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

[Scotty]

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.

At some stage a player acting poorly, and not in the best interests of the team and game itself will tip the scale in favour of punishments such as suspension. This is due to the said players actions harming the team in the long run, and the punishment needs to be carried out to ensure it does not continue. I'm not saying we are there yet with JOC (James O'Connor), but that ruling out completely the option of suspension 'because it is bad for the team' is not as clear cut as you infer.

Personally, in my business I have set up performance based bonus and have several out of office events during work hours each year. The idea is obviously to have positive rewards to those that deserve it, not negative punishments, however I am sure there will come a time where negative punishments will be required. Hopefully not soon.

 

[BPC]

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.

There are many reasons for punishment.

Specific deterrence: Teaching JOC (James O'Connor) not to disobey team rules & directions again.
General deterrence: Teaching the whole team.
Rehabilitation: Changing JOC (James O'Connor)'s behaviour by the nature of the punishment.
Condemnation: Publicly underlining the seriousness of the act by imposing a penalty.
Retribution: The public (or at least the rugby following public) condemn the seriousness of the act (aka vengeance).
Specific incapacitation: Taking a specific threat to the public out of circulation for a period (usually imprisonment but arguably missing a game here may be the equivalent).
General incapacitation: A general policy of taking threats to public out of circulation.
Restorative justice: A new approach, usually for juveniles, involving sitting down with the victim and apologising and doing work to repair the damage, eg unpaid work for a period for the benefit of the victim.

Most of these dialogues play a role to some degree in any crime+punishment situation from school infractions to workplace disputes to the criminal justice system. The question is, what is the 'weighting' you give to each. Eg Specific incapacitation and condemnation arguably ought to be more important for murder whereas for petty theft by teenagers restorative justice and deterrence may be more important consideration. What the criminal justice system is intended to doing is to pick up each of these strands in the sentencing process although it is usually shrouded in legalese that it is hard for an outsider to make heads or tails of what has happened which is why there is often knee-jerk outrage to a 'lenient' sentence because journalists and, from the second-hand reporting, don't really understand how it is meant to work.

When you say punish JOC (James O'Connor) so it does everyone the most good, what balance are you talking about? Almost all restorative justice (charity work) and a bit of condemnation?

I could go on for hours if you want. How about a podcast dedicated to theories of punishment within the Wallaby camp. I have all the textbooks and I guarantee no-one will be able to say awake to the very end.

 

[qwerty51]

Do you work for the DPP?

 

[Kenny Frikken Powers]

hopefully JOC (James O'Connor) learns from this episode.....not convinced he will just yet.

 

[fatprop]

I would hope that JOC (James O'Connor) is dropped for this week and required to pick up a game in club rugby this week

A little bit of humility and grass roots rugby understanding would be beneficial, let him play in front of 300 people and then run the water in front the Suncorp crowd

 

[RedsHappy]

I would hope that JOC (James O'Connor) is dropped for this week and required to pick up a game in club rugby this week. A little bit of humility and grass roots rugby understanding would be beneficial, let him play in front of 300 people and then run the water in front the Suncorp crowd

Yes fp. Frankly, I'm even more angry today than on Friday last. The whole JO'C melodrama is a negative front and centre in all today's rugby media, and JOC (James O'Connor)'s action may well unsettle the whole team/selection/positional balance before and during a crucial Test with a 3N and potential pre-WC momentum shift at stake. Fucking disgraceful.

 

[cyclopath]

I get the argument to fine him and get him to do charity work and all that, but I'm not sure he gets it. My problem with not giving him a week off is that it reinforces to him, and his brand, that he is indispensible, and I don't think that is good for anyone. He has to realise it is a privilege to play for the Wallabies, and with that comes responsibility. Not being a wowser - he can go out and have a few, but when you know there's a big meeting the next day, you show up and generally don't get maggotted the night before.

 

[Jnor]

Do you work for the DPP?

I hear BPC looks like this

 

[liquor box]

I would hope that JOC (James O'Connor) is dropped for this week and required to pick up a game in club rugby this week

A little bit of humility and grass roots rugby understanding would be beneficial, let him play in front of 300 people and then run the water in front the Suncorp crowd

Maybe he should be fined the amount it would cost to ship a couple of thousand people to the club game.

Make him wear a Tahs shirt while running the water, the embarrasment should teach him a lesson

 

[BPC]

Do you work for the DPP?

Yes. As a paralegal in 1994. I haven't practised in criminal law at all since then.

 

[BPC]

I hear BPC looks like this

The one on the left or the one on the right. If you mean the one on the right , sadly my man-boobs may be larger.

 

[fatprop]

Maybe he should be fined the amount it would cost to ship a couple of thousand people to the club game.

Make him wear a Tahs shirt while running the water, the embarrasment should teach him a lesson

It isn't about embarrassment, it is about being part of the team, christ Nonu was running the water for the ABs on Saturday, Tom Carter was doing the same for Uni. Not sitting in the stands in their blazers having a pie and beer

To me, one of the best stories out of the Wallabies was Deans insistence that on Monday morning of camp that the guys talk about their exploits in club on the weekend

My biggest with some of these "special" kids is their lack of links to the heritage & culture of rugby in Aus.

I want to see them being part of the club scene and putting back. Not as O'Conner et al did & pop off the Bali at the end of the S15 but putting in at their various clubs (whether by playing or working with players), in essence getting some grounding so they can better appreciate their opportunity

 

[Jnor]

The one on the left or the one on the right. If you mean the one on the right , sadly my man-boobs may be larger.

