Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Why it's 'patently absurd' that the Blues aren't allowed to train a week out from Super Rugby Aotearoa

(Photo by Hannah Peters/Getty Images)

They used to say sport and politics didn’t mix.

That naïve assumption was obliterated, in New Zealand anyway, during the 1981 Springboks tour. 

ADVERTISEMENT

But people still trot out the old line, as if they were in lala land during the lessons of history.

Now, of course, decisions taken by politicians during the Covid-19 era are impacting on all levels of society. As of today, the Blues are in a level three region – Wellsford to Pokeno – where gatherings of more than 10 people are forbidden. 

Video Spacer

Wayne Pivac on Louis Rees-Zammit and England rugby | 2021 Six Nations

Video Spacer

Wayne Pivac on Louis Rees-Zammit and England rugby | 2021 Six Nations

That means no training as a squad, and they have canned their pre-season clash with the Crusaders at Eden Park, which was slated for Saturday. There was talk earlier today of the Blues heading to Christchurch for the hitout.

The hope is, of course, that the Auckland region comes out of level three on Thursday and life as we know it can continue with some normality.

While it’s fair that the ‘rank and file,’ that is, us plebs, need to observe the rules, it is patently absurd for a professional rugby team, which can easily enough adhere to all the medical protocols in their bubble, to shut down when we are not even at the highest level (four). Not when we see the Six Nations and all top tier professional rugby taking place in Europe, a Covid hotspot.

The Blues kick off Super Rugby Aotearoa II on February 27 against the Hurricanes in Wellington. They need to be training as a team by this Thursday for that match to happen on an even playing field with the other four Kiwi franchises.

ADVERTISEMENT

Their first home game is not until March 14 against the Highlanders, so there are no concerns at this stage about teams coming into the problem area of Auckland.

So the Labour Government may be doing the right thing in general with Auckland, but life must go on. Rugby must go on, unless the lockdown level is raised.

Unfortunately, the Government’s strict level three restrictions have hit rugby hard in the Auckland region before. In August/September, if you recall, the three Mitre 10 Cup unions badly affected – North Harbour, Auckland and Counties Manukau – had to virtually write off their pre-seasons due to not being able to assemble for training. That was at level three. Harbour and Auckland returned very good seasons considering their early hardships.

This is what I wrote in September:

“But the impact on grassroots clubs in the wider Auckland region, from Wellsford to Waiuku, starved of any contact in the last month, is gut-wrenching. Many were already struggling and having no bar income and spectators since August 8 will push many to the wall.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The restrictions on gatherings in the Auckland region – just 10 allowed – have been far too draconian, considering the porous border/isolation facilities were the issue last month. Masks and social distancing would have sufficed with some clear guidelines. Instead, the club and school seasons have been ruined right at the business end.”

It’s clear that level three is a level too far for grassroots rugby, but a professional team is entitled to train safely, observing all the requisite protocols, with a view to playing at level two, even if before not crowds.

If it’s good enough for the Six Nations, the English Premiership, the PRO14 and the French Top 14, with all the issues they have with postponed matches and positive tests among players, then surely good ol’ NZ, which has largely kept the virus at bay, can give dispensations to 38 players plus coaching staff to train as a group?

If the Blues cannot train together from Thursday in the region, it will throw a tight schedule into chaos, meaning some bye weekends may have to be used. At worst, if could see them relocated – maybe to Northland – for the interim. 

It doesn’t have to happen. Lighten up, Jacinda.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

I rated Lowe well enough to be an AB. Remember we were picking the likes of George Bridge above such players so theres no disputing a lot of bad decisions have been made by those last two coaches. Does a team like the ABs need a finicky winger who you have to adapt and change a lot of your style with to get benefit from? No, not really. But he still would have been a basic improvement on players like even Savea at the tail of his career, Bridge, and could even have converted into the answer of replacing Beauden at the back. Instead we persisted with NMS, Naholo, Havili, Reece, all players we would have cared even less about losing and all because Rieko had Lowe's number 11 jersey nailed down.


He was of course only 23 when he decided to leave, it was back in the beggining of the period they had started retaining players (from 2018 onwards I think, they came out saying theyre going to be more aggressive at some point). So he might, all of them, only just missed out.


The main point that Ed made is that situations like Lowe's, Aki's, JGP's, aren't going to happen in future. That's a bit of a "NZ" only problem, because those players need to reach such a high standard to be chosen by the All Blacks, were as a country like Ireland wants them a lot earlier like that. This is basically the 'ready in 3 years' concept Ireland relied on, versus the '5 years and they've left' concept' were that player is now ready to be chosen by the All Blacks (given a contract to play Super, ala SBW, and hopefully Manu).


The 'mercenary' thing that will take longer to expire, and which I was referring to, is the grandparents rule. The new kids coming through now aren't going to have as many gp born overseas, so the amount of players that can leave with a prospect of International rugby offer are going to drop dramatically at some point. All these kiwi fellas playing for a PI, is going to stop sadly.


The new era problem that will replace those old concerns is now French and Japanese clubs (doing the same as NRL teams have done for decades by) picking kids out of school. The problem here is not so much a national identity one, than it is a farm system where 9 in 10 players are left with nothing. A stunted education and no support in a foreign country (well they'll get kicked out of those countries were they don't in Australia).


It's the same sort of situation were NZ would be the big guy, but there weren't many downsides with it. The only one I can think was brought up but a poster on this site, I can't recall who it was, but he seemed to know a lot of kids coming from the Islands weren't really given the capability to fly back home during school xms holidays etc. That is probably something that should be fixed by the union. Otherwise getting someone like Fakatava over here for his last year of school definitely results in NZ being able to pick the cherries off the top but it also allows that player to develop and be able to represent Tonga and under age and possibly even later in his career. Where as a kid being taken from NZ is arguably going to be worse off in every respect other than perhaps money. Not going to develop as a person, not going to develop as a player as much, so I have a lotof sympathy for NZs case that I don't include them in that group but I certainly see where you're coming from and it encourages other countries to think they can do the same while not realising they're making a much worse experience/situation.

144 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Fissler Confidential: One England international in, one out for Bath Fissler Confidential: One England international in, one out for Bath
Search