Homophobic remark in Tahs Brumbies game

[Godfrey]

Thanks for posting that couldabeen, very interesting read and I love the attitude of exploring your thoughts like that.

I think what you've stated would apply totally to JP's "goodness" in that his intent is very important. He hasn't really been strung up though and most appear to have accepted his apology while still drawing a line in the sand for others. Intent is certainly important, but it's the action here being punished rather than the outcome. Would talking to Potgeiter be more effective in changing the nature of society if that discussion never reaches anyone else's ears?

 

[barbarian]

I don't think we cite Emmanuel Kant enough on these forums. He had some really interesting theories about backline play as well.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

What we do know about Kant is that he was a real pissant.

In seriousness though, couldabeen's points are well made and are some of the more cogent I've read on this thread.

 

[couldabeen]

Would talking to Potgeiter be more effective in changing the nature of society if that discussion never reaches anyone else's ears?

Thanks Mate,
I expected to be pilloried (still might be)
I reckon the point would be that across this thread there has been very little indication that anyone thought what Potgeiter did was OK. I also believe that like me, many people have Gay and Lesbian Family and Friends and we get it, sometimes viscerally, that it is not OK to discriminate, demean, belittle, etc.
Now, that makes for a lot of people who can muscle up at work, in their footy club, and publicly if needed to get alongside individuals and work through the the issues without threat or coercion. Yes, I am positive about that future.
I remember that amazing man Ian Roberts coming out and all the conversations that arose in which many people demonstrated beautifully that Aussies are not by default cro-magnon bigots.
By the way, I hear that Ian Roberts is suffering the effects of multiple concussions. My warmest best wishes to him in that difficulty.

 

[Chris McCracken]

The incident, as alleged, would be an act contrary to good sportsmanship and is a penalty offence pursuant to Law 10 - Foul Play in my book. What Pocock did was spot on.

Even if you're correct - and you may be - the referee would have to hear the offence to adjudicate it.

 

[Scoey]

Not really, they could've used the TMO but that's splitting hairs.

The point of that post was not to say that this particular incident should've resulted in a penalty, but more to demonstrate that the act constitutes foul play and Pocock had every right to bring it to the attention of the referee as opposed to the few that thought it would be more appropriately dealt with over a quiet beer post game as it's not against the laws. It is covered by Law 10 the same as punching, striking, tripping, etc.

 

[Godfrey]

I remember that amazing man Ian Roberts coming out and all the conversations that arose in which many people demonstrated beautifully that Aussies are not by default cro-magnon bigots.
By the way, I hear that Ian Roberts is suffering the effects of multiple concussions. My warmest best wishes to him in that difficulty.

This is so true. My partner has had very little exposure to sport and particularly rugby growing up and has thought everyone involved is a meat-headed who dislikes anyone who doesn't fit the mould. Needless to say I have used the discussions on this forum to demonstrate otherwise to them a number times - including this thread. That includes a gentle dig at their own stereotyping of course.

Sad news about Ian Roberts. A very hard man - I like the a story he tells of dealing with a similar sledge from a repeat offender in a game. The guy in question, when tackled by Roberts, would ask him to "stop trying to f#$% him". Needless to say after a few of those he was belted so hard he didn't know what hit him, with Roberts standing over him declaring "I just f#$%'d you". Of course the brutal fight with Gary Jack is a bit different.

 

[Slim 293]

For all the nonsense being directed at Pocock.........

When Brumbies captain Stephen Moore approached Pocock on the field, they decided enough was enough.

Both approached referee Craig Joubert and said Potgieter's actions were unacceptable.

Somehow that got twisted into Pocock using the centre of Allianz Stadium as a place to push his personal views forward.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...ne-and-hes-not-a-villain-20150323-1m5z2r.html

 

[Braveheart81]

Some of the articles have been a little ridiculous in terms of citing criticism of Pocock. Andrew Webster in SMH yesterday quoted 3 comments from a previous article as evidence that Pocock is being unfairly targeted by the public.

Quoting dickheads from the comments section is pointless. Of course you can find comments from idiots that will be predictably stupid.

It would be like GAGR running a feature article on why Will Skelton and Michael Hooper are the worst rugby players of all time based entirely off comments on the blog from PiratesRugby, Rubberlegs and RJ.

 

[formerflanker]

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.

Thanks for directing me to the Regulations. I didn't know of their existence.
With over 490 pages and 24 different regulations (including misconduct) I am even more certain that implementing regulations belongs off the field and adjudicating Laws belongs on the field.
I believe Pocock should have taken action after the game, not during it.
However, with no precedent how was he to know?
PS - as employees of the ARU, I wonder if our Super XV captains are meant to know all the World Rugby regulations and ARU policies? That's a huge task.

 

[Slim 293]

I believe Pocock should have taken action after the game, not during it.

Firstly, it was Stephen Moore and Pocock........

Secondly, of course it needs to be reported to the referee if it's ongoing throughout the match...........

 

[Pfitzy]

I don't think we cite Emmanuel Kant enough on these forums. He had some really interesting theories about backline play as well.

