Rugby officialdom did not deserve Morne

Late last year, a week before the SARFU AGM at which Brian van Rooyen was elected as president, former Springbok centre Michael du Plessis expressed serious misgivings about the looming new dispensation.

Du Plessis argued in favour of having someone like Cheeky Watson installed onto the board of SA Rugby as he would represent a fresh new face and had a proven track record of fighting for change. He was not part of an old administration which was tainted.

According to Du Plessis, most modern black administrators were people who had been co-opted by whites around the time of unity and rugby officials in general tended to be self-serving rather than working for the game.

It was Du Plessis' fear that the changes to South Africa's rugby administration would not represent real change and the clean-out that people were hoping for. Instead it would just be a case of the same old faces pulling the puppet strings from behind the scenes.

In saying this he was obviously fearful of the influence being wielded by Andre Markgraaff. But he also questioned the election of Morne du Plessis (namesake but no relation) onto the board on the basis that the former Bok captain and team manager was notorious for not being able to take a stand.

Two months into the Brian van Rooyen administration I would argue that Michael du Plessis has been vindicated on every single point that he made - with the exception of the last one.

If there were any doubts about Morne's willingness to take a stand, then they were dispelled in emphatic fashion when he stepped down from the board this week.

As he is one of rugby's true gentleman, the former Bok captain and team manager, one of the few South African rugby people who has universal respect both in this country and outside, tried gamely not to make too much of a fuss of his resignation.

Watching him at the press conference where he outlined some of his reasons for resigning, it was clear that he did not enjoy criticising those he had worked with for the past two months. But in the end his concern for the future and state of South African rugby was too great and he felt he had to make a stand.

And coming from Du Plessis, knowing that he was trying his damndest to make everything as understated as possible, what he said had massive import.

Most journalists will know that Du Plessis has never been one of those who you phone for dramatic quotes and sensational stories. If I was to draw up a list of rugby officials that I have encountered in my 13 years as a rugby writer in this country who can truly be said to possess integrity it is doubtful I would need much more than one hand of fingers. But Du Plessis would definitely be on that list.

Which is the reason that South Africans who love rugby and who are interested in the welfare of the game should be gravely concerned when Du Plessis comes out and says that he is disillusioned and when he insinuates that those who are running the game are less than honest with the public.

I know I am, and when I take myself back to an interview I did with Van Rooyen in the week before his election it becomes apparent that my concerns are well founded.

One of the most important questions I asked Van Rooyen was whether it was true he wanted to overturn the strength versus strength concept, as had been reported at the time. His response was that he was "emphatically" not going to tamper with the strength versus strength system and was a big supporter of it.

How does that measure up with his reported move, just two months into his reign, to go back to a 14 team Currie Cup?

I also asked him about rumours that he was going to diminish the decision making power of the commercial arm, SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd. His response was that he did not know where these stories came from.

Yet it was because his role as an independent director of SA Rugby had been rendered meaningless as SA Rugby was "just an extension of SARFU (the 14 provincial unions) and its president" that Morne du Plessis decided to resign.

Then there were the questions about Andre Markgraaff's role in his campaign. Oh no, argued Van Rooyen, that was complete rubbish, he had spoken to many different role-players in South African rugby and Markgraaff did not have any special role.

Now you can be the judge of that. In the space of just a few weeks Markgraaff, who has never coached at the top level successfully and has not coached since 1999, was named on a four man Bok coaching shortlist and then begged by the SARFU president to make himself available again when he withdrew.

When finally Markgraaff decided it was too hot in the kitchen for him to be coach, Van Rooyen promptly installed him as convenor of selectors.

Mention was also made at a press conference of him being installed on the assessment panel that would appoint the new coach and it was mooted that he would be installed as the director of coaching - in essence the boss of coaches.

Van Rooyen then turned around and told the media that it was all garbage and he did not know where all the stories came from. But journalists are not stupid people so they only really need consult their press releases and press conference notes to establish the truth.

And what is the truth? Van Rooyen tells us we got it wrong and Markgraaff has not been appointed as a selector, he is just an "interim" selector. Now what is that supposed to mean?

There is more but I think the reader should by now have got the point.

I agree with Morne du Plessis that it is laughable when Van Rooyen tries to tell us the board of SA Rugby is independent and then he censures its newly elected chairman for talking to the media.

And I agree with Michael du Plessis when he says the new dispensation is just the same old agenda with new faces fronting it on the end of the same old puppet strings.

As Morne du Plessis says, national decisions are still being made according to provincial interests. Real statesmanship, the ability to see beyond your own self-interest and make decisions for the good of rugby is lacking from our rugby leadership, and even more so now that Du Plessis has resigned.

Ultimately it would probably be true to say that Morne du Plessis was never made for a role in rugby administration in this country - he is just far too honest and has far too much integrity.

He also had rugby qualifications that far outweighed those of other administrators and probably made them feel insecure.