Homophobic remark in Tahs Brumbies game

[Dumbledore]

An agitated Pocock made referee Craig Joubert address alleged homophobic slurs from a Waratahs forward as NSW clinched a 28-13 win at Allianz Stadium.

The Brumbies have reported two incidents to SANZAR and will allege the word f----- was used to sledge two different ACT players in the second half of the match.

Pocock didn't directly hear what was said, but was approached by several Brumbies players who expressed their concerns.

Pocock pleaded with Joubert to take action after separate occasions, which is understood to have been by the same NSW player, saying on the field: "You heard that sir ... you can't say that, there could be gay players out here."

He continued: "That's fine, but after that their captain said: 'That's rugby.' That's not right, we can't tolerate that.'"

Pocock did not want to incident to become a witch hunt and refused to lay blame, but he said the Brumbies were taking a stand against the use of homophobic slurs.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...s-clash-against-waratahs-20150322-1m4vsf.html

What's all this then? We can have a witch hunt here right?

 

[Quick Hands]

From a conversation that occurred in the game....

I hardly think this is an issue.

I hardly think this was said during the game. These comments are made after the game to a journo:

"As players, we've said the Brumbies aren't going to tolerate any homophobic slurs, I just made that clear to the referee that it's unacceptable. You can be the toughest man in the world, but it's got nothing to do with using that sort of language," Pocock said.
"I certainly haven't heard much in the last few years. I guess in the last year or two Australian rugby has started to address, and rightly so from Bill Pulver right down, that there's no room for homophobic language in our sport and we want to make it inclusive.
"Where you start is quelling out that sort of language. I didn't hear it myself, I was just making the referee aware of it so he could act.
"Our job as players is to quell it out. That's what we did, I don't think it should be a witch hunt. It's about educating the players and ensuring that rugby does become more inclusive."

 

[Merrow]

However the initial comments to the ref were made during the game, and were caught on camera. Are you saying he shouldn't answer questions when asked by a journalist?

 

[fatprop]

Does anyone know what was said that got Pocock so distraught?



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What's all this then? We can have a witch hunt here right?

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

 

[Godfrey]

The problem is his increasing penchant for delivering messages is overwhelming the reason he is paid by the ARU.
The repeated questioning of Joubert and complaining should have led to a penalty to the Tahs - no doubt the sensitivity of the complaint meant that Joubert stayed his hand.

He had the ref with him for one, and was captain for the other.

Honestly, replace whichever epithet was used with the n-word instead. Would Pocock still be being a "politician" for telling the ref it's not acceptable and then explaining the incident when asked by a journo? I'd wager you wouldn't have a problem with his actions then. What is the difference? The attitude that this kind of thing isn't a big deal is exactly what Pocock and the ARU want to change - there is a reason why there's no openly gay professional players and I strongly doubt it's that there's no gay rugby players

Also, Pocock is a key ambassador the the ARU's inclusion policy that is particularly targeting homophobia and the casual acceptance of it. I bet if you asked them who they have the issue with here, the professional athletes on a mic'd up field using that kind of language or the guy who they're already working on this shit with taking a stand, they'd back Pocock.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

He had the ref with him for one, and was captain for the other.

Honestly, replace whichever epithet was used with the n-word instead. Would Pocock still be being a "politician" for telling the ref it's not acceptable and then explaining the incident when asked by a journo? I'd wager you wouldn't have a problem with his actions then. What is the difference? The attitude that this kind of thing isn't a big deal is exactly what Pocock and the ARU want to change - there is a reason why there's no openly gay professional players and I strongly doubt it's that there's no gay rugby players

Also, Pocock is a key ambassador the the ARU's inclusion policy that is particularly targeting homophobia and the casual acceptance of it. I bet if you asked them who they have the issue with here, the professional athletes on a mic'd up field using that kind of language or the guy who they're already working on this shit with taking a stand, they'd back Pocock.

I never said it wasn't a big deal.
Its a question of time and place.

 

[Braveheart81]

The Brumbies are not pushing the homophobic comments allegation any further. They have notified SANZAR and will leave it up to them if anything further is done.

