A Professional Dutch Rugby League

Translated from: Over een professionele kompetitie

Published on: http://www.rugbynieuws.nl/over-een-professionele-kompetitie

Translated by: Alwin Wiederhold
Original Author: Nick


Foreword


After a recent interview of Dutch Rugby Chairman Willem de Jong was published on the Dutch website http://www.rugbynieuws.nl, a Dutch rugby player has responded to the interview. The original interview was published in English, and I decided that most Dutch People would be comfortable reading that. However, Nick’s response is in Dutch, so I have translated this response so that English speaking people (and others) can see what Nick said.


Nick makes some valid points about the history of Dutch rugby and attempts to professionalise the sport in the past. He is concerned that Dutch Rugby would be lost if professionalism was introduced because of the readily available talent from abroad.

Original Article

Our chairman has recently discussed his ambitions in an interview and as expected with a driven man these ambitions are truly ambitious.  It’s no surprise that Willem would rather see Dutch rugby make giant leaps today rather than tomorrow (he outlined his vision in a presentation to the board): Netherlands should compete in the FIRA league, the ladies should play in the top of Europe, the Ladies Rugby Sevens must win a medal at the Olympic Games and the men should be placed there. Youth selections need to develop and Dutch clubs should dominate the regional leagues again.
 All big plans, but not completely impossible.  In the not too distant past Dutch rugby got close to these heights (although the Olympic ambitions are more recent, but not completely impossible).

I have a few doubts about the ways that these ideas would be achieved which is why I’ve written this article. Please note that this is not meant as a moan or a negative piece from an overweight has-been. After all, I don’t believe that Dutch rugby is doing badly nor that everything was better previously nor that today’s youth eats too much chips and listens to awful music.

I think young people are a lot of fun. My music taste is better, but I (and all the people I know) eat too much chips. The difference is that when I was growing up there were only two TV channels and there was no internet. The computers which existed had to be self programmed and games machines could only play Space Invaders or Frogger. There wasn’t anything better to do than go to the rugby club and practice.

So, training became a habit which helped everyone play pretty decent rugby. I never managed to play good rugby, but many of my generation could play well because they had nothing better to do than practice and so eventually became excellent players.

Rugby was different. To start, rugby was an amateur sport. Play was a lot slower because it did not have to be sold to TV. There was no lifting in the line-outs, mauls and scrums were more important (and scrums didn’t collapse constantly), but the rugby was not less difficult (which is often claimed now). It was an enormous wrestling session and I challenge anyone who claims that rugby is harder now to attempt eighty minutes of arm-wrestling (and subsequently to tell that you need fitness for that). If anything has changed, it is that rugby is more sensitive to injury, but I don’t believe that is a positive development.

Rugby has not improved nor got worse, it's just different.

Players were amateurs and so were the coaches. Dutch was spoken on the field and twelve teams played in the Premier Division. At the end of the season DIOK were the champions. Even then everyone knew that things should change and become better. Sometimes changes were better, sometimes not, and sometimes things were dramatically worse.

To improve the playing level, the league was split halfway through the season to a champions pool and a degradation pool. That was an improvement—at least for one part of the season you played all matches at your own level.

For some reason, at some point it was decided to reduce the Premier Division to ten teams (and later the unholy idea to reduce this further to just eight); this was supposed to ensure more matches at an equal level. Since then we have seen teams which have had to withdraw half way through the season due to a tidal wave of injuries. Other teams experienced wretched seasons in which they suffered one thrashing after another without ever getting a chance to catch their breath.

A competition was organised with German and Belgian clubs (and even one season with Danish ones). This was a good idea—the teams which did well and finished on top (the top two) played in more top matches in the next season. The Germans did not maintain this for long and were replaced by teams from northern France. All in all this was an entertaining competition which was always won by Dutch teams.

This competition was clearly popular because at some point it was expanded to a Belgian-Dutch league in which all Premier Division clubs had to participate whether they wanted to or not. Naturally, teams which were struggling gave priority to the Premier Division and played in the Belgian-Dutch League with half-baked squads. Nevertheless, Dutch teams always ended up on top because the Belgian teams had even less enthusiasm for the league. At one point Belgian teams often did not play but “regional selections” consisting of third class players who fancied a go took part. That wasn’t even necessary as the final was ascertained to be between the best Dutch team and best Belgian team who only had to be the least worst of their compatriots. The final was thus usually played between the first and fifth placed teams of the league. This competition was mostly won by a Dutch team.

