Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 272 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | ... | 640

5801 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2217284 15-Apr-2019 11:28

Dingbatt: I have only just watched the Blues-Chiefs game.
Bearing in mind it was a local derby between the number 4 and 5 NZ sides, it was exciting and entertaining. When McKenzie went off, my first thought was for the All Blacks, but he is only the third choice for first five and second choice for fullback (behind Mo'unga and Smith respectively) IMO.
The smash-em-up nature of home derbies is a bit of a worry, particularly in a World Cup year.
Having the All Black selectors in the stand probably doesn't help.

Surely number 3 and 4?

And the 3 (Blues) only just not 2.

I agree, Blues are looking like a much different team this year (finally!)

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217294 15-Apr-2019 11:57

I don't like what they are suggesting in terms of what happens during finals in the new SR format. Top team should get home advantage. Otherwise, top team gets very few advantages.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217295 15-Apr-2019 11:59

Wow there is daylight between the Crusaders and other teams in the competition in terms of points. 34 vs next closest 23. I wasn't aware it was as big of a gap as that.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217360 15-Apr-2019 12:53

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12222482

Legally, if he was allowed to keep his job, pretty sure his contract would prevent from Cheika unilaterally deciding not to pick him for any reason other than form. Pretty sure there are clauses to protect against that exact thing in most pro contracts?

I mean I haven't seen a contract I have seen discussions on it. Anti punative clauses and the like. I guess you can work around those by making claims around other things...

It's pretty untenable for Folau now regardless, but I don't think this is the way it should be handled. Very poor.

Handle9

11258 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217467 15-Apr-2019 15:20

networkn:
Damien McKenzie sidelined for 8-9 months with a ruptured ACL. Poor B'stard. World Cup over for him :(

Wonder who the next cab off the rank is? Havilli can play most back positions, but can't cover 10... Alimano is untested at test level, also not a 10.

It'll come down to who can play 10 in an emergency and who can kick goals. I'm guessing it more or less guarantees Jordie Barret a world cup spot as the aerial 14 if Smith is at the back plus emergency kicking.

Handle9

11258 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217471 15-Apr-2019 15:26

networkn:
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12222482

Legally, if he was allowed to keep his job, pretty sure his contract would prevent from Cheika unilaterally deciding not to pick him for any reason other than form. Pretty sure there are clauses to protect against that exact thing in most pro contracts?

I mean I haven't seen a contract I have seen discussions on it. Anti punative clauses and the like. I guess you can work around those by making claims around other things...

It's pretty untenable for Folau now regardless, but I don't think this is the way it should be handled. Very poor.

Contractually I would guess that selection is at the sole discretion of the selectors etc etc. Selection is often subjective so it needs to be that way.

If he won his case he could go to court again because of Cheikas comments but it would be even more of a circus than the one he's already started.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217472 15-Apr-2019 15:28

Handle9:
networkn:

Damien McKenzie sidelined for 8-9 months with a ruptured ACL. Poor B'stard. World Cup over for him :(

Wonder who the next cab off the rank is? Havilli can play most back positions, but can't cover 10... Alimano is untested at test level, also not a 10.

It'll come down to who can play 10 in an emergency and who can kick goals. I'm guessing it more or less guarantees Jordie Barret a world cup spot as the aerial 14 if Smith is at the back plus emergency kicking.

I know I keep saying it, but JB's temperament is a real concern to me. When he is under pressure, he isn't reliable. If I was the opposing team I would just have him under pressure all game long). I cringe to think of him at 10 with even less time and more pressure. He does have a massive boot though (Dagg big which I think we have missed) and can kick goals. He is tall. Havilli kicked for Canterbury really well a year or two back if I recall. I suspect JB will beat him out though.

I am starting to come around on Akira. I think he has made a massive effort to improve his workrate. Still concerned about his temperament too. As someone else mentioned over the weekend, if there is any off the ball stuff, he will be part of it.

I think the biggest advantage the AB's have is that they remain calm under pressure. I see us going in with 2-3 players who aren't. Worries me a lot.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217496 15-Apr-2019 15:41

Contractually I would guess that selection is at the sole discretion of the selectors etc etc. Selection is often subjective so it needs to be that way.

If he won his case he could go to court again because of Cheikas comments but it would be even more of a circus than the one he's already started.

Michael Chiekas' comments were unneccessary in my view. What does he get from that except potentially more headaches. He never learns. Less is more. How often has he been made to look foolish by claiming he can acheive results he can't or doesn't. In my view you are better to say less and let your results speak for themselves.

There are already fundraising sites underwriting Folau's legal costs if he chooses to become litigious. If his career is over, he has a lot of time to make RA miserable for handling this so poorly.

He expressed an opinion, one that is expressed by thousands of churches most weeks and held by probably over a billion people the world over. I feel his influence is being well over stated.

