A couple of grumbles...

'Rugby great'…it's an obvious description of someone who has made a significant impression on the game.

So why do so many media people refer to anyone from the past as a 'rugby great?'

Is it lazy journalism, or just clickbait prescribed by whoever is assigning stories to a website or newspaper?

It's as bad as calling a Super Rugby franchise a 'club', but more of that later.

The latest instance of the application of 'rugby great' has been seen as a result of Rod Kafer's outburst about the situation in Australian rugby at the moment.

Kafer was described in several news outlets as 'Australian rugby great'.

Excuse me.

He played 12 Tests, played 37 times for the Brumbies between 1996-2001 and 34 games for Leicester between 2001-03.

By any measure, that record does not make him a 'great'.

Yes, he has played Test rugby and yes he may be fondly remembered for his contribution to the Brumbies, but great?

The two blokes who played for the Brumbies inside him, halfback George Gregan and first five-eighths Stephen Larkham, they were greats. That's why a grandstand is named after them in Canberra.

And yes, because of his work as a sideline 'expert' Kafer does have a profile among younger viewers who are not aware of his playing career and who incorrectly believe, because of that sideline role, he has a stature greater in the game than in fact.

It is not only Kafer who falls into this category, but he is the most recent example.

All that aside, it is interesting that one who has played a role in the administration of the game, as a high- performance contributor to the Australian Rugby Union, should be taking such a pot shot at the administration in the stretched times the game all over the world is facing.

 And while I'm at it, since when have New Zealand's Super Rugby franchises been clubs?

This unfortunate usage, which is yet another example

of the 'rugby speak' that afflicts the game at different times, is the very antithesis of what clubs are all about.

Clubs are for the fellowship of people with a common interest, of involvement by communities which they represent, and as a focal point for much that happens in communities. They are the heart of the game in New Zealand.

Franchises are not clubs.

Franchises are a closed shop of artificial means. 

Any contact with the public is contrived through promotion work. That is fine and a good way to keep the professional players grounded in terms of the life they enjoy. But most often it is a requirement of their contract.

Information about the running of the franchises is drip-fed through the media at pre-arranged opportunities.

Clubs have an open, transparent structure. Members are invited to annual meetings to elect their officials and to discuss issues of concern to that club.

Franchises do not hold open meetings. They don't invite media to cover their meetings and they certainly don't allow their stakeholders (fans) to take part in voting.

So to call franchises 'clubs' strikes at the very heritage of the New Zealand game that the franchises are so quick to claim for their purposes.