These international competitions negatively affected the national cup tournament and regional competitions. Two important elements of the national sport calendar were skillfully eliminated, even though these were precisely the competitions in which new talent in the regions could measure themselves against the established order. Of course, if you want to improve you have to try something, but it’s a pity that we carried on with this for so long.

Another unholy idea was the Reserve Division. The second teams from all the Premier Division clubs were withdrawn from their competitions and had to compete against each other. Before this there were warnings that this was not a good idea as not all of these second teams played at the same level. DIOK, Hilversum, AAC and the team from The Hague all had a second team playing in the Premiership while other second teams played in the third or even fourth divisions. All teams were guaranteed that their second team would return to the Division in which they had previously played if the Reserve Division proved to be unsuccessful. It was tried for a year and was quickly found to be unsuccessful. Matches were cancelled or resulted in a boring joke. After just a few rounds it was apparent how bad the idea was. Of course, if you want to improve you have to try something, but it’s a pity that we carried on with this for so long. The guaranteed return to previous leagues did not happen either.

There were two more principles which were repeated as mantras for years: we had to introduce professionalism and foreign players were needed to improve the level of rugby in The Netherlands.

Starting with the latter. Foreigners have always participated in Dutch competition: Mostly expats working or studying in The Netherlands. Players (and coaches) who had contributed for longer to the development of Dutch rugby were pushed aside as anyone who spoke English, Afrikaans or French was immediately and without discussion put into the first team on the first Sunday after their arrival. Even if you had not dominated your position in a team in the last ten years, a beer-bellied expat walking into the clubhouse on Thursday was put into the second team on Sunday. If it became apparent that the recently arrived liberator was less skilled than his apparent knowledge of the game implied, the Dutch player was soon returned to his rightful position (most coaches had a shorter learning curve than the organisers of the competitions mentioned in the previous paragraphs).

Luckily there were many expats who made a more valuable contribution to their clubs. I could mention names, but each club can probably think of their own best expats. Good rugby players are usually also good club members. The Exiles were unsurprisingly also consistently one of the better regional teams.

The turn of the tide started when clubs began recruiting players. Foreign players were flown in because it is cheaper to buy something than to coach local talent to the same level. Clubs argued that these foreign players would improve the Dutch players.

You have to ask yourself if such players whose goal was to play in the Dutch Premiership were
really top class. Of course, they may be better than an eighteen year old who still has a lot to learn, but if the ambition of a player from a country like New Zealand (or any other region where rugby is part of the national culture) doesn’t lie higher than the Dutch Premiership, then he’s not really very ambitious. There are many stories of players who appeared to be more interested in the Dutch tolerance of soft drugs than in training. It is not apparent to me what we should have learnt from these lads. When a Dutch talent should practice what he has learnt on the field while one backpacker after another was recruited as if he was God’s gift to the game isn’t immediately apparent to me either.

There were of course many young lads who made a positive contribution, who improved coaching sessions with their knowledge and who set the right example, but ultimately they had left after one or two seasons. A policy like that has a foundation of quicksand.

Ultimately, flying in foreign players was primarily used to fill positions where teams had a gap.
A tighthead prop was seldom (well not never) flown in to coach a young talent the tricks of the trade. I doubt that any clubs recruited such a lad with the instruction: “Ensure that you are superfluous as soon as possible!” If that is true of the best position on the field, I’m afraid it’s also true for the other fourteen.

At one point, it became almost fashionable to boost a squad selection at the end of a season with foreigners to prevent relegation or to improve the chances of winning the competition. The ultimate result of this was the introduction of the 15 November rule which ensures that a Belgian international who starts to work and live in The Netherlands has to play the rest of the season in the fourth division rather than making a contribution to the local first team.

Money which could have been spent on worthwhile development of rugby in The Netherlands has been wasted on players no better than backpackers. Then there is professionalism. Professionalism! Everyone supports this. Or at least, almost everyone. No-one knows what it means, but we are all for it.

Does anyone still remember when we had to buy our own shirts? When I started at Hilversum I was shocked to to be provided with shirts, shorts and socks. There was even a physiotherapist. At another time, during a period at Fokker (which is no more) I had to buy my own shorts and socks and I had to pay for the washing of the shirts. This was also true in the Dutch Student team. A lot has changed in a year.

