The reason JOC (James O'Connor) was absent from the RWC squad announcement...

[Scarfman]

Give what a rest?

Slapping your balls into the computer screen.

It's like you're trying to prove the JOC (James O'Connor) point by example. Act like an idiot then receive a one match ban.

 

[Tireless Backrower]

Slapping your balls into the computer screen.

It's like you're trying to prove the JOC (James O'Connor) point by example. Act like an idiot then receive a one match ban.

Thats a little obscure....am I to assume that my opinions should be kept to myself

 

[Scarfman]

No mate, I'm just saying that you're taking the debate to a personal level, and you're getting very slightly hysterical.

You haven't been on the forum long, so take a step back and figure out that we value posters who can let points go after a couple of attempts.

'kay?

 

[Groucho]

Send him to AA

A serious question. Why do we punish people when they do the wrong thing? Is it to extract vengeance? Is it to deter them from doing the same in the future? Is it to deter others? Is it because it's what we always do? Or is there another reason?

I think when 'we' punish JOC (James O'Connor) it should be in a way that does everyone the most good.

 

[Tireless Backrower]

No mate, I'm just saying that you're taking the debate to a personal level, and you're getting very slightly hysterical.

You haven't been on the forum long, so take a step back and figure out that we value posters who can let points go after a couple of attempts.

'kay?

Is it OK if I answer Groucho?

 

[Scarfman]

A serious question. Why do we punish people when they do the wrong thing? Is it to extract vengeance? Is it to deter them from doing the same in the future? Is it to deter others? Is it because it's what we always do? Or is there another reason?

The ideology that we should punish people when they do the wrong thing is supported by a number of discourses. E.g. legal discourse, which says "I have a right to this object, to my possessions and my safety, and you don't have the right to take it away." So, it's a discourse of rights (of person and property). There's also religious or moral discourse, in which good acts deserve reward and evil acts deserve punishment (an eye for an eye). Questions of rehabilitation and incarceration are also affected by medical and psychological discourses: what constitutes humane punishment? What is the best way to encourage felons to not reoffend?

So, it's complex.

 

[Tireless Backrower]

The ideology that we should punish people when they do the wrong thing is supported by a number of discourses. E.g. legal discourse, which says "I have a right to this object, to my possessions and my safety, and you don't have the right to take it away." So, it's a discourse of rights (of person and property). There's also religious or moral discourse, in which good acts deserve reward and evil acts deserve punishment (an eye for an eye). Questions of rehabilitation and incarceration are also affected by medical and psychological discourses: what constitutes humane punishment? What is the best way to encourage felons to not reoffend?

So, it's complex.

the question was directed to me - may I answer it?
I presume you would rather I didn't respond to Kenny's post - notwithstanding that its entirely personal

 

[canowindra]

If I were James Horwill, I would make JO'C sit down and read this thread. Explaining to him first, that the contributors are all passionate Wallabies fans, and this is what they think of him.Or alternatively, get Wayne Bennett ( or even Steve Waugh) to come in and talk to the squad to motivate them as well as give tips on how to stay focused over a long campaign.

 

[RedsHappy]

I get what you are saying but after great news like they had gotten, I don't begrudge them a night on the piss to celebrate. They just had to be responsible enough to meet their commitments the next day. Kurtley did that and no problems at all as he has done no wrong. Probably good for these young lads to get it out of their systems during the bye week. Beale and Quade have had their issues in the last couple of years and have now matured into good responsible blokes, so hopefully O'Connor will take the same learning curve. Drop him for the Brisbane Bledisloe as punishment and move on. The dumb bastard has just probably given Drew the leg up he needs to take his wing spot. Not very bright James.

Ruggo - just to be clear, in no way am I on some sort of 'no R&R' mega-tough line here. Simply that, if this team wants to be truly outstanding and win some major trophies, these kinds of low/no alcohol disciplines as they relate to continuous fitness, diet, etc, do typically come into consideration in elite sports when players are in full season and key games are on foot.

QC (Quade Cooper) said last year how much better he felt and that it helped his play and recovery when he gave up the grog. Only a few weeks back, Samo was quoted re how much he considered his energy levels improved when he totally gave up drinking when in season (and why he'd only have one beer after the S15 Final...or so he said).

 

[cyclopath]

OK, have you all finished? How about we revert to a civil discussion about this issue without all the personal crap and insults?
Many posts are gone that have added nothing.
Next will be posters who continue to add nothing.

 

[Tireless Backrower]

A serious question. Why do we punish people when they do the wrong thing? Is it to extract vengeance? Is it to deter them from doing the same in the future? Is it to deter others? Is it because it's what we always do? Or is there another reason?

I think when 'we' punish JOC (James O'Connor) it should be in a way that does everyone the most good.

That is the difficult task.

In a team environment we are all better off if it is accepted by all that the team is bigger than the individual. The question is how best to teach that lesson to anyone who has not learnt it.

