Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | ... | 640

11274 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240592 18-May-2019 16:35

Technofreak:
networkn:

Agreed, it's insane that words spoken in thousands or tens of thousands of Churches every week without challenge could cause someone to lose their job, when people who have beaten their wives, and many other far more heinous crimes get far lesser punishment.

This is one big area for me that shows significant inconsistency with the way this whole issue has been treated. It's not OK say what you truly believe to be right according to your beliefs but it's OK to beat wives girlfriends etc, which no person in their right mind would consider acceptable.

This article summed it up very well. https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112638009/an-abhorrent-post-but-proverbial-israel-folau-death-penalty-a-step-too-far

Rugby Australia will need to be very careful from now how they handle player indiscretions.

Where has anyone said it is ok to beat wives or girlfriends? You suggesting that no disciplinary action gets taken which is not correct. If they are one off incidents players get disciplined, it ends there and everyone moves on. This is the same across most walks of life including the likes of Tony Veitch.

The issue with Folau isn't saying what he truly believes, it's the repetitive defiance towards his employer and the way he expresses his views.

There was no issue with him expressing his views on the Australian same sex marriage legislation because he did it in a way that wasn't grossly offensive even though it was contrary to Rugby Australia's stated view.

tdgeek

29650 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240603 18-May-2019 17:04

Some clarity on the manner that RA handled this. The missing social media clause was not missing

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112826663/israel-folau-rugby-australia-boss-raelene-castle-admits-to-issues-over-folau-hearing

"That will be a discussion that we will need to have with RUPA [Rugby Union Players' Association] around whether the code of conduct is delivering the best outcomes from a financial delivery viewpoint.

"That will be something that we'll be looking to discuss with them as we come to a new collective bargaining agreement."

Castle explained RA couldn't insert a specific social media clause in Folau's last contract as it wasn't part of the existing CBA between RA and RUPA.

'"We can't just insert clauses whenever we feel like it," she said.

"Even if we had a [social media] clause, who knows where this could have gone from a legal perspective?'

Asked if the CBA could be updated in future to keep pace with the development of social media Castle replied: "I certainly think those are the types of things that CBAs need to include and as time changes and social media does become more focused."

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240609 18-May-2019 17:15

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112756611/contract-debacle-that-left-rugby-australia-vulnerable-in-israel-folau-storm

Castle wanted to cement their relationship after a rocky year but, crucially, also to talk him around to agreeing to something someone had forgotten to include in the original contract Folau had signed on October 10.

tdgeek

29650 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240624 18-May-2019 17:59

Thats interesting, and what I thought was her failing. That contradicts what she said in my link, they they cannot just add a clause in without that already being in place with a pre existing agreement with the players association. Your link states the addendum is the intended social media clause, so one of her points is correct, not both, obviously.

My opinion is already that if she was at fault with the clause, or adding a clause that could have been added, she needs to offer her resignation. RA can decide on that. But now, she says she had no option. I assume that will come out in the wash.

afe66

3181 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2240625 18-May-2019 18:30

I'm intrigued about people saying there needs to have social media clause.

My employment contract has a clause about bringing my employer into disrepute and has for more than 10 years and how its grounds for disciplinary action.

Would be surprised if many employment contracts didn't have such clauses.

Technofreak

6527 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2240669 18-May-2019 22:05

Handle9:

Where has anyone said it is ok to beat wives or girlfriends? You suggesting that no disciplinary action gets taken which is not correct. If they are one off incidents players get disciplined, it ends there and everyone moves on. This is the same across most walks of life including the likes of Tony Veitch.

The issue with Folau isn't saying what he truly believes, it's the repetitive defiance towards his employer and the way he expresses his views.

There was no issue with him expressing his views on the Australian same sex marriage legislation because he did it in a way that wasn't grossly offensive even though it was contrary to Rugby Australia's stated view.

I'm not aware of any one saying it was OK to beat wives or girlfriends. I, like I expect anyone, would be shocked if anyone thought it was OK. In fact I'd go as far to say that I'd think most people would consider this type of action would be a case for instant dismissal, but where has anyone had their contract torn up because of this? Tony Veitch excepted.

