Wallabies have a drinking problem?

[mudskipper]

''If it doesn't reach the surface of the day and no one ever knows about it, nothing changes, people just go on,'' he said. McKenzie is right, get it out of the culture now, dont screw around.... its not a contiki tour...

 

[BPC]

so there really is no amount of information that will satisfy anyone.

Very true. That's why I would prefer no information or all the information. A foot in each camp just muddies the waters.

I'll have to agree to disagree about the expectations - I can't see how anyone thought going out on the piss when there were two games in 7 days was A-OK. I 'expect' that adults, especially adults who have been named in a squad to play a Test match only days later, can make appropriate decisions, and exhibit common sense and self-control.

According to the SMH article, assuming it is correct (which can be a stretch these days) the punishment rationale was: "It is understood the players who were reprimanded verbally were in very soon after midnight, the written warnings were in before 3am and the suspended players came home later than that."

If this is correct, the issue is how late they were out, not how much they drank. But Ewen has instituted an alcohol ban, so was it alcohol or lateness or both? Ewen also referred to the punishment depending on whether the player was a starter, reserve or surplus to requirements but now that doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, I hope Ewen was clearer with the individual players because the public is getting mixed messages about the rationale for the punishment.

I am not defending any of the players who were out late or who drabnk excessively. They may have warranted punishment. I am simply saying that the released information plus the informal reports suggests a lack of consistency in the rule-setting and punishment.

That said, the players who were in "very soon" after midnight but have been reprimanded on the basis of an "expectation" probably can feel a bit hard done by.

 

[Cat_A]

I know that the media have categorized in to 3, but the only players suspended for the week we're those named against Ireland. From that news article it doesn't sound like any of those players were in "very soon" after midnight.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

V
Again, I hope Ewen was clearer with the individual players because the public is getting mixed messages about the rationale for the punishment.

I am not defending any of the players who were out late or who drabnk excessively. They may have warranted punishment. I am simply saying that the released information plus the informal reports suggests a lack of consistency in the rule-setting and punishment.

Am I missing something, where is the mixed message?

Ewen reprimands players who were out drinking days before a test match.... Seems fairly black and white to me

 

[Cat_A]

I think the suspensions were black and white: in playing squad and out late => 1 game out.

Not in playing squad but an absolute disgrace => written

Not in playing squad and not as bad as the others => verbal

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

If this is correct, the issue is how late they were out, not how much they drank.

I think you will find it's likely that these are not mutually exclusive. Without the presence of alcohol I would be doubtful of any late night sight seeing.

Anyway, good to see plenty of people poking any holes they can in Link's attempts to set some solid standards for the team.

 

[Muglair]

Thanks to all who have quoted me and helping to boost my statistics. Fair call to those who pointed out that it was the rant of a crazy man and mug.

Grudgingly I will have to admit I will be barracking for the Wallabies on Sunday morning and look forward to see how the younger blokes step up and grab their opportunity.

However I remain very concerned. I do not see this as a good on you moment for McKenzie, turning point, line in the sand, show of strength etc. On reflection I still think the response is dysfunctional but one forced on Mackenzie by the dysfunction of the Wallaby party and leadership group as a whole.

There was an extensive article in the Saturday SMH around the time of the first (I think) Lions Test lifting the veil on the Gen Y players and the appalling culture within the Wallabies. I really could not accept at the time that the culture could be so bad. It would seem the article was on the money and whatever McKenzie has tried to implement has not worked.

One really has to question whether the senior players are exerting enough influence. Yes they are highly paid "adults" who should be able to make good decisions themselves etc. However there is quite a range of adulthood to be found in any group of 30 young men. Is it sufficient for the sensible ones to just pack up and go back to the hotel on time? They must have known there was the potential for mischief in the air.

Post 2007 RWC we have ended up with a lot of very junior senior players and I wonder if we are now suffering for the lack of succession between 2003 and 2007.

 

[Cat_A]

I think you will find it's likely that these are not mutually exclusive. Without the presence of alcohol I would be doubtful of any late night sight seeing.

Anyway, good to see plenty of people poking any holes they can in Link's attempts to set some solid standards for the team.

And I would expect a clear correlation between lateness and drunkness. (Although it's possible some of the earlier arrivals were early because they're two-pot wonders)

 

[It is what it is]

I think the suspensions were black and white: in playing squad and out late => 1 game out.

Not in playing squad but an absolute disgrace => written

Not in playing squad and not as bad as the others => verbal

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

You might have missed one category Cat_A.
Not in playing squad but home really late but not absolutely disgraceful.

It begs the question of what's worse - Home a little late with a few beers under your belt OR home really late and not having been drinking.

 

[terry j]

it will now be interesting to see if the team factionalises (is that a word0. Somebody is a dibber dobber and I know it will not be at least 15 of the boys.

who was it ???????

No doubt in the fullness of time or sooner - players will find out just who the culprit was - whether it was a player, the captain, or support staff. Hopefully it was a support staff dibber dobber and not a player. I think that would be extremely detrimental to the team "culture"

Hope you don't take this personally, but this attitude is SO australian, never dob on your mates.

That concept is so destructive to a group I am not sure if I know where to begin! I most certainly could however make an extremely strong case that it was this attitude of 'never dobbing', which all too often reduces to 'just accept out ethics actions with a rueful shrug of the shoulders' which directly led to the current state of affairs.