Rugby was still an amateur sport, but it already appeared to be professional. Sometimes we got a bag or tracksuit. Good times!

Rugby became professional and with Hilversum we played a great match against Moseley (a professional club) and this looked like the right way to go. If those lads got paid and were no better than us, why shouldn’t we get paid? Clubs existed where selected players didn’t have to pay club fees any more (I continued to pay mine) and travel expenses were reimbursed. There were even players who would change club for a pair of boots and a couple of quid. No problem with this—everyone must make their own choices. However, the wisdom of the clubs may be questioned. Imagine being a hard working young club member paying your fees and another player is bought in from another club to take your position. What kind of motivation is that?

Did I ever start playing better because of the free bag or tracksuit? No! I started playing better because of the men around me, because of the coaches I had and because I attended coaching sessions. Would I have played better if I had not paid my club fees? No! I couldn’t have done more training and ultimately I was limited by my own ability. As I wrote earlier, I’m not a very good rugby player, but I don’t believe any of the talented players who graced the fields I played on would have been any better because of a few quid and some new boots.
The crucial question is whether a player of limited ability like myself would have become a better player. If I had put everything aside, if I had looked after myself better (better nutrition, less smoking and drinking) and had trained better (not more, but better). Yes, I suppose I could have improved, but that would require complete professionalism.

But to truly professionalise requires a lot more. The Dutch Women’s Sevens have made that obvious. You first need to set everything aside for over a year and give it your all. Only then, do you have a small chance of making a small income (and you have the best job in The Netherlands).

It is important that I have been writing about myself because then I’m writing about a Dutch player who is not overly skilled, but is competent enough to be the water carrier in a team of good players. If I do have a talent, then it is probably that I am physically quite strong (I’ve never had to do much for this other than having a healthy appetite). I’m the kind of player you need a few of to ensure you can finish the league. We are not talking about a player who would excel in the FIRA competition for The Netherlands, but the kind of player who is required to ensure that other players can excel in the FIRA competition by developing their considerable talents. I’m the kind of player you need a hell of a lot of to be able to professionalise an indigenous competition. Even if no-one gets injured you need over a 100 players of my ability to achieve a selection of 35 players of an acceptable level for the FIRA competition (not to mention participation in the World Cup).

In a professional league the cost of such a level of water carriers already has a ridiculous base cost. We are talking about water carriers—Dutch water carriers. The day that there is sufficient money in The Netherlands to ensure that duffers like myself earn minimum wage, then you can imagine the attraction power for players from Moldova, Poland, Romania, Georgia, Belgium, The Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Russia and Ukraine. Every one of them would be a better duffer than me. Not to mention less ambitious colleagues from Italy, France, England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland. A few could be kept out with rules, but EU players can’t be prevented from looking for work in the nation of their choice.

As a club you would be crazy to invest money in development of Dutch talent (such as it is) when you can buy ready made expertise abroad.

It occurs to me that the establishment of a genuine professional league in The Netherlands would lead in no time at all to the total loss of Dutch rugby. The Netherlands was once good at ice-hockey—they even participated in the Olympic Games, but now that the Premier Division has became professional I’ll leave it to you to Google the state of Dutch ice-hockey.

If we want to throw out even more money, that appears to me to be the way to go. Should we just pack it all in and repeat to ourselves that it will never amount to anything?

No, of course not. The Netherlands is a prospective rugby nation as the public interest shows whenever top rugby is to be admired in the media. The Women’s Rugby Sevens, the World Cup and Tim Visser make that clear. However, growth needs to be sustainable. To start, more people need to learn to play rugby. They don’t need to do that from birth, but it would be good if it formed part of their lives. A range of sports is required! More teams, perhaps in a looser competition structure, so that people don’t see rugby as a kind of millstone because you have to play to prevent your club getting a €250 fine. Why should you be ready in February when it is more pleasant to be outside in April rather than January?

The Topsport Schools (LOOT) are a fantastic development. Let’s see if we could get those boys and girls to study in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England, France or Italy. If we are going to spend sponsor's money, let’s make bursaries available to people who genuinely want to commit their future to a combination of rugby and an education. National selection can then be coupled to such bursaries.