Was Israel Folau in repetitive defiance of what he was and wasn't allowed to say? There seems to be some doubt about what was in his contract and what he been told he could and couldn't say and what would be unacceptable.

These two articles add some perspective on that if you take the time to read them.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112572070/he-does-it-in-a-loving-way--how-meeting-israel-folau-changed-nick-farrjones-mind?rm=m

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/112574680/israel-folau-dumped-by-sportswear-company-sponsor-asics?rm=a

I contend (you may or may not agree) what Folau did was of much less severity than wife or girlfriend beating but he paid a higher price.

You also raise an interesting point about the same sex marriage issue. I read that many of the Pacific Island, Rugby Australia players, including Folau, were quite upset by RA's stance on same sex marriage.

The way I understood it because they were RA players, they saw RA as speaking on their behalf supporting same sex marriage, which was something they did not agree with. It's almost the flip side of what RA are upset with now with respect to Folau's comments. You can't have it both ways.

What the hell were RA thinking of when they made their public statement supporting same sex marriage. Nothing wrong with the various RA management people having their own opinions but for a non political organisation like RA to make a public statement on behalf of the organisation supporting/or not supporting a contentious issue isn't right in my opinion especially when there will be major differences of opinion within the group of people they represent.

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

dafman

3919 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2240750 19-May-2019 11:09

Technofreak:

Was Israel Folau in repetitive defiance of what he was and wasn't allowed to say? There seems to be some doubt about what was in his contract and what he been told he could and couldn't say and what would be unacceptable.

This from a Castle interview suggests Folau would have been acutely aware of what he could and couldn't say (last sentence in particular):

"I think specifically having used the words 'hell' and 'gay', and the homosexual community, in the first post, we had specific conversations about the harm that it had caused the community and the offence it has caused to that community," Castle said.

Castle did admit RA hadn't added an extra clause regarding social media as the contract was under the collective agreement and "you can't add clauses that are to the detriment of the player".

But RA did give Folau and his manager a letter as well as a face-to-face meeting which detailed expectations of him on social media.

Samsung

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

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240769 19-May-2019 11:55

dafman:
Technofreak:

Was Israel Folau in repetitive defiance of what he was and wasn't allowed to say? There seems to be some doubt about what was in his contract and what he been told he could and couldn't say and what would be unacceptable.
This from a Castle interview suggests Folau would have been acutely aware of what he could and couldn't say (last sentence in particular): "I think specifically having used the words 'hell' and 'gay', and the homosexual community, in the first post, we had specific conversations about the harm that it had caused the community and the offence it has caused to that community," Castle said. Castle did admit RA hadn't added an extra clause regarding social media as the contract was under the collective agreement and "you can't add clauses that are to the detriment of the player". But RA did give Folau and his manager a letter as well as a face-to-face meeting which detailed expectations of him on social media.

Folau didn't apologise, which in my mind would have been a key requirement of him showing remorse or at least understanding or accepting what he did was wrong. I believe RA failing to insist on this and making it a condition of his re-signing, would be a key indicator of intent.

If they had a discussion, but Folau held his ground, which seems a reasonable assumption given his insistence on his position in the second incident, indicates to me that RA failed to make sure all parties were in agreement about what constitutes acceptable, before signing on the dotted line.

I believe the conversation went something like this:

RA: That was very bad, You can't say things like that, our sponsors are having a fit and we could lose a lot of money. You should apologise

IF: This is what I believe, I won't compromise my beliefs and I won't apologise.

RA: We really need you to play, you need to be careful what you say.

IF: I've made my position clear

RA: Heres a pen.

Folau didn't show any remorse, I seriously doubt he would have in any meeting, and RA re-employed him. I suspect this will be a key part of any legal consideration.

In all the articles I have read, and I have read pretty much anything I could find, there isn't ONE indication that Folau acknowledged a requirement for a change in behaviour being a requirement.

