By rugbyfuture -
December 18th 2009 @ 1:44am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Is bad behaviour a direct result of professionalism?
Waratahs Kurtley Beale is tackled by the Chiefs Ben May during round 2 of the Super 14 rugby match at the Sydney Football Stadium, Sydney, Friday, Feb. 20, 2009. The Waratahs defeated the Chiefs 11 - 7. AAP Image/Dean Lewins
The saying that “rugby league is a gentleman’s game played by thugs and rugby union is a thug’s game played by gentlemen” is an asset to rugby union.
One of the great advantages for rugby in Australia has been the relatively clean image it has held over the years (whether justified or not). This is possibly the only way that rugby may one day re-enter the Catholic school system.
The question is now, though, in the professional era, with more and more players from a non-pampered background, is whether the ARU should retain its image, or retain its players?
This can be seen in the Lote Tuqiri saga, where a decent player, with a high brand value, was sacked for the smallest of instances. Further examples can be seen throughout the past fifteen years.
And now we have reached a point where two of Australian rugby’s brightest prospects, Kurtley Beale and Quade Cooper, are alleged to have committed crimes.
It is likely that such occurrences will happen more and more often as the professional era settles in and the old boy networks of the GPS are weakened.
Is the option of expelling potentially great players because of social incidences an option in order to retain some sort of dignity? Or should the ARU accept that such occurrences are now just a part of professional sport?
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(68)
ohtani's jacket said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:06am | Report comment
The ARU won’t do anything unless it’s a serious offence and/or they want to get rid of the player.
Several All Blacks fell foul of the law over the off season last summer. It’s all but forgotten once the season begins. The same thing will happen if QC and Beale get off.
Personally, I don’t see what professionalism has to do with it or Catholic schools. I went to a Catholic rugby school and a fair number of us wound up arrested at one point or another.
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:10am | Report comment
yes but the head of the catholic school system in sydney is threatening to pull league away if the off field misconduct doesnt stop, and rugby would step in, but then it would result in the same thing in rugby, but thats another story
Jerry said | December 18th 2009 @ 4:58am | Report comment
“rugby league is a gentleman’s game played by thugs and rugby union is a thug’s game played by gentlemen”
I’ve never heard that saying in that form as it makes no sense. I’ve heard “Football/Soccer is a gentleman’s game…” etc, but to try and shoehorn league into the saying is laughable. What makes League a gentleman’s game over union?
Shahsan said | December 18th 2009 @ 5:55am | Report comment
Totally agree. That’s a misappropriation if i ever heard one. Rugby league is a thug’s game played by thugs.
Lindommer said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:45am | Report comment
This expression has been around for so many years you blokes must’ve been hiding under a rock to miss it; I first heard it about 40 years ago. But there again, I’ve mixed in circles where there’s always been a bit of union/league tension.
Shahsan said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
It just doesnt make sense. Rugby union has always been associated with the upper or gentleman class and league was a breakaway because they were working men. How league could ever be confuised as “a gentlemen’s game” just does not make sense. The phrase works only when comparing rugby union and association football. League as usual is just trying to butt in, trying to think it is relevant..
Jerry said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
The saying works with Football as it’s a non-contact game primarily about skill, speed and dexterity. But, as it’s a game of the people in the UK (where the saying originated) it’s viewed as being played by ruffians/thugs.
League is a full contact sport which, along with the skills of passing, kicking, stepping etc rewards brute power and winning the collision area. There’s nothing particularly thuggish about lineouts, proper scrums and mauls and I don’t think the ruck is enough to be a point of difference between union and league that would lead to union being labelled “a thug’s game” over league.
The saying may have been used in Aus rugby circles for 40 years, but it still doesn’t make any sense if you think about it for a second or two.
Master Blaster said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
The original quote was “It is clear that one is a gentleman’s game played by hooligans; the other a hooligan’s game played by gentlemen.” http://www.colonialrugby.com.au/hooligans-game.htm
Bay35Pablo said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Jerry, you are correct. That saying has been applied to football and rugby. I have NEVER heard it applied to league and union.
Dan said | December 19th 2009 @ 12:03am | Report comment
That’s because it hasn’t been… There is an extended version of the saying that mentions league, and it goes like this:
“Rugby is thugs game played by gentlemen, while soccer is a gentleman’s game played by thugs, and Rugby League is simply a thugs game played by thugs”.
Rugby League was never “a gentleman’s game” in this axiom (nor should it be).
Spiro Zavos said | December 18th 2009 @ 5:00am | Report comment
If Lote Tuqiri was sacked for a small infringement, why has he remained silent on what he actually did to earn himself a sacking by the ARU?
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
he took a woman back to his room was what i heard
Joh4Canberra said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Why has Tuqiri remained silent? Well for one it’s not exactly in his interest. He’s better off keeping silent.
Secondly, I suspect there are lawyer’s rules at play here. A confidentiality agreement is fairly standard with practice an out-of-court settlement of a legal claim. If the matter is being heard in open court then of course it’s open slather and the truth would have come out since the court would have to rule on whether the conduct in question was actually a sackable offence under the terms of the contract. But if the parties settle out of court, then they are free to bind one another to confidentiality as a part of the mutually agreed settlement. They don’t have to put a confidentiality clause into the deed of settlement of course — but like I said it’s fairly standard practice.
There are of course rumours — but they are just that: rumours. Honestly, who knows whether the rumours are true or not. People can make up any old crap and spread it as a rumour,
Bay35Pablo said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Spiro, “breach of team protocol” when on last warning.