Last year there was a trifle about a player studying in England and playing for his Dutch club in the play offs. I don’t want to discuss who was right of the clubs affected in this conflict, but isn’t it obvious that a number of players will develop their skills abroad without breaking their ties with The Netherlands.
Nick.

Nuclear reactors are like bicycles

Part 1: The similarities and differences

I was recently buying brakes for my bicycle, and I described these to a colleague as safety critical features when I bumped into him in the shop. That made me think that bicycles are similar to nuclear reactors, and I thought it may be useful to explore this metaphor to help people not familiar with nuclear reactors learn about them.

Of course, there are enormous differences between bicycles and nuclear reactors, but as a metaphor, this may work. Nuclear reactors require a large team of scientists and engineers to operate and maintain the reactor, while a bicycle is usually operated by one person, and many parts of a bicycle can be easily maintained without the help of an expert. One of the biggest differences is in the way bicycles are regulated compared to nuclear reactors. Anyone can buy a bicycle and ride it on public roads, while the nuclear power industry is heavily regulated and controlled.

Most people are familiar with bicycles, and have probably ridden one. The same can’t be said of nuclear reactors which are understood by scientists and engineers working in the nuclear industry.  So, what are the similarities between a bicycle and a nuclear reactor? 

• Nuclear reactors use nuclear fuel to generate heat which is used to drive a turbine to produce electricity. 
• Bicycles use human power to rotate cranks which drives a chain to produce motion.
• Operators control the nuclear reactor from a central control room maintaining and changing power while monitoring the plant and safety equipment.
• A cyclist controls a bicycle maintaining speed and direction while monitoring their environment.

Bicycles and cyclists have safety features which prevent accidents as well as safety features which reduce the consequences of accidents. Brakes are used to slow down and stop, high visibility clothing allows others to readily see the cyclist while lights and reflectors increase visibility in poor light. A helmet reduces the likelihood of injury to the head if an accident happens. 

Nuclear reactors also have safety features which prevent accidents or reduce the consequences of these. Like the brakes on a bicycle, control rods are inserted or removed from the reactor core to control the power or to stop the reactor.  In the event of an accident, containment prevents the release of radionuclides into the environment.

A cyclist maintains balance by traveling fast enough so the bicycle does not fall over. A reactor also maintains a balance of neutrons to ensure that a nuclear chain reaction is sustained. This balance of neutrons is known as criticality and is essential to keep a nuclear reactor generating. 

Coming soon: The bicycle as a metaphor for a nuclear reactor

There are similarities between bicycles and nuclear reactors and I'll be exploring these soon. Until then, this thought provoking article is worth reading:
The Fukushima Nuclear Accident - Part 1
Béla Lipták Talks About the Safety Processes Used at the Fukushima Plant

Hooked on Twitter

Twitter is very simple: anyone can join, follow others and post tweets. Each tweet has a restriction of 140 characters, but this can include a link to a website or image so more detail can be included. As well as posting one's own messages, users can also retweet the messages of others, or quote and add to a message.

It's quite remarkable what such a simple premise can lead to.  Since joining Twitter, I have started following some well known personalities, people I know, and also complete strangers. I have interacted with these people by reading their posts, but also by writing messages to them. Some have replied; not just the people who know me, but also international rugby players and strangers.

Some of my messages have also been retweeted to be read by a wider audience than my immediate followers. I've also used Twitter to give updates on rugby games I have been watching, and have enjoyed seeing what others are saying about the same game. It's not the same as watching in a pub or stadium, but it's more fun than just watching alone in front of a TV.

When I joined Twitter about a year ago, I had no idea I'd get so hooked.  Thanks Jack.

Rugby referees have too much power

Today's Rugby World Cup quarter final match between South Africa and Australia was dominated by one man: Bryce Lawrence the New Zealand referee. During and after the game his name dominated twitter in South Africa. Not many comments were complimentary!

Before the game Lawrence had come in for criticism for the way he handled the recent match between Ireland and Australia which Ireland won. It looks like he had decided to reverse his poor decisions against Australia in that match by ignoring many of their transgressions in today's match. Hands in the ruck and high tackles by the Australians were ignored while South Africa got penalised at every opportunity. In the 71st minute he gave a match winning penalty to Australia after the assistant referee told him a South African player had tackled a player in the air at the line out. The commentators were of the opinion that the player had just fallen over after his team mates had not supported him.

