Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 May 2019 | Story Rulanzen Martin | Photo Rulanzen Martin
Judge Musi
Judge President Cagney Musi from the Free State Division of the High Court.

If you live in a rural town the chances of getting equal access to the court system as your urban counterparts is very slim and therefore the trust in the judiciary has taken a nosedive. This is the “urban bias” of the judiciary, according to Judge President Cagney Musi of the Free State Division of the High Court.

Afrobarometer conducted a countrywide survey on, Trust in Judiciary and access to justice in South Africa. Judge Musi, Matthias Krönke from the Department of Political Studies at the University of Cape Town and Chris Oxtoby from Democratic Governance and Rights Unit at UCT, engaged in a panel discussion on the findings of the report.

The data of the survey was released at an event which was hosted by the Department of Political Transformation and Governance at the University of the Free State (UFS) on Tuesday 16 May 2019. 

“The fact that we in South Africa and can say ‘I will take you to court’ is evidence of the trust there is in the judiciary,” said Judge President Musi. However, this trust in the courts ultimately lies in the operations of the court system. Cases that get postponed just becomes part of the backlog. The trust can be maintained through constant communication from the courts. Judge Musi asked whether social media could be used to maintain the trust in the judiciary by sharing court rulings on social media. 

“It is also time the courts moved along with the changing times.” Judge Musi was referencing the Fourth Industrial Revolution and how courts can move away from conventional paper-based systems to a process whereby a claimant can submit summonses online.

The data findings of the Afrobarometer survey focused on three broad themes namely; trust in the judiciary and access to justice and judicial autonomy. It aims to contextualise South Africa on the continent and see to what extent people trust the judiciary in South Africa and how that compares to other parts of Africa. South Africa’s performance is very average compared to other countries.

News Archive

UFS study shows playing time in Super Rugby matches decreasing
2016-12-19

Description: Super Rugby playing time Tags: Super Rugby playing time 

The study by Riaan Schoeman, (left), Prof Robert Schall,
and Prof Derik Coetzee from the University of the Free State
on variables in Super Rugby can provide coaches with
insight on how to approach the game.
Photo: Anja Aucamp

It is better for Super Rugby teams not to have the ball, which also leads to reduced overall playing time in matches.

This observation is from a study by the University of the Free State on the difference between winning and losing teams. Statistics between 2011 and 2015 show that Super Rugby winning teams kick more and their defence is better.

These statistics were applied by Riaan Schoeman, lecturer in Exercise and Sport Sciences, Prof Derik Coetzee, Head of Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences, and Prof Robert Schall, Department of Mathematics and Actuarial Sciences. The purpose of the study, Changes in match variables for winning and losing teams in Super Rugby from 2011 to 2015, was to observe changes. Data on 30 games (four from each team) per season, supplied by the Cheetahs via Verusco TryMaker Pro, were used.

About two minutes less action
“We found that the playing time has decreased. This is the time the ball is in play during 80 minutes,” says Schoeman. In 2011, the average playing time was 34.12 minutes and in 2015 it was 31.95.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball and doesn’t want it. They play more conservatively. They dominate with kicks and then they play,” says Prof Coetzee, who was the conditioning coach for the Springboks in 2007 when they won the World Cup.

Lineouts also more about kicking
As a result, the number of line-outs also increased (from 0.31 per minute in 2011 to 0.34 in 2015) and the winning teams are better in this regard.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball
and doesn’t want it. They play a more conservative
game. They dominate with kicks and then they play.”

Schoeman believes that rule changes could also have contributed to reduced playing time, since something like scrum work nowadays causes more problems. “When a scrum falls, the time thereafter is not playing time.”

According to Prof Coetzee, rucks and mauls have also increased, (rucks from 2.08 per minute in 2011 to 2.16 in 2015 and mauls from 0.07 per minute in 2011 to 0.10 in 2015). “The teams that win, dominate these areas,” he says.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept