Gregor Paul: Union firm on game starts

There has been progress in the strange case of Charlie Ngatai. The Wellington back is still restricted to starting just six games this campaign, but he can now play in any position.

The New Zealand Rugby Union have dropped the position-specific element - he was previously allowed to play three games each at fullback and at second-five - but refused to budge on more starts.

No one wants to explain but the vibe coming through is that, after a re-assessment, the NZRU are not convinced Ngatai's doing enough off the field. His 'life plan' is not as defined as they would like.

Confused as to why this is relevant? So is Ngatai and so are Wellington. The NZRU initiative that Academy players be locked into meaningful work or study to prepare for a life outside of rugby is widely supported.

But how is Ngatai, working as a builder's apprentice, supposed to feel when he plays well and then hears from the NZRU that they want to cap his game time because he's never going to be a rocket scientist?

Are we to believe that were Ngatai to be studying renaissance art with a plan to travel Europe in the off-season to complete a dissertation on the Impressionists, that he would be allowed to play more rugby?

A few fragile egos at rugby headquarters have been upset by the suggestion they are guilty of lunacy over their management of Ngatai and other 18-year-olds. The union have a policy of imposing restrictions on the number of games any 18-year-old can play in the national championship.

The policy, says NZRU general manager of professional rugby Neil Sorensen, is about preserving the athlete's career; giving them a better chance of making it to 25 with fewer physical and mental scars.

That's admirable and we could all agree it sounds sensible enough and move on. But those of a more suspicious disposition surely can't help but wonder, what science, if any, is driving this thinking?

Once you start probing, this policy comes back to being poor judgement and arrogance from the modern regime who have a 'we know better than you' attitude which fails to respect some age-old core values.

As Sorensen himself admits, the formula used to assess the appropriate amount of game-time for an 18-year-old is only semi-scientific.

It requires someone to work out how much physical contact any given player is likely to endure in his position. Players are weighed and fitness-tested and then compared with their peers, while consideration is given to their off-field situation - such as living arrangements; the extent of their external pursuits, be it study or work; and their subjectively assessed mental fortitude.

All these factors are given a mark, thrown into a big pot and, hey presto, a number of appropriate games is recommended. Which is so utterly ridiculous that they may as well as factor in star signs, favourite colours and a player's mother's maiden name.

If science is to be a guide it surely has to be exact, with a control group in tandem, so in five years there is empirical evidence to prove that the 18-year-olds on whom restricted duties were imposed somehow further enhanced their careers over those who didn't.

Sorensen said it is fairly obvious that an 18-year-old who plays 13 games is going to be in worse physical shape (as in more battered) than one, like Ngatai, who only plays six. Indeed, and likewise, if you use your car 50 per cent less you will have 50 per cent more petrol. The only teensy problem being you have a major problem in getting from A to B - which is the sole purpose of owning a car.

And here's what is so indescribably wrong with the NZRU's policy - it seems to have no firm grasp on the fact that players, too, have a sole purpose. They play rugby.

Sorensen says there are fears about too much rugby inflicting a mental toll from which some young men might be slow to recover. But how are players supposed to build character and intensify their fortitude if they don't have to endure some tough times? Amateur-era All Blacks talk of their apprenticeship - how as young men on the club scene they learned from the grizzled veterans in painful ways.

Even as All Blacks there was psychological stress inflicted by their team-mates - the invite to the back of the team bus where they would be ritually grilled by the senior crew.

The NZRU want mentally tough players who can make decisions under pressure and yet they deny the likes of Ngatai the most important means by which he can acquire those skills. Besides, if he was indelibly scarred by being outclassed in a couple of games then he's probably not worth a professional contract anyway.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to simply trust provincial coaches to make good judgements on how much to play their teenagers? If his body is being pummelled and can't cope it will become obvious - his form will drop, fatigue will set in and his performances will not merit selection. He'll have the better part of three months to rest and condition before the Super 14 starts in 2010.

Experience has to be gained the hard way. The NZRU can't see that they are removing the challenge; that you can't produce world-class players if you artificially manipulate their environment to be free of any setbacks.

The essence of rugby is that it is all about the most extreme physical and mental challenges. A policy of not playing is not so much bad management as non-management.

Stop protecting them - exposure to adversity is vital; it will shape young men, build them or break them.