It is certainly something that shouldn't happen on the field and is completely unacceptable but it also seems hard to prosecute in this instance without a specific allegation being made against a particular player. There's no way any recordings will provide definitive proof of who said something.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...t-audio-evidence/story-e6frf4yl-1227274716900

 

[barbarian]

I reckon the players (especially Pocock) know who it was, but without hard audio evidence they would be reluctant to point the finger, knowing the backlash and embarrassment it would cause to that particular player.

Might be better off in the long run to pursue through back channels (ie making sure someone sits down with them and tell them it's not on) than have this play out in the public and media.

That way it puts homophobia in sport on the agenda in the media without making it about one particular player, which may detract from the message because then the talk turns to suspensions, fines, Wallaby ramifications etc.
.

 

[Merrow]

If the Tah player is also a Wallaby then I think it should be made known. Giving a player a fine or suspension reinforces that it's not an acceptable practice. @Barbarian, are you taking about the name caller being embarrassed or the player that was slandered? Makes a bit of a difference.

 

[Froggy]

Not too sure whether Pocock knows who said it, he actually said he didn't hear it, it was reported to him.

While I fully support eliminating homophobia from our game, and whoever made the comment should be counseled (if they can be identified), we need to be careful to differentiate between a bit of abuse hurled in the spur of the moment, and someone genuinely acting in a homophobic manner. If I call someone a bastard, I am not intimating their parents weren't married, its just a piece of abuse.

If this player had, in a deliberate and premeditated manner, called someone he knew was gay a faggot, that is totally reprehensible, and there is no excusing it. If, however someone uses the term in the heat of a match, with no actual intent to be homophobic, that is just on-field abuse and a poor choice of words. Sure, pull them aside and explain that it is unacceptable, and why, but it is important to consider the intent of the offender.

I know some of the more politically correct on the website will disagree, but we can get too precious.

 

[Merrow]

It's not being precious. It was a low act.

 

[ACT Crusader]

It's got nothing to do with political correctness or incorrectness, name calling is still name calling. Better to not do it all. Plenty of other ways to get in the oppositions head without resorting to any name calling.

 

[Godfrey]

I never said it wasn't a big deal.
Its a question of time and place.

That's fair enough. I personally think when and where it happens is the right time and place, but understand that part of it is much more debatable and subjective than whether or not it's a problem.

I also agree with those saying it's not the best approach to pin it on one player or team, though I don't know if that was intentional here as Pocock has said it's not about any one player. It's something that's systemic and habitual - I wouldn't assume that people using that language would necessarily "mean" it so it's more about culture shift to me.

Anything else about the issue aside Pocock seems totally unafraid to leave himself open to attack when going after what he wants, be it the ball or his social justice interests. Fearless - no doubt it's cost him supporters.

 

[Froggy]

It's got nothing to do with political correctness or incorrectness, name calling is still name calling. Better to not do it all. Plenty of other ways to get in the oppositions head without resorting to any name calling.

Didn't play much rugby then Crusader?

 

[Merrow]

The problem is Froggy, you don't know whether any of the Brumbie players are gay do you? It isn't acceptable, it's not political correctness, there is no justification for calling people that word in any circumstance. How can you not see that?

 

[Froggy]

The problem is Froggy, you don't know whether any of the Brumbie players are gay do you? It isn't acceptable, it's not political correctness, there is no justification for calling people that word in any circumstance. How can you not see that?

Maybe if you live in some world of absolutes, however any person taking a reasoned position would examine the intent behind the comment. I'm not suggesting it's acceptable (read my post), simply that the intent behind the comment makes a massive difference.

However, you clearly don't or won't accept that, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Merrow]

Intent doesn't make a difference. Clearly the person it was directed at was of the same opinion otherwise he might have let it go.

 

[Pfitzy]

Might be better off in the long run to pursue through back channels
.

Anyway, I would suggest the NSWRU will deal with it by ensuring that a squad meeting is held to reiterate the ARU's policies on discrimination etc.

Not on.

Folay has to be the best support runner in world rugby. Just always pops up at the right time.

While Folau gets the plaudits, how well is Carraro playing with him? Proof positive that the Tahs game plan is the key, not the players. Take out AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), put in Carraro. Plan still works.

 

[qwerty51]

Intent doesn't make a difference. Clearly the person it was directed at was of the same opinion otherwise he might have let it go.

Maybe it wasn't directed at anyone specifically?