Ben Mowen survives alleged mutiny plot.........

[I like to watch]

Actions speak louder than words.
Maybe,they agree with him,but acknowledge as an employer there are conventions to which they must abide.

I know I would feel like a dick,if I punished some subordinates over behavioural issues, and my penalties were overturned at a later date.

 

[Tip]

Actions speak louder than words.

If it the actions Ewan took were "entirely appropriate", then the ARU wouldn't be striking these incidents on the players files would they?

And by all means @slim293, @BPC, dismiss my comment, but please refer to GAGR Rule 6.

 

[Slim 293]

It would more likely be that they feel that the punishments enacted at the time were entirely appropriate, but the actions of the players not sinister enough to require any further action.........

 

[Tip]

Great minds think alike @I like to watch

I press post and I'm like, waaaa when did i change my avatar?!?!?

 

[Tip]

It would more likely be that they feel that the punishments enacted at the time were entirely appropriate, but the actions of the players not sinister enough to require any further action...

Yes the actions taken didn't require further action. They required a backtracking action instead.

Unfortunately these players reputations have suffered. I know I'd be furious if my employer hung me out to dry over 1 late night which there was no stated curfew.

 

[Slim 293]

Unfortunately these players reputations have suffered.

Mowen's?

 

[Braveheart81]

Mowen's?

Without doubt and seemingly, completely unfairly.

 

[Tip]

Mowen should have been out with the rest of them to prove that he is "one of the boys"!

 

[Bullrush]

Yep in the context of the argument, yes they are the equivalent. I was trying to establish whether you thought that a 'day off' was a free for all, or whether you felt that some standards of behaviour still applied. I can see from your response that you agree with the latter, as you should.

Which leads to my next point, that they didn't need someone to sit them down and tell them that they weren't allowed to go out and start trouble, they knew that this was a standard of behaviour that was expected of them, so clearly, the suggestion that they weren't told that they shouldn't be out past midnight is not approval to be out past midnight. They should have held their position in the team in a higher regard and been focussed on the job that they were there to do - and that is to win Rugby Tests.

And what I would choose to do on my day off if I were a Wallaby is completely relevant to the argument because we are talking about whether a group of players should or should not have been expected to know whether it was acceptable behaviour to be out drinking past midnight in the week before a Test. How is it that I know what is expected behaviour, without ever having had any exposure to the organisation and yet these guys need to be told what time they should be in bed?

As Slim said, it's not that they didn't know, it's that they didn't care. And that is precisely why they should have been dropped.

I've never said that a day-off = a 'free for all'. Of course standards of behaviour still apply but staying out late really isn't something I would get upset about for grown men. Equating staying up late to a bar fights is ridiculous in the extreme.

To your second point - as someone has already asked, what 'trouble' did they start? As for excessive alcohol consumption as some have suggested, that hasn't seemed to have been th big issue from the reports. It was how late they stayed out. And apparently, it wasn't an expectation that was clear at all given that 15 of them stayed out late including a number of senior figures in the team - players who don't have reputations for getting on the piss and getting in trouble eg. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper).

And I didn't realise you (and Slim for that matter) are or once was a Wallaby!! Or maybe you were in the support staff for the team? Because that's the only way you would really know what the expectations were. If the expectation were so clear, how did 15 players get it wrong and what was the need to have a meeting after the fact in regards to setting standards and expectations?!

Again, this was about Link stamping his authority on teh team and if staying out late was so serious, he should have suspended the players that week....not a week later.

 

[fatprop]

It would more likely be that they feel that the punishments enacted at the time were entirely appropriate, but the actions of the players not sinister enough to require any further action...

But Robinson said on last nights show that one of the suspended players would have been liable to lose a contract upgrade from the suspension.

But out of the goodness of their hearts management chose to still agree to the upgrade.

Nothing to do with the legality of retrospective punishments at law

 

[louie]

oh boo freaking woo.

This is non story brought up again to drum up interest in the game of the weekend. Doesn't mean a single thing except gossip to get the hype flowing between games.

 

[Braveheart81]

oh boo freaking woo.

This is non story brought up again to drum up interest in the game of the weekend. Doesn't mean a single thing except gossip to get the hype flowing between games.

... and hasn't it worked a treat!

The Tahs have made one change to their starting side and the Brumbies zero, so we needed something to talk about!

 

[Scoey]

Ugh this is getting ridiculous. I've made my point and it's pretty clear that there's two very different schools of though on this and that's cool. I find it interesting to note that Chieka gets continually praised for his no bullshit policy and having extremely high expectations but holding the same (and other) players to equally high standards when representing the Wallabies is being too tough. Anyway, cheers for the solid debate but I'm done with this one.

 

[Braveheart81]

Ugh this is getting ridiculous. I've made my point and it's pretty clear that there's two very different schools of though on this and that's cool. I find it interesting to note that Chieka gets continually praised for his no bullshit policy and having extremely high expectations but holding the same (and other) players to equally high standards when representing the Wallabies is being too tough. Anyway, cheers for the solid debate but I'm done with this one.

Presumably because Cheika has told the players what he expected of them rather than just thinking it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Fatprop, fuck Robinson and his apparent sense of entitlement. You won't see me crying big alligator tears over a player missing out on a top up because he went out on the piss midweek, and a player who didn't got selected over him.

He should spend less time worrying about this, and should have spent more time worrying about being the best player to be selected for the game at the time.

The players are not entitled to be selected. That has to be earned. If Link chooses those who uphold a higher standard on tour, then shit happens for the others. Perhaps if there was more a culture of trying to be more professional than the next guy, and less of this we might not be losing 10 game stretches to the All Blacks.

 

[I like to watch]

You just have to watch Cheika for 10 minutes.
There are no grey areas.
Very animated,wears his heart on his sleeve.

 

[Braveheart81]

Fatprop, fuck Robinson and his apparent sense of entitlement. You won't see me crying big alligator tears over a player missing out on a top up because he went out on the piss midweek, and a player who didn't got selected over him.

He should spend less time worrying about this, and should have spent more time worrying about being the best player to be selected for the game at the time.

The players are not entitled to be selected. That has to be earned. If Link chooses those who uphold a higher standard on tour, then shit happens for the others. Perhaps if there was more a culture of trying to be more professional than the next guy, and less of this we might not be losing 10 game stretches to the All Blacks.

He was talking about Georgina Robinson, but I enjoyed your misdirected outrage.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It goes back to the point about how dumb to have to expect the players to be.

If somebody brings back a drug test positive to cocaine are we going to so, oh they weren't told not to get on the rack? No of course not.

Why do professional athletes need to be told they shouldn't engage in what would be legitimately described as a binge drinking session, during a test week, prior to a recovery day?

Would they not be aware it's not good for them? Would they not be aware it would impede their recovery?

Of course they would be aware, so why does it need to be spelt out?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Haha touché. I retract my statement.

 

[Scoey]

Presumably because Cheika has told the players what he expected of them rather than just thinking it.

I was actually waiting for this. That's it in a nutshell. Some of us don't think the players should need to be told what is expected of them and others would prefer the standards are given to them. Anyway, I'm really out now (unless there's some outrageously good fishing......).