At numerous times in the game he played advantage for Australian transgressions, but called 'advantage over' with no real benefit for South Africa. Other referees allow play to go on, but go back for the original penalty if nothing comes of the advantage.

Referees should not be interpreting the laws of the game. They should be consistent and should be held to account for their failures.

Maybe it's time for a change of the laws: Penalties should only be given for dangerous play and deliberate actions which prevent the opponents from scoring. All other transgressions should be penalised with a free kick.

There is no shame in losing to Australia, but the manner in which South Africa lost today after dominating ball possession and territory leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Bad referees should not be able to influence a match to that extent.

Does Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu have a point?

Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu has been suspended from all forms of rugby by the International Rugby Board pending a hearing because he used Twitter to criticise the referee after the game between South Africa and Samoa. Calling Nigel Owens a racist is clearly not on, but he also said he was biased. I’m not going to defend him calling anyone a racist without evidence, but let’s see whether his argument of bias holds. I’ll also look at his claim that tier 2 nations were given less rest time than the tier 1 nations.

Owens is Welsh, and Wales were playing in the same group as South Africa and Samoa. Using referees from countries playing in the same group inevitably leads to questions of bias, and the IRB should prevent this from happening.  

Before the game I realised the ref was Welsh, and as a Springbok supporter tweeted: “Best result for Wales is a win for South Africa. Does Nigel Owens realise that? #rugby #gobokke!”. Ten minutes into the game Owens got in the way of the Springboks and I tweeted: “Nigel Owens: "Sorry I won't do that again". Get out of the way ref. #gobokke #rugby #RWC2011”. At the end of the first half a Samoan was running towards the try line, looking for someone to pass to. The ball hit Owens, and I tweeted: “Nigel Owens gets involved again. Samoa was running towards the line, but ran out of players to pass to. #gobokke #rugby #RWC2011”. As the ball had hit him, Owens stopped play and then called time on the half. If the ball had not hit him, it is possible that Samoa could have scored, and a scrum at that point may also have led to Samoa scoring.  A good piece of play came to nothing, and the players left the field. I didn’t hear whether Owens said anything to the Samoans after getting in their way.

These two events, an apology to South Africa, and preventing Samoa scoring looked biased to me, and I was hoping for a Springbok win. A later tweet of mine read: “I'm not complaining, but Nigel Owens does appear to be favouring SA. #gobokke #rugby #RWC2011”.

It looks as if Sapolu has a point about bias.

Sapolu has been complaining loudly on Twitter and in interviews that the tier 2 nations had less time to recover between matches than the tier 1 nations.

The table below shows the rest period that the various countries had during the pool games.

Country	Rest 1	Rest 2	Rest 3	Mimimum	Average
New Zealand	7	8	8	7	7.7
Scotland	4	11	6	4	7.0
France	8	6	7	6	7.0
England	8	6	7	6	7.0
Australia	6	6	8	6	6.7
Italy	9	7	5	5	7.0
Ireland	6	8	7	6	7.0
South Africa	6	5	8	5	6.3
Wales	7	8	6	6	7.0
Argentina	7	8	7	7	7.3
Tonga	5	7	10	5	7.3
Romania	7	7	4	4	6.0
Fiji	7	8	7	7	7.3
Namibia	4	8	4	4	5.3
Japan	6	5	6	5	5.7
USA	4	8	4	4	5.3
Samoa	4	7	5	4	5.3
Canada	4	9	5	4	6.0
Georgia	4	10	4	4	6.0
Russia	5	5	6	5	5.3

There is a large gap between the average rest periods for Namibia, Russia, USA and Samoa (5.3 days) and New Zealand (7.7 days). It is interesting that Fiji, Tonga and Argentina have an average of 7.3 days between matches.

The ability to recover between matches depends on the rest time between games, and looking at the shortest rest periods for the teams shows that of the teams playing in the 6 nations and tri-nations tournaments, only Scotland had a 4 day rest period while most of the tier 2 nations had a 4 day rest. Namibia and Georgia had two rest periods of only 4 days.

The graph below shows the minimum rest days between matches during the pool stage of the tournament.

It isn’t fair to allow some teams a longer rest period than others, and the scheduling of matches during the World Cup needs to be reviewed. It appears that the schedule is dictated by TV broadcasters rather than fairness.

The IRB is bending down to advertisers and broadcasters, not acting in the interests of players and supporters.