Works on so many levels for this discussion.

 

[cyclopath]

That's what this thread needs, more Python. I wonder what the Judean People's Front think about Pocock? "Splitter!!!!".

 

[Muglair]

This slur/insult is a breach of the code of conduct and not acceptable in today's society. There is no excuse and Potgeiter deserves his punishment. Having said that the foundation of all sledging is to try and intimidate, belittle and humiliate. I do not like that a sledger can sledge with immunity without getting his head smacked and I don't think it adds much to the game from a spectator's viewpoint. It remains to be seen whether the Brumbies are taking a stand against all intimidating and humiliating comments and have also eliminated them from their game.

I think the matter would have been more effectively dealt with by a letter from the Brumbies landing on Greg Harris' desk on Monday morning demanding action be taken, or that it would be otherwise escalated. Given Harris' comments on the subject we can only assume the Waratahs would have been fully supportive. Imagine the strength of the message with a joint announcement that this had happened on the field, was unacceptable to both clubs and that the player had been fined.

Instead we have this decisive incident that would have the potential to bring the reputation of the game into disrepute. Perhaps Moore and Pocock would protest that they did not believe the Waratahs would take action. That would only confirm in my mind that this had been discussed beforehand and was premeditated.

An early report said that Brumbies players claimed the same player said the same things last year. If something was said last year and nothing was done until a return game 12 months later then Moore and Pocock and the Brumbies are just weak and makes the whole episode a complete joke.

I can't claim to have or comprehend the focus and drive of a professional athlete in the heat of the game but surely the Brumbies would have been better served if their senior players had been focussed on winning the game in its late stages rather than determining what posture would be best taken in addressing these unacceptable sledges.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

People like me? What does that mean exactly?

You know, brown people.

 

[Slim 293]

Instead we have this decisive incident that would have the potential to bring the reputation of the game into disrepute. Perhaps Moore and Pocock would protest that they did not believe the Waratahs would take action. That would only confirm in my mind that this had been discussed beforehand and was premeditated.

An early report said that Brumbies players claimed the same player said the same things last year. If something was said last year and nothing was done until a return game 12 months later then Moore and Pocock and the Brumbies are just weak and makes the whole episode a complete joke.

I can't claim to have or comprehend the focus and drive of a professional athlete in the heat of the game but surely the Brumbies would have been better served if their senior players had been focussed on winning the game in its late stages rather than determining what posture would be best taken in addressing these unacceptable sledges.

This is real Fox News brand of looniness..........

 

[Muglair]

Sorry Slim you are confusing me with Greg Martin who says Pocock will not captain the Wallabies because he takes principled stands

 

[Wilson]

Marto has a point, and it's not that Pocock should not captain (he seems to be of the opinion that he should, or at least there shouldn't be any barrier), but that the organisation will not be willing to take the risk. It first came up after his arrest and for better or worse this incident may well feed into their reluctance.

"He'll pay for it. It will mean that he will never captain the Wallabies again," Martin told Brisbane's Triple M radio on Tuesday. "What he's done, he hasn't fractured the game down a Waratahs-Brumbies line .. it won't be fractured down that, but it will be fractured upon clear-thinking, modern-thinking footballers who will support David Pocock and the more old school, hard heads who will say that was a disgrace he shouldn't have done that. There are schools of thought both ways, but that will break it down the line."

...

"They (ARU) have a role to play in appointing the Australian captain because he is the voice box," Martin said. "They'll get worried that he will get up on his soapbox about all sorts of issues. "Do you want that when they are not your principles? He's getting his own principles out there and they are strong principles but maybe the ARU won't want that and they will go 'hold on, loose cannon. Maybe he can play and be a (team) member but he can't be our leader and our voice piece'."
Read more at http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/rugby/story/260293.html#T1COu71zAe7p3OOo.99

 

[Froggy]

Firstly, let me say that I agree with what Pocock said and did, I think the ARU have taken appropriate action, I accept that JP said what he said in the heat of the moment and that he does feel genuine remorse.

On the broader issue being raised here, of Pocock's 'principaled stands', I for one would be pretty happy if he didn't use his position in rugby to push his agenda while he is a player. Once he retires, if he wants to use his notoriety as a rugby player to further his political ambitions, that's fine. There are people with a broad range of political and moral views in rugby, playing, administering and fans, and while they are paying for his liveliehood his political views should be something he discusses in private.

I certainly don't want my staff out in our relatively small community as the spokespeople for some extreme viewpoint, and watch one half or other of my clientele walk. Maybe fine for some of you highly principalled types (who aren't trying to run a small business), but I have to battle on out here in the real world.

By the way, that doiesn't mean I oppose his positions, in fact many of them I support.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Marto has a point, and it's not that Pocock should not captain (he seems to be of the opinion that he should, or at least there shouldn't be any barrier), but that the organisation will not be willing to take the risk. It first came up after his arrest and for better or worse this incident may well feed into their reluctance.

That's Wayne Smith's thesis also and I think it's on the money.