Whether he decides to take this further is a different story. It will likely be settled out of court, but I do think it would be an interesting test case.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217504 15-Apr-2019 16:03

I am wondering whether considering Marty Banks would be a reasonable option to replace DM? He has a 100% kicking record this season and 94% last season I believe, is actually a very decent 10, though uncapped of course. He has more experience than many of the other names.

Of course, we could wheel Dan Carter out of retirement.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217599 15-Apr-2019 18:12

networkn:

[There are already fundraising sites underwriting Folau's legal costs if he chooses to become litigious. If his career is over, he has a lot of time to make RA miserable for handling this so poorly.

How has RA handled this so poorly? You have mentioned that a number of times. RA warned him. They gave him rules as they are the employer he is an employee. he again ignored that. RA has been quiet. Sensible. Its not a case of fire him, job done, there is the legal angle, the employment angle, the public response angle. They would be handing it poorly if they became judge jury and executioner.

To date they have given him a very fair go, he has let them down. He has stated previously he would be happy to walk away, he has said that now also. His respect as an employee is clearly over ridden by his beliefs, beliefs that no one has a problem that he has, but when he uses his public face privilege to rant about sending homosexuals to hell, he is living in a different age. We are well over that. The Bible is the Bible. A lot of discrimination has reduced over time for humans. Woman used to belong in the kitchen, end of story. Homosexuals were evil, and so on. Society has grown up. The Bible still exists as does all history of evil doings, that is HISTORY, it is not now.

This guy has handled it poorly, he is the one breaking the rules of his employer, after warnings, and going on about it, and have a latte prior to a meeting and being seen laughing. Given that he keeps saying he is more than prepared to walk away, and his passion for the Bible is clearly levels above his passion for sport, he should use his talents where they are most useful, in the Church. Not using an apple box on social media.

RA is not handling it poorly, they are dealt a hand with someone who cannot be trusted and who cannot manage himself and his career and his beliefs.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217604 15-Apr-2019 18:36

God forbid the guy have a coffee and laugh! The cheek of the man. Are you aware he was meeting his player representative at that cafe? Maybe it's anxious/nervous laughter, it happens. You are making a LOT of assumptions about his state of mind, intentions and general state.

RA *publically* stated they would sack him, without first hearing his side of the story. Employment matters require an investigation, representation if the accused party wishes and to hear his side if he chooses to present it. He's also entitled to a reasonable time to collect whatever evidence he may wish to present in his defense. That's a pre-determined decision which is against employment law in both NZ and Australia. His coach has come out and said he won't pick him regardless of the decision made regarding his employment. The right thing to do is say very little and follow the process. They have not done either. The ARPU stepped in otherwise they would have torn up his contract without even hearing him out.

He has expressed his opinion, an opinion held by a massive percentage of the population (sinners who don't repent go to hell). He did not single homosexuals out, he listed them in the same sentence as 6 other groups.

His contract is what matters, and what RA claim isn't necessarily the way things are. They might be, but his contract is what matters.

Even if you are right, and he's 100% to blame and wrong, they are still required to follow the process. A number of comments they have made are prejudicial. There was really no need for anyone to comment publically, it's a private employment matter no matter how much interest the public has.

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217608 15-Apr-2019 19:00

networkn:

God forbid the guy have a coffee and laugh! The cheek of the man. Are you aware he was meeting his player representative at that cafe? Maybe it's anxious/nervous laughter, it happens. You are making a LOT of assumptions about his state of mind, intentions and general state.

RA *publically* stated they would sack him, without first hearing his side of the story. Employment matters require an investigation, representation if the accused party wishes and to hear his side if he chooses to present it. He's also entitled to a reasonable time to collect whatever evidence he may wish to present in his defense. That's a pre-determined decision which is against employment law in both NZ and Australia. His coach has come out and said he won't pick him regardless of the decision made regarding his employment. The right thing to do is say very little and follow the process. They have not done either. The ARPU stepped in otherwise they would have torn up his contract without even hearing him out.

He has expressed his opinion, an opinion held by a massive percentage of the population (sinners who don't repent go to hell). He did not single homosexuals out, he listed them in the same sentence as 6 other groups.

His contract is what matters, and what RA claim isn't necessarily the way things are. They might be, but his contract is what matters.

Even if you are right, and he's 100% to blame and wrong, they are still required to follow the process. A number of comments they have made are prejudicial. There was really no need for anyone to comment publically, it's a private employment matter no matter how much interest the public has.

I would have thought it was serious. He's having a latte with who were somehow involved in this issue, advisors, whatever, it's serious. He was serious when asked for comment before escaping in a car with no comment. But its also ok to joke around as well, it doesn't seem that serious, mirrored by his comments since

They stated the intention was to terminate his contract. That is not "would sack him" Its close but its not the same. Employment issues do matter thats why they have been largely silent, there are boxes that need to be ticked in due process. Excessive comment during a process is not acceptable. There was a 10 minute meeting, their comment was nothing has changed. Thats fair. The process continues. Im not sure what is against NZ and AUS law, he has been given a breach of conduct, that requires a hearing, its all above board. No one is shortcutting anything. The coach (and others in other sports) have stated they will not pick him, I see no issue. Jesse Ryder was also not picked because of behavioural issues, even though he was worthy of selection. RA has said every little and is following due process, thats very clear.

