not shared by many.

You might believe otherwise but I believe provincialism has played a big role in Springbok team management and continues to do so.
 
But as I said - there is too much conjecture, coincidence and rhetorical argument and of course PROVINCIALISM to make this an argument worth having. I would give it an hour or two and the insults will be flying. Especially in the company of South African rugby fans.

 Ceradyne
Meyerstarted off badly in 2012.   He himself said he made a mistake in seletions by selecting players he is familiar with and he stuffed the squad up with Bulls players.  However, since them he has changed his mind and there is not much provincialism in his selections left.   However, he still has some players he is familiar with  in his latest squad - eg Morne Steyn, Steenkmap, Botha and Matfield.  However, it is unlikely they will last much longer.   

 Ag FFS, when are you going to accept the context in which that statement was made. You must have heard/read/seen it explained to you hundreds of times. Even by HM himself at the time.

 C eradyne
You have now finally acheved the second "o" in your regular sdesignation and only the "s" remains - and that because of rank stupidity.
There is no expanation necessary and Meyer did not explain it himself.   You must have tried to get an explanation for teh 14 Bulls players that was in and out of the squad in 2012 - and most never re-appeared in 2013.   
I know it is hard for the brainless like yourself to understand it - but he obviously referred to all players - the Bulls being in the vast majority.   S h!t - but you are dumb!!!!! 

Meyer doesn't need players he is 'familiar with' - he needs players that will say 'Ja oom, nee oom' when he talks.

This creates a clash of egos with any player that likes to think for themselves. I will concede that a renegade player who goes about opposing the coaches vision and game plan is also not a positive but just like Nick Mallet, Meyer will not tolerate players who ask too many questions.

Hence a guy like Frans Steyn had to go, while a few 'ja oom' guys like Bakkies, Victor and Morne had to be retained. Its classic. You know in traditional Afrikaans homes in Pretoria children are seen - not heard.

John Smit was lucky his era ended before Meyer became coach. That would not have worked.

 The word 'A f r i k a a n s' cant be used on this blog ? LOL...

Nee jong, is dit 'n vloekwoord ?

 Sharkey
As far as I know and is public knowledge Meyer was not directly involved in the Francois Steyn outburst.    He could have been indirectly because I do not think he would have selected Steyn for his match day squad based on his performances for the Sharks this year - which generally was on the lower side of average,  with some poor elements in it.  
I would not be surprised if that was not in fact the case.   The match day squad was to be announced on the Wednesday and by Tuesday evening the players would have had a very clear idea whether they were in or out.   Steyn's departure happened late on Tuesday and the final straw in his case could easily have been his ommission from the match day squad.    Mind you there is virtually noo chance that Steyn would be called up to the squad again - his style of play does not fit in with the expansive game Meyer has set his heart on.   

Expansive game plan ?  Are you pulling my leg ?

You dont have to agree with me, but mark these words down today. We will only know the loss that Francois Steyn was when we get to the pressure playoff matches in the world cup. When we need 3 points to take the lead in the world cup final with 0 minutes left on the clock with a penalty 60 odd meters out.

I tell you, I nearly thought Meyer would learn that lesson against the All Blacks. I actually could not believe Lambie had the range to kick that goal. I was quite amazed.

But, Frans Steyn is a bit of a diva. Perhaps the energy he brings to the team is not good. I am not a big advocate of his, I am just amazed at how easily we walked away from that situation. I doubt that would have happened in New Zealand.

But anyway - its Meyer's legacy on the line. Not mine.

Sounds like a policy devised in Pamplona....the valuable Poll ard can play and the totally useless JJ can't. 

 Exacto !

Mozart
It is the same policy aplied by New Zealand iro the ITM.   Problem is SARU has a very restricted contract policy and while JJ was contracted last year and his contract is still in place - that was that.  Just think De Jongh only lost his SARU contract last year after a string of substandard performances if his contract was for a year longer - he might even have been in teh training camp next year - what a waste of space that woould have been.
Pollard is not on a SARU contract yet - but I think he will soon be - probably before the end of this year - ie after the CC is finished.
You do not understand anything about legal issues.   The idea was to bring in the NZ system whereby no players with a NZRU contract is allowed to play in the ITM.   Once SARU took that decision - they cannot create precedents by allowing some contracted players to play in  the CC and not others.   Neither can they keep back the players contracted with the franchises - that could hve resulted in nasty legal consequences for them - but in releasing players they cannot keep some of those back and release others.    In the latter regard it should be borne in mind that a player contract is in essense the same as any employment contract.    SARU does not have justrisdiction over the franchises and overrule their employment contracts. 
You may argue that in the case of test rugby that does not apply - but there are reggulations of IRB that regulates that component of the game.   All contracts are subject to the IRB regulations - end of story.   
     

 Just as an aside - it has happened ever since Meyer's appointment - that crucial players got injured in the CC games before the EOYT.   Why should that chance be taken?  It certainly is not int he national interest.