Homophobic remark in Tahs Brumbies game

[Braveheart81]

It's amazing how many people seem to maintain the opinion that somehow these issues should never see the light of day.

That players shouldn't make comments and respond to questions from journalists in the official post match press conferences.

I think it's just a reality of the modern world. The public expects access to players via the media and the sport needs the media to help promote it.

 

[fatprop]

Honest question, fp; what if Pots had bitten or gouged a player? Would a catchup over beers after the game be acceptable?

Or would we expect it to be flagged on the spot?

If it is unacceptable behaviour, don't we call it as we see it? And if not, who judges what is called on the spot and what is post-game friendly advice?

Yeah bite or gouge to me is different to me than an unacceptable sledge

My only comment is on how it could have been managed by the players in the first instance. I don't see how running to mummy and providing fire for the mock outrage club helps rugby and/or the man management of the issue

 

[Braveheart81]

Yeah bite or gouge to me is different to me than an unacceptable sledge

My only comment is on how it could have been managed by the players in the first instance. I don't see how running to mummy and providing fire for the mock outrage club helps rugby and/or the man management of the issue

There isn't really an avenue for one captain to take the other aside for a conversation in the absence of the referee. It's pretty hard to see the situation being sorted out on the pitch in an effective manner without it becoming public knowledge over the referee's microphone.

 

[Tex]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Poey raised this with the ref under the assumption that it was an on-field interaction.

That the ref was wearing one of the scrum cameras sort of caught everyone with their pants down.

Handled well by the ARU. Hopefully it forces blokes to be a bit more creative in their insults in the future. I mean, there isn't much grey matter involved in calling someone a "faggot". That sort of rubbish would have the Adam Parore's of the world snorting into their Kellogs.

 

[fatprop]

There isn't really an avenue for one captain to take the other aside for a conversation in the absence of the referee. It's pretty hard to see the situation being sorted out on the pitch in an effective manner without it becoming public knowledge over the referee's microphone.

It isn't hard to have a chat after the game

 

[Braveheart81]

It isn't hard to have a chat after the game

Why should it not be dealt with during the game where it is happening?

If it had been heard by the referee it would have probably been dealt with on the spot.

Maybe it was dealt with in that manner after the game last year where it apparently happened as well?

 

[Pfitzy]

I think you should raise it - like you should with racism - at the point in time nearest to the event, then get on with the game.

That way its on record, the footage can be scrutinised, and the matter can be handed off and dealt with by officialdom.

 

[fatprop]

Why should it not be dealt with during the game where it is happening?

If it had been heard by the referee it would have probably been dealt with on the spot.

Maybe it was dealt with in that manner after the game last year where it apparently happened as well?

If that was the case then it was appropriate for it to be escalated this time, but what was done last time?

I do wonder what was the ref to do anyway

 

[Viking]

This is where we disagree, I would have preferred Pocock to catch up to him after the game, sit down over a beer and explain how what was said not acceptable

Maybe for a one-off incident, But it happened twice in the game and also apparently happened last year too. So are players suppose to stay quiet and let Potgeiter continue calling players f*ggots through-out the remainder of the game?

For me, it needed immediate action so it wouldn't continue throughout the game. Going straight to the ref is the most effective method.

 

[formerflanker]

Honest question, fp; what if Pots had bitten or gouged a player? Would a catchup over beers after the game be acceptable?

Or would we expect it to be flagged on the spot?

If it is unacceptable behaviour, don't we call it as we see it? And if not, who judges what is called on the spot and what is post-game friendly advice?

The key difference is that biting and gouging are against the Laws of the game and insults are contrary to a policy (ARU Inclusion Policy of August 2014). Therefore the method of raising the issue should be different - with the ref for actions against the Laws, and with the authorities who administer the Policies after the game.
"Unacceptable behaviour" is such a nebulous term too - who defines it and who adjudicates? Certainly not the ref.

 

[Viking]

I think you should raise it - like you should with racism - at the point in time nearest to the event, then get on with the game.

That way its on record, the footage can be scrutinised, and the matter can be handed off and dealt with by officialdom.

Agreed. That way the offence can't be repeated through-out the game. If allegations of last year are true then the Brumbies made the mistake of being quiet last year and look what happened, the same offence re-occurred this year.

Needs to be stamped out immediately.

 

[TOCC]

If a player is been a pig and making homophobic comments you raise it with the referee then and there.. You don't wait till the end of the game and ask him to go for a beer.. The damage has been already been done..

People need to realise that homophobic or discriminatory comments can have a profound effect on someone, pretending it isn't occurring and letting it continue throughout a match is ignoring the impact that such behaviour can cause.

If Potgetier was calling someone a 'n..ger' do you wait until the end of the game and have a quiet word to him?

I'm glad he was called out and I'm glad the ARU handed him a swift and strong punishment.. It sends a good message about gay inclusion within rugby union.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I think you should raise it - like you should with racism - at the point in time nearest to the event, then get on with the game.

That way its on record, the footage can be scrutinised, and the matter can be handed off and dealt with by officialdom.

That's the best approach I think.

 

[Braveheart81]

The key difference is that biting and gouging are against the Laws of the game and insults are contrary to a policy (ARU Inclusion Policy of August 2014). Therefore the method of raising the issue should be different - with the ref for actions against the Laws, and with the authorities who administer the Policies after the game.
"Unacceptable behaviour" is such a nebulous term too - who defines it and who adjudicates? Certainly not the ref.

Abusing someone on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited under Regulation 20 of the World Rugby Regulations which operate hand in hand with the laws of the game.

It isn't just a policy of the ARU.

 

[couldabeen]

Abusing someone on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited under Regulation 20 of the World Rugby Regulations which operate hand in hand with the laws of the game.

It isn't just a policy of the ARU.

Did he abuse someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? I really do not know

 

[Brumbieman]

Pocock needs to work out if he's a politician or a rugby player.

Really?


I think it's fantastic that we have such a clear leader of men in Australian rugby, of a calibre not seen since John Eales.

We've got two 7's, both potential captains: One is an internationally respected man who runs his own charities, stands up for the rights of the individual and is an active campaigner for a cleaner, less destructive future for this country.


The other, is a vocal supporter of sexist players who physically intimidate female staff members.

 

[Braveheart81]

Did he abuse someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? I really do not know

This seems to be clutching at straws.

Thankfully Potgieter didn't try and run an argument that calling someone a faggot has nothing to do their sexual orientation. That is better left to South Park.

 

[TOCC]

Did he abuse someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? I really do not know

It's not for us to speculate on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

Did he abuse someone on the basis of their sexual orientation? I really do not know

Yeah, I thought he was using the term as an adjective

 

[Braveheart81]

Really?


I think it's fantastic that we have such a clear leader of men in Australian rugby, of a calibre not seen since John Eales.

We've got two 7's, both potential captains: One is an internationally respected man who runs his own charities, stands up for the rights of the individual and is an active campaigner for a cleaner, less destructive future for this country.


The other, is a vocal supporter of sexist players who physically intimidate female staff members.

One has some level of success captaining professional rugby teams. The other has none.