There is a saying in parenting circles, that you don't "set your kids up to fail". An example of this is expecting a kid to act in a particular way when there is no indication they have done this in the past, or under extreme circumstances (Expecting good behaviour when they are extremely tired, or sick or both etc). RA have set IF up to fail. They knew his position, he likely made it clear it wouldn't change, and they employed him again anyway, expecting something different. That makes them at least partially at fault for this. In my opinion, Castle should be sacked.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240770 19-May-2019 12:00

Not happy with the result between the Crusaders and Stormers. I can see how SA will be playing this RWC.

My issue is with the pass being called forward to Sevu Reece. They only showed one angle but I've replayed it many times, and as best I can tell it leaves his hands backwards, and Reece is behind him and it travels backwards, so that's not forward.

It's worrying that the Crusaders set piece is a bit shaky this season and more worrying is discipline. They are mostly winning regardless, but it worries me approaching test season!

tdgeek

29650 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240774 19-May-2019 12:21

There is a fair bit of hindsight there. There is no question that RA wanted to resolve last years issue, keep him, and move on. Clearly, what we now know of Folau and his depth of belief and depth of what he can and will do, was not the case last year. Last year was a one off glitch, which has happened many times in sport, and in this region. The usual result is sorry, and its resolved. We don't know the exact wording of his response to the expectations he was given. Its a bit of a stretch to say it was as your opinion suggests. Either he said he will modify how he places his beliefs in public, as a representative of Rugby Australia based on what RA told me cannot be repeated, or he made it clear that he wont take it on board. If the latter, its hard to see him being re signed.

Folau set himself up to fail, he knew the lay of the land. He posted what he posted knowing it will blow up. OTOH if he inadvertently got carried away with this years post, he could have diluted the fallout a LOT by quickly apologising, but he didnt. It was premeditated IMHO. His good mate Brian Tamaki wouldn't agree though.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240832 19-May-2019 16:04

No there isn't. People who do this for a living (employ people) should definitely have been able to join the dots at the time. It's not even remotely hard to see. If someone shows zero remorse for action and says they aren't going to commit to doing better, they are likely to repeat the same actions again. Now I have no direct proof he told them he wouldn't adjust his actions, but in the absence of an apology, or in fact any statement whatsoever, it's reasonable to conclude he wasn't actually sorry (which would seem consistent with him simply thinking he stated what he believes the Bible states.)

It's interesting you think IF's "transgression" last year was a one-off. I didn't think that at the time, it was clear as day to me that it stemmed from a core belief that wasn't going to change and he would either volunteer a statement as he did, or if you go back to the time it occurred, I'm sure you'll see I predicted someone would bait him into saying something (Which is what started the first incident).

It's mind-boggling to me that RA employed him a second time. They had the option to simply not renew his contract.

I see a significant RA Employee has been done for Drink Driving last week. This is a FAR worse crime in my mind than what IF did. I don't expect many sanctions from RA about this, because I am *sure* he will be remorseful, and after all, that's all that matters! There is no excuse in my view whatsoever for someone like him getting a DUI, they have near unlimited support (minders and the like who they can call 24/7), huge incomes so a driver or taxi shouldn't even be a consideration related to cost and it's not like there isn't enough press around the dangers of drink driving.

networkn

Networkn
32247 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240833 19-May-2019 16:05

Now, who here would have thought this sentence would be true this season:

The Blues are the only Kiwi team to get a win this weekend...

Not me.

tdgeek

29650 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240875 19-May-2019 17:40

networkn:

No there isn't. People who do this for a living (employ people) should definitely have been able to join the dots at the time. It's not even remotely hard to see. If someone shows zero remorse for action and says they aren't going to commit to doing better, they are likely to repeat the same actions again. Now I have no direct proof he told them he wouldn't adjust his actions, but in the absence of an apology, or in fact any statement whatsoever, it's reasonable to conclude he wasn't actually sorry (which would seem consistent with him simply thinking he stated what he believes the Bible states.)

It's interesting you think IF's "transgression" last year was a one-off. I didn't think that at the time, it was clear as day to me that it stemmed from a core belief that wasn't going to change and he would either volunteer a statement as he did, or if you go back to the time it occurred, I'm sure you'll see I predicted someone would bait him into saying something (Which is what started the first incident).