It's from crownies. I meant the one on the right, and, well, a man can dream I guess...

 

[wamberal]

Putting on my management hat for a moment, I would suggest that this incident should be dealt with in a manner which is best for the rugby brand as a whole (I dislike the term "brand" - but it seems to fit) as well as for the performance of the Wallabies - and finally, so that the player's performance on and off the field improves.

None of us knows much about what is happening behind the scenes, in terms of the player's relationship with other players and team managers and officials. Let us assume that improvements are called for, and perhaps this incident is a symptom of a deeper problem. If so, the coach and senior players need to sit down with the player and work out how relationships and performance can be improved. Targets need to be set, and achieved.

My biggest concern would be for the relationship with Qantas. They are a major sponsor, and I would guess that they would not be particularly happy. Again, steps need to be taken (probably already have) for the player to apologise, and to offer some sort of remedial action.

Funnily enough, I agree with a poster who said, somewhere or other, that an incident like this might actually be beneficial for the wider image of the game - no publicity is bad publicity, so to speak - but also a slight tarnishing of the image of the game might actually make it more accessible to some potential fans.

Lastly, it is obviously vitally important that the Wallabies perform well in the RWC, and whatever actions are taken need to be designed and implemented with overall team performance at the front of everybody's mind.


None of us knows enough to be able to formulate such actions. That is what the coach and management are paid to do. Let us hope they get it right.

 

[What2040]

maybe he should be fined an extraordinary amount of $$$$$$ (like $50,000) - just poor form

 

[Groucho]

There are many reasons for punishment.

Specific deterrence: Teaching JOC (James O'Connor) not to disobey team rules & directions again.
General deterrence: Teaching the whole team.
Rehabilitation: Changing JOC (James O'Connor)'s behaviour by the nature of the punishment.
Condemnation: Publicly underlining the seriousness of the act by imposing a penalty.
Retribution: The public (or at least the rugby following public) condemn the seriousness of the act (aka vengeance).
Specific incapacitation: Taking a specific threat to the public out of circulation for a period (usually imprisonment but arguably missing a game here may be the equivalent).
General incapacitation: A general policy of taking threats to public out of circulation.
Restorative justice: A new approach, usually for juveniles, involving sitting down with the victim and apologising and doing work to repair the damage, eg unpaid work for a period for the benefit of the victim.

Most of these dialogues play a role to some degree in any crime+punishment situation from school infractions to workplace disputes to the criminal justice system. The question is, what is the 'weighting' you give to each. Eg Specific incapacitation and condemnation arguably ought to be more important for murder whereas for petty theft by teenagers restorative justice and deterrence may be more important consideration. What the criminal justice system is intended to doing is to pick up each of these strands in the sentencing process although it is usually shrouded in legalese that it is hard for an outsider to make heads or tails of what has happened which is why there is often knee-jerk outrage to a 'lenient' sentence because journalists and, from the second-hand reporting, don't really understand how it is meant to work.

When you say punish JOC (James O'Connor) so it does everyone the most good, what balance are you talking about? Almost all restorative justice (charity work) and a bit of condemnation?

I could go on for hours if you want. How about a podcast dedicated to theories of punishment within the Wallaby camp. I have all the textbooks and I guarantee no-one will be able to say awake to the very end.

My question was somewhat rhetorical, but thanks for answering it anyway. The point I was preparing to make is that in a situation where the objective is to perform a task well, it is counterproductive to issue 'punishments' that interfere with that task. This isn't a legal situation, in which complex theories of punishment come into play. We're not preparing JOC (James O'Connor) for life. We're not protecting society from his tweets. We're trying to win a world cup. Nothing we do should serve any higher moral purpose than that.

 

[daz]

It really is a no-win situation here.

If JOC (James O'Connor) gets suspended and we lose the game (and therefore the 3N), I think this would deeply wound the Wallaby supporters.

If JOC (James O'Connor) is not suspended, regardless of the result, his team-mates would feel aggrieved that he has special treatment.

Hard call. For mine, no one player is bigger than the team. Therefore, JOC (James O'Connor) must be suspended, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[biggsy]

21 years old,on the piss, picked up a bird went back to her place,she got some JOC (James O'Connor) lovin. Assumed he passed out from to much booze woke up with a bombard of phone calls, along the lines of "where the fuck are you"

missed the squad meeting.......
Im sure beale and cooper would have got hiss ass out of the bed if he was at the hotel where he should have been... And no one would have known or cared he was on the booze, except his missus who he cheated on..unless he has split from her..

 

[cyclopath]

21 years old,on the piss, picked up a bird went back to her place,she got some JOC (James O'Connor) lovin. Assumed he passed out from to much booze woke up with a bombard of phone calls, along the lines of "where the fuck are you"

missed the squad meeting.......
Im sure beale and cooper would have got ass out of the bed if he was at the hotel where he should have been... And no one would have known or cared he was on the booze, except his missus who he cheated on..unless he has split from her..

allegedly...

 

[mark_s]

A fine (which goes to Qantas’ charity, usually Unicef change for good) plus missing out on this bledisloe match plus offer him to Qantas for a day of promotional work at their choice after the RWC plus a suspended sentence of another 2 weeks if any similar incident occurs in the next two years.