If the group itself cannot police the group itself, it then falls to others to do the policing of the group, which is in effect a degredation of the people involved (you are not mature enough to act responsibly on your own determinism so we have to do it for you).

Can you even imagine this happening with the AB's? The other members of the team would probably haul the offender to a dark alley and 'educamate' him. Who needs a coach or other administrator to uphold group responsibilities?

The AB team itself not only upholds the rules, they most likely create a stricter set of rules than the coach would do.

As I said, not personal but this is such an ingrained aussie thing and I myself have never bought into it. It's usually used by the offender as blackmail to avoid discovery of their crimes! 'it's not done to dob me in'

be stuffed if I'd ever fall for a line like that which is, when you look at it, nothing to to with 'mates' because he is using you for his own ends, not that of the group.

An appeal to group solidarity that hides the truth, nothing about group solidarity but really personal gain.

I might have qualms about HOW it were done if it were done (ie a dibber dobber) but never would I have qualms that it was done.

It's really funny this concept, the 'crime' ends up being that someone alerted an authority to a 'crime' rather than that a crime was done.

It's so australian.

 

[Scrubber2050]

dobn't know where you are from but probably NZ - thought the "culture" was the same there.

I make no apologies - something about mateship blah blah blah

 

[Blue]

I would bloody well hope there would be team mates dobbing in those who break protocol if everyone has agreed to the way things are going to work.

The drinking culture in this country is seriously fucked at so many levels it's not even funny. There's always a bloody excuse.

 

[BPC]

Anyway, good to see plenty of people poking any holes they can in Link's attempts to set some solid standards for the team.

I think Link should set standards. What I am concerned about is setting standards based on "expectations" rather than clear rules and secondly that the information being doled out by Link and by the media seems to have some holes in it.

Why should a player who is back just after midnight, as some apparently were, and not drunk be sanctioned based on an 'expectation' that they be back by midnight? Ewen talks about the expectation but how was it conveyed to the players? Was it "we expect you back by midnight and no later" or " it would be a good idea to be back by about midnight"? Maybe it was the former and the players were appropriately punished but the information available to date could be taken in different ways which may mean mixed messages are being sent on team culture.

 

[BPC]

http://www.herald.ie/sport/rugby/aussie-stars-at-krystle-until-345am-29767310.html

According to the Irish Press, it was up to nine un-named Wallabies drinking spirits to 3.45am, plus Cummins in another nearby venue.

 

[It is what it is]

I would bloody well hope there would be team mates dobbing in those who break protocol if everyone has agreed to the way things are going to work.

The drinking culture in this country is seriously fucked at so many levels it's not even funny. There's always a bloody excuse.

Cheers!

 

[terry j]

nah scrubber, born and bred here.

maybe we have different definitions of 'mates', or maybe not. You might have again stumbled upon the problem.

If I am an 'elite athlete', playing for and representing my country, then I have to ask is 'another person in my team out on the piss and doing things I feel are inappropriate', is he my mate? Does he share the same goals and ideals as I do?

I now think you hit the nail on the head.

Left to it's own devices, it is the accepted group dynamics that will determine the makeup of the group. It's fine to go out on the piss? Then over time that WILL be the final makeup of the group.

Why? Because those that dispute or push back against the accepted norms will be ostracized and leave the group. Hence, we can work backwards and work out what the group norms are by the actions.

would be interesting to find out what mateship represents to you. Someone fiddles with little kids (something you disapprove of) and you don't report it due to something called 'mateship'? IS he actually a mate is the next logical question.

 

[BPC]

Am I missing something, where is the mixed message?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...booze-binge-20131118-2xri4.html#ixzz2l4AK6DIe

The sanctions come after the team went out for dinner in groups on Tuesday night, ahead of their day off on Wednesday. The sanctioned players went out after the dinner and came home late after consuming ''inappropriate levels of alcohol'', coach Ewen McKenzie said.

Punishment based on lateness + alcohol

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-punishment-20131119-2xrmz.html#ixzz2l6FakedT

It is understood the six suspended players were treated most harshly because of a combination of their actions on Tuesday night and their involvement in Saturday's match day 23.

Punishment based on lateness + alcohol + seniority/starter or reserve

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...after-wallabies-night-out-20131119-2xtaa.html

It is understood the players who were reprimanded verbally were in very soon after midnight, the written warnings were in before 3am and the suspended players came home later than that.

Punishment based on lateness only

 

[Cat_A]

BPC I think Link made a decision, communicated it to the group, they accepted it and they're now working towards Scotland.

I think the media is trying to do more with the information they were given initially - similar to what we are doing & interpreting/guessing. McKenzie has only been quoted once up there. The rest of the "journalism" is "it is understood...(by who? The journalist? And if so, why is that "understood"?). I blame poor journalism for the mixed messages.

 

[It is what it is]

I think RUPA have a fair point.
They were never informed or consulted about the penalties and their primary role is to represent the player's interests.
If it's good enough for the ARU to rely on RUPA to lower player's pay, it's good enough to involve them in handling this matter and the issuing of penalties.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It is understood the players who were reprimanded verbally were in very soon after midnight, the written warnings were in before 3am and the suspended players came home later than that.

Punishment based on lateness only

3am?
If you get in after 3am you've only got 2 clear days to the test.
I know I'm old but in my terms that's a big big big one on Saturday night stretching into Sunday then playing on Wednesday.
No wonder I never played test rugby.