Most people learn it in getting from the mail room (analogy) to the board room (analogy). That usually takes years, with many setbacks.

Contrary to Scarfman's superficial approach this is not a crime it is a moral and ethical issue.

One would need to sit down with O'Connor and judge where his moral compass is pointing. If he is remorseful then it may be enough that he is seen to be punished. if he is not remorseful then bigger questions arise.

My real and only point is that these parameters need to be crystal clear when the players come into the team - for his prior indiscretions (accepting that my source is Weidler - of whom I have no particular knowledge) he should have been hit hard to teach him the lessons he needed to learn. That chance was squandered with predictable consequences.

It does not matter how good he is or may be because to give weight to those issues is to make him a special case and teams in collision sports do not function well in the long run if special cases are made for any of their members.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Groucho]

That is the difficult task.

In a team environment we are all better off if it is accepted by all that the team is bigger than the individual. The question is how best to teach that lesson to anyone who has not learnt it.

Most people learn it in getting from the mail room (analogy) to the board room (analogy). That usually takes years, with many setbacks.

Contrary to Scarfman's superficial approach this is not a crime it is a moral and ethical issue.

One would need to sit down with O'Connor and judge where his moral compass is pointing. If he is remorseful then it may be enough that he is seen to be punished. if he is not remorseful then bigger questions arise.

My real and only point is that these parameters need to be crystal clear when the players come into the team - for his prior indiscretions (accepting that my source is Weidler - of whom I have no particular knowledge) he should have been hit hard to teach him the lessons he needed to learn. That chance was squandered with predictable consequences.

It does not matter how good he is or may be because to give weight to those issues is to make him a special case and teams in collision sports do not function well in the long run if special cases are made for any of their members.

Here endeth the lesson.

That's a pretty good answer.

So the next question is, what punishment will the Wallabies choose? I guess the reason I'm banging on about this is that I don't want to see the team (my team too - I'm a supporter after all) suffer because of JOC (James O'Connor)'s stupid indiscretion. I don't want to see our chances in Brisbane diminished, and I certainly don't want our buildup to the World Cup affected.

The punishment must be focused precisely on JOC (James O'Connor). That's why I think suspensions are nonsense in pro sport. In the amateur days, fine: only the player suffers. But in the professional era, everyone suffers.

If you must, then dock his pay. Or make him do charity work. But don't cut his contribution out of the main deliverable. That's insane.

 

[cyclopath]

So Groucho, will you give me an answer? I was seriously interested in what you would do, if you were JON? Not having a go, but you have a different approach I think.
Ooops, posted this then saw your post which appeared above!! As you were - I guess a fine and charity work, fair enough.

 

[Richo]

Groucho, good post. Charity work would certainly be a good idea. I would say, though, that an important aspect of discipline in a team environment is learning that you, as an individual, can damage that team. Yes, not playing him could hurt the Wallabies in the very very short term but it also strengthens the team in the longer term by placing discipline within a team environment rather than making it solely individual. Not to mention the impact that the anger if the rest of the team could have a salutary affect on young James.

One match ban seems very fair... And throw in a few days if charity and community work too.

 

[sjg]

potentially causing the loss of a chance to get the 3N cup in how long isnt really a short term loss in my eyes...

 

[sjg]

berate him, smack him into line (hell make him do a training session with the piggies, put him in the front row against benn TPN and kepu...haha) and make him earn his dues back. weakening the team isnt the way to go

 

[liquor box]

His punnishment could be similar to the Penrith Panthers the other week, make him purchase about $40k in tickest and give them out to the crowd for a future match. This means anyone who paid their hard earned to see JOC (James O'Connor) play will still get the chance without outlaying more of their money.

 

[Ruggo]

Ruggo - just to be clear, in no way am I on some sort of 'no R&R' mega-tough line here. Simply that, if this team wants to be truly outstanding and win some major trophies, these kinds of low/no alcohol disciplines as they relate to continuous fitness, diet, etc, do typically come into consideration in elite sports when players are in full season and key games are on foot.

QC (Quade Cooper) said last year how much better he felt and that it helped his play and recovery when he gave up the grog. Only a few weeks back, Samo was quoted re how much he considered his energy levels improved when he totally gave up drinking when in season (and why he'd only have one beer after the S15 Final...or so he said).

Sorry, I didn't mean it to come accross like that. The intention of the post was to soley explore the human/young bloke side of the issue.

Anyways it is great to see Quade keeping a low profile. Good on him.

 

[wobbly]

I quite liked that Penny Panthers Punishment idea ( sorry for the alliteration). Direct recompense and remorse to the supporters is an awesome penalty for these types of indiscretions does enable a win-win outcome.

 

[Davey]

TB - any Weidler story on rugby is only ever to paint it in a bad light - it seems to be his brief. His credibility as a rugby writer is dubious at best. He certainly wouldn't be the first to pen a feel-good story on a rugby player, for instance.

Untill Kohder Nasser needs some publicity for QC (Quade Cooper) and $BW come contract time that is.