-
Given the article said he preferred league, I guess a quick trip across the Ta$man for a spell of anonyminity into the NRL?
-
@Stockcar86 I was surprised to hear Rogers say that he and the WRU were not aware of all of the facts or the seriousness of the assaults. Credit to the WRU for making this decision but they had little choice after the backlash today.
-
@antipodean said in Appalling double-standard:
15 out of 25-30,000? That's basically statistically insignificant.
I agree with Willie, why is the NZRU coping heat about it?
That was only the first XV wasn't it? yeah, nitpicking, i know.
-
Meanwhile, over here in the UK Fautua Otto has been jailed and sacked by his club Jersey for driving while disqualified. Unless there is more to it than simply driving without a licence then jail seems harsh.
-
@MN5 said in Appalling double-standard:
Well you can be assured social media will go fucken ape shit over this one.
How long until a young rugby player kills someone but gets a slap on the wrist because, say, he's an extremely promising lock forward and Whitelock and Retallick are close to retirement ?
That's absolute bullshit.
Missed this, its already happened . In fact there were two let off for an assault that resulted in a death.
-
Here are a couple of manslaughter cases where the defendants were discharged without conviction:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69124061/no-conviction-for-woman-in-manslaughter-of-her-son
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5981533/Mum-walks-free-after-daughters-drowning
Negligent rather than deliberate, but on the other hand, someone died.
It's not just rugby players by any stretch.
-
@Godder said in Appalling double-standard:
Here are a couple of manslaughter cases where the defendants were discharged without conviction:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/69124061/no-conviction-for-woman-in-manslaughter-of-her-son
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5981533/Mum-walks-free-after-daughters-drowning
Negligent rather than deliberate, but on the other hand, someone died.
It's not just rugby players by any stretch.
Definitely not a "rugby" thing as people like to claim. If an offender has bright future prospects then, rightly or wrongly, they are looked at far more favourably then someone that does not. This really has nothing to do with the NZRU or rugby.
-
@RoninWC said in Appalling double-standard:
Surprisingly the stuff article reporting on the judges reasoning for the "no conviction" is actually pretty good.
When you read the article, there were quite a number of mitigating circumstances in Filipo's favour.- He was 17 at the time of the offence
- It was his first offence having a clean record prior (unlike his brother who was also involved in the incident and received a harsher punishment but not jail time)
- From the article, he did not punch either of the females but "more in the nature of pushing and shoving of each of them".
- Since the incident, he has made some reparations (and will likely have to continue to do so as I would imagine he would be liable for the loss of work and medical costs of his victims)
- Has undertaken "voluntary community work with a youth development group, which promoted sport as a way of helping youth with personal development"
- And finallly the potential impacts to a promising career.
From my reading of the article, referring to the assault on the girls as pushing and shoving. That was the journalists words, not the words / quote from the judges summation.
The victims described it as a punch to the throat of one girl, while the other needed some plastic surgery (didn't describe whether pushed or punched) I guess if you are shoved face first into asphalt etc requiring surgery - then it's technically of a 'pushing and shoving nature'.
-
One of the problems here is that the NZRFU tries to run its organisation like a business, and rightly so.
However the public have a completely set of standards because 'rugby' is the business they run.
You wouldn't expect the CEO of Fletchers to know about the impending legal cases of all of the staff employed by the various business units within the organisation, or expect him to ring the victims of crime to apologise for any actions they carried out prior to joining the organisation would you?
Why is rugby different? Because it's a sport on TV?
WRU are an easy target here but what else could they have done except for cutting this guy loose where he would have been an even bigger menace on the streets as an angry unemployed loser. Instead they put in a support network around him and tried to turn his life around.
Yet the NZRFU and WRU are the ones being held accountable for his actions.. how the judge that let him off, the people that wrote supporting letters, his brother, his parents and of course himself..!
Also - anyone else notice how much 'remorse' has been expressed by this guy, also mentioned by the judge etc - but thus far no apology has been received from him.. isn't that the first thing that you do when you've done something you regret and feel bad about?
-
One reason I can't stand breakfast TV and their fuckin' annoying hosts.
There are plenty of "celebrities" who have done equally despicable acts (or worse) and have received permanent name suppression so avoided this media-witch-hunt. Rugby is an easy target due to its profile in NZ.
-
@Bovidae said in Appalling double-standard:
One reason I can't stand breakfast TV and their fuckin' annoying hosts.
There are plenty of "celebrities" who have done equally despicable acts (or worse) and have received permanent name suppression so avoided this media-witch-hunt. Rugby is an easy target due to its profile in NZ.
to be fair, one of the ex Shortland Street 'stars' yesterday did mention the fact high profile people (be it in sports, acting etc) in NZ do seem to get preferential treatment with name suppression and sentences, but was the fact that they thought asking a 'star' his view on it was appropriate...
I agree with @WillieTheWaiter above, people are quick to point out what the NZRU should do despite the fact they are bound to the same laws as you and I are in our employment.
-
Some of my thoughts about this issue.
Having lived in several countries on different continents, I must say that part of this expectation of NZR/WRU to act, is due to the insane importance given in NZ to sport and athletes. How athletes can be seen as role models is beyond me, but that's what 'we' expect them to be. They are supposed to be model citizens that people (esp children) look up to with respect to everything in life, including things that have nothing to do with sport.
