|
|
Post by Carnster on Feb 13, 2020 13:15:02 GMT
I'm in full agreement here. After all, if you got done for the same behaviour you'd probably lose your job. The difference in this case is that you find a job elsewhere. I suppose the problem with professional sports people is that if they lose their job then they can't just get another job as the sporting body wont allow them to. I realise this is also relevant in the Folau case and is exactly why the RFL don't want to test the legalities which are grey to say the least. You then have to say that criminals get rehabilitation for their crimes with an effort placed on getting them back into work and back into society. Sports people don't seem to be afforded the same chances as convicted criminals. I realise that this contradicts my position on Folau somewhat and I've come to the conclusion that the same applies in his case and I was hasty to put my point of view across. It's a difficult thing to do the right thing. Take the high ground and cast the player out, contradicts the sports commitment to mental well being of those players who are obviously in need of guidance. Give them that guidance with a chance to turn themselves and behaviour around you get blasted for being too lenient. I know many would say if you make your bed then you lie in it, but it doesn't solve the issues at hand in a society that's supposed to offer second chances and do what is right. If I was convicted of ‘wounding with intent’ I’d never get another job in my current line of work - sportspeople can’t claim to be hard done by in this respect. Which begs another point. Who gets to decide the level of seriousness to any offence within the game? Is each case different? Should it be a blanket ban regardless of severity? I'm not disagreeing with anyone on this as everyone has a valid point. I was really just playing devil's advocate and showing why it's so difficult to find a solution that fits all criteria. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2020 13:24:19 GMT
If I was convicted of ‘wounding with intent’ I’d never get another job in my current line of work - sportspeople can’t claim to be hard done by in this respect. Which begs another point. Who gets to decide the level of seriousness to any offence within the game? Is each case different? Should it be a blanket ban regardless of severity? I'm not disagreeing with anyone on this as everyone has a valid point. I was really just playing devil's advocate and showing why it's so difficult to find a solution that fits all criteria. I agree, it’s a hornet’s nest but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do anything. I’d imagine they’d agree a ‘code’ between the clubs then no doubt cases that fell between the gaps and the code itself would be tested at tribunal/court but you’ve got to start somewhere. The current line of ‘anyone who damages the games image’ or whatever it was is a non starter for me and unenforceable. |
|
|
|
Post by bonitared on Feb 13, 2020 16:01:20 GMT
I questioned on the Folau thread who would be the arbiter of bad conduct. Which is worse when they’re all bad? Who is to judge between unconscionable religious beliefs and assault. When is one assault less bad than another ?
There’s one other point too. I assume most contracts have a ‘disgrace’ clause ,bringing the club into disrepute. This allows contracts to be terminated relatively easily.
However,Folau and the guys we employed were in the full knowledge of what they’d done.
Maybe the test should be the same. So you don’t employ someone if they’ve done something which,had they been in a club’s employment,would have had them fired.
Finally,what about the rehabilitation of offenders? I think some of the guys we employed have turned their lives around.
There’s no perfect answer
|
|
|
|
Post by JJR on Feb 13, 2020 23:32:27 GMT
There has to be a set of Rules around which a Code of Conduct is based or this debacle with Folau will just keep re-appearing. But with it might be a Reconciliation process for those who after a given period honestly and eanestly repent.
At the moment Clubs get away with too much because all they want to do is sign players on the cheap which they couldn't normally afford unless those players had broken rules. So it's all about money in the end
Let's face it, the powers that be are again looking stupid because they're condemming on the hoof. And what Folau transgressed against is flavour of the month, unlike wife beating, drug taking or other transgressions. And why is Superleague taking this stance: sponsorship and the potential of losing face and crowds and not morality
So if you want standards write the standard down and abide by it and don't look like idiots by stating that it's wrong but we never thought about standards.
|
|
