Better people making better All Blacks ...
-
@bones said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
Shouldn't we strive to treat all people the same under the law?
I get what you're saying but I can't equate being an elite, professional sportsman with being a milkman.
Maybe. But it highlights to me how difficult this sort of thing is. If we want to treat elite sportsmen differently to other people with other jobs, where do we draw the line?
Poss. it comes down to the contract (written or otherwise) the player has with his team or sport. That can be challenged in a fair way in the legal system I guess.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.
Did his time (unlike some).
Do we accept him?
I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...
I don't. Abusing then murdering an infant should be a death sentence, so no.
I don't like having Reece in the ABs, but accept he's going to be and thus consider him in my couch coach teams. If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc. We can do without them wearing the silver fern. Same with anyone that dopes, leave them out forever.
But that's not how is works sadly, so we get these people being paraded around on world women's day.
I think you have to balance rehabilitation/player support with the image the sport tries to portray itself to the wider world. Then there's the fairness and justice angle - if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing? Shouldn't we strive to treat all people the same under the law?
I wouldn't utilize the services of a plumber who hit his wife so in that regard it actually does work the same. The fact that you're more likely to be judged as a pro rugby player because you're in the public eye is simply a pitfall of the job innit.
-
@frye said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
you're more likely to be judged as a pro rugby player because you're in the public eye
Exactly the point I was making
I wouldn't utilize the services of a plumber who hit his wife so in that regard it actually does work the same.
It doesn't work the same though (as you pointed out later) and that's the contradiction and the difficulty. Tricky one.
-
@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing?
I think there are other careers where you can lose your job hitting your wife, definitely in the corporate world, probably in parts of the entertainment world, probably in any industry where public perception is involved.
They'd probably only loose their NZ international part of their sporting career.
-
I remain somewhat old school in the sense that despite professionalism it is still a national rep team and we should be picking the best players from those eligible.
If the board were able to introduce some sort of eligibility rule and terminate Super contracts around criminal convictions of a certain length/type I would be 100% in favour providing the rules were transparent and consistently applied. But elements of the NZ legal system including diversion and name supression would seem to make that impossible.
Consistency is important though and as unpalatable as it is, unless there is a rule that can be consistently applied I would want to case by case moral judgements of individuals. I wish there were a way to do this and make things simple. The Keith Murdoch incident shows that things can go too far the other way.
-
@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc.
It's strange that the Better People Make Better All Blacks mantra was preached the most publicly around the 2011 RWC win. If that rule was in place at the time, especially in retrospect, it would have been pretty tough to cobble a squad together. Where do you stand on seals?
-
@nepia said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing?
I think there are other careers where you can lose your job hitting your wife, definitely in the corporate world, probably in parts of the entertainment world, probably in any industry where public perception is involved.
They'd probably only loose their NZ international part of their sporting career.
For sure. But my point is being a well-known sports/business/media star means it's more career-impacting than on someone who isn't and that makes it way more difficult to get back on track. I think, in terms of fairness and justice, that should be taken into account in these situations.
-
@rotated said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
Where do you stand on seals?
Duh. On their necks.
-
@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.
Did his time (unlike some).
Do we accept him?
I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...
I don't. Abusing then murdering an infant should be a death sentence, so no.
I don't like having Reece in the ABs, but accept he's going to be and thus consider him in my couch coach teams. If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc. We can do without them wearing the silver fern. Same with anyone that dopes, leave them out forever.
But that's not how is works sadly, so we get these people being paraded around on world women's day.
Interesting take we have isn't it? Do we say ok you stuffed up so you are no longer ever going to be a good person, or do we take the Steve Hansen idea that sometimes you put your arm around shoulder and try and make them a better person (or not repeat mistakes).
I find it hard to decide, as if I ignored family or mates who ballsed thing up, I not sure I would be much of a person, someone who keeps doing worng well maybe!
And remember we only ever know of people who get caught, and I will be honest I have driven after a few beers when I younger, etc etc, have been pissed in public, I did plenty when I was younger and I find it hard to judge people , glasshouses etc. -
I think things should be taken on a case by case basis. For example, Domestic Violence is incredibly complex and it is virtually impossible to know what goes on behind closed doors and between two people. Having a blanket rule would be unfair.
-
@rotated said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc.
It's strange that the Better People Make Better All Blacks mantra was preached the most publicly around the 2011 RWC win. If that rule was in place at the time, especially in retrospect, it would have been pretty tough to cobble a squad together. Where do you stand on seals?
I have always thought it was more of an aspirational statement than part of the job description - basically, the hope that taking a decent rugby player and making them a better person would make them an even better rugby player.
That said, I am likewise uncomfortable with picking guys like Reece etc. who have done some unsavoury / illegal things in the past before they became ABs. However, I am more uncomfortable with the likes of Frizzell whose indiscretions came while they were in the ABs.
-
@rotated said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:
If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc.
It's strange that the Better People Make Better All Blacks mantra was preached the most publicly around the 2011 RWC win. If that rule was in place at the time, especially in retrospect, it would have been pretty tough to cobble a squad together. Where do you stand on seals?
Tough but nice guys like Mealamu and Thorn would have kept everyone in line.
-
I am uncomfortable with writing off people who make mistakes.
On Sevu Reece for example. I haven't seen the court docs but I gather it was a rather low level incident against his partner after which he attended an anger management course, turned his life around and has remained with the same partner ever since.
I don't have an issue with him being an All Black. Reeces story is not uncommon in my experience. People do dumb things, get the help they need and don't get in trouble again and end up in fulfilling relationships with the person they abused.
The last thing we want to do is cut that pathway off for people, whether they be All Black's, nurses, lawyers or whatever. There's nothing more guaranteed to cause conflict than evonomic deprivation and stopping people from earning a living.
Full disclosure - I am a family lawyer.