He did single homosexuals out, they go to hell.

They have said very little, they said that based on his previous behaviour and previous warnings that they plan to terminate his contract. Thats not hard to see why. Its not a case of yet again, had too many beers. Discrimination is a big deal these days. decades ago, he would have got flowers sent to him, its a different world now. We don't oppress people based on a few physical or mental metrics. any more.

It is a private matter, but when you are in the public eye, rightly or wrongly, its different. A higher standard , and automatic accountability cannot be avoided.

If his comments were about race, or colour, or being female, would that be different?

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2217704 15-Apr-2019 21:56

tdgeek: Discrimination is a big deal these days.

Here's the definition of discrimination.

discrimination noun the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

I don't see where he has treated anyone differently on the grounds of race, age, sex etc. All he has done is make a statement, based on his interpretation on what is written in the Bible, saying what he believes will happen to various groups of people if they do certain things.

In effect he is giving a warning or caution much in the same way a parent might warn or caution a child about the dangers of climbing a tree. I don't how that can be classed as discrimination.

I think a lot of people have misunderstood his message. Rather than him picking on the groups of people listed in his message, I think he believed was trying to help them by trying to stop them from going to hell.

Technically, as far as I can see he has done nothing wrong.

Whether or not you or I agree with his beliefs or his method for delivering his message is another matter.

Unfortunately I can see a claim for religious discrimination coming out of this. It won't do anyone any good.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tdgeek

29641 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217774 16-Apr-2019 07:35

Technofreak:

tdgeek: Discrimination is a big deal these days.

Here's the definition of discrimination.

discrimination noun the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

I don't see where he has treated anyone differently on the grounds of race, age, sex etc. All he has done is make a statement, based on his interpretation on what is written in the Bible, saying what he believes will happen to various groups of people if they do certain things.

In effect he is giving a warning or caution much in the same way a parent might warn or caution a child about the dangers of climbing a tree. I don't how that can be classed as discrimination.

I think a lot of people have misunderstood his message. Rather than him picking on the groups of people listed in his message, I think he believed was trying to help them by trying to stop them from going to hell.

Technically, as far as I can see he has done nothing wrong.

Whether or not you or I agree with his beliefs or his method for delivering his message is another matter.

Unfortunately I can see a claim for religious discrimination coming out of this. It won't do anyone any good.

Prejudicial treatment. He has decreed that gays are bad, they repent or go to hell. That is his belief that he rants to everyone on social media. Hi, I am a famous rugby player, you all know me, I think gays must repent or go to hell. Its his soapbox. There are many many many statements of fact in history of all sorts of beliefs and atrocities that are recorded in history, by many past leaders of state or religions. That is history. It is what happened,and as the human race evolved we learnt from that. Its now not acceptable.

Can we include other sectors that we can discriminate upon, as in the past, a leader or religion believed that, and it is recorded?

When he was first pinged to this, by his employers, he was warned. He has done it again in full knowledge of likely consequences. Thats soapbox to me. he should go where is heart is strongest, and work in the Church

I'm surprised we are defending anti LGBT behaviour.

networkn

Networkn
32243 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2217892 16-Apr-2019 08:51

tdgeek:

Prejudicial treatment. He has decreed that gays are bad, they repent or go to hell. That is his belief that he rants to everyone on social media. Hi, I am a famous rugby player, you all know me, I think gays must repent or go to hell. Its his soapbox. There are many many many statements of fact in history of all sorts of beliefs and atrocities that are recorded in history, by many past leaders of state or religions. That is history. It is what happened,and as the human race evolved we learnt from that. Its now not acceptable.

Can we include other sectors that we can discriminate upon, as in the past, a leader or religion believed that, and it is recorded?

When he was first pinged to this, by his employers, he was warned. He has done it again in full knowledge of likely consequences. Thats soapbox to me. he should go where is heart is strongest, and work in the Church

I'm surprised we are defending anti LGBT behaviour.

So you are suggesting we disband all Religion etc? Most religions are based on the fact if you sin without repenting you go to hell. Most religions consider homosexuality a sin (and in some countries it's still illegal).

He didn't single gays out, he mentioned them in the same sentence as 6 other groups. I am sure at some point in my life, I have lied. I am sure I didn't repent, but I can tell you for certain as a somewhat intelligent being, I didn't give a second thought to my chances of going to "hell" just because Israel Folau said so. I expect most other people not looking for an excuse to get upset, feel the same way.

Anyways, for this discussion to continue it probably should have it's own thread, we aren't really talking Rugby primarily any more.

1 | ... | 268 | 269 | 270 | 271 | 272 | 273 | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | ... | 640