To me that is just plain weird. A role model should be someone who has wisdom, is of exemplary behaviour and of a certain moral standard (for lack of a better word); it should be a person you can talk to and go to for advice. Usually, that is a person who has lived a bit, has experienced life and all the trouble it can give you. Someone in your own environment, such as a respected family member, someone in your church or other social environment, your teacher, and yes, it could be your rugby coach as well etc. ... but not because (s)he's a rugby coach.
A (well)known athlete, musician, artist can be an example, an inspiration to become just as successful as they are in their specific capacity. As athletes, muscians, artists etc; but not as 'persons'. Athletes, musicians, artists etc are not the people you would go to for advice on life, on what's good and bad, on decisions that have nothing to do with sport, music, art etc., unless you personally know them and they are those respected people I referred to earlier. Seriously, why would even Richie McCaw be a role model for your kids? He can be an example if your kid wants to be a good rugby player: he can give them the inspiration to train hard and be as good a rugby player they can possibly be. But apart from that, how can they model themselves on a man they don't personally know? We have no idea what he is like in his personal life; whether he is actually a nice person in private, whether he has some wisdom to offer about life or certain problems etc etc. If we can't expect someone like Richie to be a role model, how can we expect that from any other rugby player that wears the jersey of the NZ, your Super or NPC, or even local club team? By all means, let them go into the community and to schools and junior rugby clubs. Let them give young players the motivation and advice about playing rugby and strive for a career in sport. But for everything else? No! That's not the message that should be given to kids and it's also not fair on the athletes themselves, who - especially the young ones - should be allowed to make mistakes (I'm not talking about criminal offences here) without being crucified by the media and public alike.
I'm not saying that rugby clubs/unions/players don't have any responsibility towards the community. The Chiefs 'issue' is one example where that went wrong because things were said and done in a public environment that society doesn't accept to be done, at least not in public (the homophobic comment, hiring a stripper). For clubs/unions just to look away as if it didn't happen isn't acceptable and they will need to act if things go wrong. But to me, that responsibility doesn't always, or necessarily, extend to something an individual player does in his/her private life, not wearing the team jersey.
Where I struggle is where you draw the line. If a player has assaulted someone (in case of Filipo this was proven in court), do you rip up his contract? Do you keep him on your books, but suspend him for some time? Do you let him pull on the team jersey and play like nothing happened, because it happened in private? Can you fully separate the private person from the player that represents his club?
In the case of Julian Savea (assault on his partner in private), the Canes did not suspend him but he didn't play a few games because he had "too much on his mind", dealing with what happened etc. This was before it was brought before the courts. After the diversion, nothing happened.
In the case of Losi, the Lions did nothing at all.
In the case of Guildford (Raro), the men at the receiving end of his fists didn't find it a big deal (they said they hardly felt it because he was too drunk to punch) and did't want to lodge a complaint with police; the police could not charge him; it never came before the courts, but NZ rugby suspended him for 4 months anyway and he could not play for the Crusaders until months later.
In Guildford's case it is clear that his suspension had everything to do with NZR's image, despite the fact that ZG acted as a private person, not an All Black. Would it have been different if he had 'punched' his girlfriend in private (compare Savea) and nobody had seen it happen? Would it have been different if he had punched several people in public and it had come before the courts (compare Losi), would they have sacked him instead of suspended him?
It's difficult, but as long as we keep treating rugby players and other athletes as role models and the sport as a religion; and as long as unions/clubs keep using players as ambassadors not just of their product (rugby) but also as role models, we will keep on having these cases popping up in the media now and then. Because young people will keep on making mistakes and the media love writing about it.
Sorry, that became longer than I intended, but this is just not a simple clear-cut issue.
-
@WillieTheWaiter Yep, the bile being flung at Tew and the NZRU is baffling and weird. Tew is not responsible for the actions of that little creep.
And public 'remorse' doesn't mean jack shit. He could have written a letter of apology to his victims, the people who actually deserve it. The general NZ public aren't entitled to anything, no matter what they think.
Sure it's all nice happy clappy to care about the offender's future, but it's not much of a deterrent to other rugby players, or to anyone who has a nasty temper. Justice really does suck sometimes.
-
Dude, what is it with you and Guildford? Are you his brother?
I was sort of with you on the "role models thing" and i have made the same point on one of the many, many "footballer behaves badly" threads we have had over the years (my stance is players are mostly responsible for how they act as rugby players, all other lessons should come from your parents).
But then it morphed in to a quick monologue about how Zac was unfairly treated in comparison because he can't fight (way to leave out some parts there as well Gus Gould).
Again, as with the thread based on that silly bint's article on Stuff, this is not a uniquely NZ thing, or even just a rugby thing. Sport means a lot to people, and favoured athletes are forgiven shit all over the world. Look at all the gangsters in the big American sports forgiven waaaay worse things than this because they can make big plays for your team. There are no shortage of league players running around with long records. Messi got done for tax fraud, got a fucking lenient sentence, do you think the people of Barcelona wanted his contract torn up?
What NZ has is a small country, with a vocal minority who have had enough of what they call the "rugby" culture, and a media willing to voice their opinions. We also have fuck all in the way of "celebrities" so sports stars it is. And rugby certainly sells things/generates clicks.
Appalling double-standard