It's mind-boggling to me that RA employed him a second time. They had the option to simply not renew his contract.

I see a significant RA Employee has been done for Drink Driving last week. This is a FAR worse crime in my mind than what IF did. I don't expect many sanctions from RA about this, because I am *sure* he will be remorseful, and after all, that's all that matters! There is no excuse in my view whatsoever for someone like him getting a DUI, they have near unlimited support (minders and the like who they can call 24/7), huge incomes so a driver or taxi shouldn't even be a consideration related to cost and it's not like there isn't enough press around the dangers of drink driving.

Clearly your insight into Folau is far deeper and more enlightened than RA. And had he been fired in 2018 you would have said thats ok and fair, as you feel RA should not have re signed him of he did not apologise then? Obviously he lead them to believe it wont happen again. [Many rugby fans would have been outraged, give him a chance. GEEEZ, etc. An instant and sudden action] Thats quite harsh, and while its never been a secret as to his beliefs, which no one then, or now, has an issue with, IMO the extent of what appears to be extremism wasn't obvious to RA.

There have been any numbers of issues with sports people, and the law. Rugby, league, cricket. Firing each one is an option I guess. Better to resolve, and move on. rarely do we see continual bad behaviour, the drunk cricketer was an exception, and he was duly banished, despite his skill.

Drunk driving and demeaning and damaging discrimination are both bad. We could make a rule to dismiss immediately. Or we could make an attempt to resolve, so that a mistake can be learned from. On the plus side, a valuable lesson is learned, and the employer and employee can then continue on with the successful partnership. Or bugger it, lets just fire him?

You place a lot of weight on RA, most place it on IF, but Im surprised that you feel he should he been let go in April last year, just like that. Perhaps what occurred between RA and IF last year that allowed RA to trust him after giving him adequate expectations will come to light. Until then its just speculation.

dafman

3919 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2240880 19-May-2019 17:49

networkn:I see a significant RA Employee has been done for Drink Driving last week. This is a FAR worse crime in my mind than what IF did. I don't expect many sanctions from RA about this, because I am *sure* he will be remorseful, and after all, that's all that matters!

The key difference is that it is highly unlikely that the DUI was a deliberate action where the employee knew in advance that what they were doing was going to land their employer into a media storm.

Folau claims to be a christian, but he is someone without any integrity (IMHO) - he enters contracts then breaks them, he sets his employer up for a media storm without even bothering to alert them, he tells everyone he will walk away from RA, but then doesn't ... etc

Handle9

11274 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2240900 19-May-2019 18:26

dafman:
networkn:I see a significant RA Employee has been done for Drink Driving last week. This is a FAR worse crime in my mind than what IF did. I don't expect many sanctions from RA about this, because I am *sure* he will be remorseful, and after all, that's all that matters!
The key difference is that it is highly unlikely that the DUI was a deliberate action where the employee knew in advance that what they were doing was going to land their employer into a media storm. Folau claims to be a christian, but he is someone without any integrity (IMHO) - he enters contracts then breaks them, he sets his employer up for a media storm without even bothering to alert them, he tells everyone he will walk away from RA, but then doesn't ... etc

If every person who made any kind of mistake lost their job it would be pretty daft. A fundamental concept of fairness is giving people a chance to change their behavior. If they refuse then it's on them.

Latu has been sent home from the Wallabies camp and is now under investigation by the ARU integrity unit. It's pretty clear that Rugby Australia is taking this seriously.

It's also more than a little ironic that Latu has publically supported Folau in his latest Instragram post but that's another story I guess.

If you read the reports from Australia it's pretty clear that Castle and Hore feel that they had an agreement with Folau not to go there again. The langauge towards him lats year compared to this year has fundamentally changed (eg gone from Izzy to Mr Folau). Given that he made public pronouncements about being willing to walk away if Rugby Australia wanted him to then he just looks like a hypocrite.

1 | ... | 274 | 275 | 276 | 277 | 278 | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | ... | 640