Rockin Rod said | December 18th 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
He wants to stay married
Wavell Wakefield said | December 18th 2009 @ 5:12am | Report comment
It’s necessary to consider that one never reads of Scottish or Argentine players involved in high profile misdememeanours. It is often either Australian or New Zealand players. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that bad behaviour is broadly an Anzac problem. Having read of the behaviour of various Australian league players and having seen the behaviour of the NZ rugby league test side in the flesh I find it hard to reach any other conclusion.
It was interesting to read Anton Oliver’s biography where he described his dislike of the NZ drinking sessions. However, as Oliver stated, such behaviour was gradually eroded, as I’m sure is the case with most other nations. Therefore, in many cases I believe that the professionalism of the sport has in fact improved behaviour. Jake White’s Springboks were a credit to their nation, as was Woodward’s England. Obviously Deans, and perhaps Henry, need to reconsider their professional ethos.
Bay35Pablo said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
WW, operative words “reads of”.
Ian Noble said | December 18th 2009 @ 5:43am | Report comment
Spiro
According to a recent interview in the Daily Telegraph (UK) Tuqiri had to agree to a confidentiality clause as part of the financial settlement. So we shall never hear the truth unless O’Neill speaks but he wouldn’t be so foolish or would he?
On the main matter, Roger Uttley who you may recall was England’s captain in the 1990’s recently wrote a interesting article about how money and professional had tainted rugby union and that many standards of behaviour and attitudes had been sacrificed on the altar of professionalism. There are many in England who would agree with him and I not just talking about the old farts or the blazer brigade.
waterboy said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:17am | Report comment
Given your description of League Shahsan, maybe you could enlighten us all with your description of Union?
Shahsan said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:39am | Report comment
My view is what the original phrase was: “a thug’s game playd by gentlemen.” By and large it is true, though at the highest level, professionalism has eroded that.
I was talking more about the misapporpriation of the phrase, which has never ever included rugby league. The writer is absolutely wrong.
Corey said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Maybe you could also remind us of the South Africans with their eye-gouging techniques and the French took a liking to that too. Also Richie McCaw- I would never think he is a gentleman. But I may be wrong, eye-gouging could be an old South African and French tradition of saying “hi” with the utmost respect?
rugbyfuture said | December 19th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
hence why its a thugs game played by gentlemen, thug being, rough during game play
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
i read the phrase in the direct sense in my readings
Corey said | December 19th 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
Gentlemen never act as thugs. They may play a game that is thuggish, but they are not entitled to go outside of the rules to hurt someone. Or are there allowances for that in the game played in HEAVEN.
Corey said | December 19th 2009 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Also, wasn’t France banned from Union because of their thuggish play back in the 20’s and 30’s. So they weren’t gentlemen at all.
Timmypig said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Waterboy I’ll guess that he was alluding to the old aphorism: “(Soccer) Football is a gentleman’s game played by ruffians; Rugby is a ruffian’s game played by gentlemen”. Perhaps by extension he was implying that Rugby League is a ruffian’s game played by ruffians?
Young men in hothouse environments, paid squillions, travelling here there and everywhere, and without the obvious discipline of having to turn up to a diverse workplace every day …. I suspect the old division between discrete, well behaved ’shamateur’ Rugby players and erratic, misbehaving professional AFL or Rugby League players was more to do with this than with any inherent characteristics in the players themselves.
Still, going illegally poaching salmon whilst on tour versus sh1tting in shoes or trashing hotel rooms has a slight whiff of old fashioned class distinction, hasn’t it?
Sam Taulelei said | December 18th 2009 @ 6:54am | Report comment
Proportionately the number of incidents reported in relation to the number of registered professional players doesn’t support your position that bad behaviour is just a fact of professionalism. The media attention given to players behaving badly is disproportionate to charitable work and community work done by players and creates the perception that a sport has a rotten core.
Players behaved badly in the amateur era as well and there is no code that can claim the moral high ground.
jus de couchon said | December 18th 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
There are double standards. The amature Rugby tours of the Lions for example give an endless source of anecdotes to Rugbys great after dinner speakers. In todays professional culture the same stories would have been censured .
Gatesy said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
There was a time when private schools produced young professionals who were good Rugby players, but with an education and a profession to go to post Rugby. Now many of those same schools are producing professional Rugby players, with nothing to fall back on after Rugby, and I’m talking about schools right at the top of the Rugby pecking order.
When you see a school that has produced fine Rugby players right from Under 10 and then see those same boys relegated to the 2nd XV when the school “recruits” players over the top of them, you wonder where are the values. Do schools have to adopt a win at all costs attitude.? Is it good for Rugby?
Earlier this season our son’s school in Canberra hosted its sister school from Sydney (a GPS school) for a Sunday game. We heard that some of the best players couldn’t make the trip because they are also on Rugby League contracts which don’t allow them to play “friendlies”.
Cop that!
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:38am | Report comment
it’s only logical for proffesionals to recruit from the top flight rugby schools, they have tremendous skills, and are much easier to find then league players. the players would still have the old boys networks at their schools to get in contact with if they ever lose out on the proffesional rugby front haha
Crashy said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Take it or leave it guys, but the rumour going around in my neck of the woods was that Lote was ‘entertaing’ a female relative of JONs. Sounds preposterous I know, but I keep hearing it.
Could explain a few things…
Crashy said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:35am | Report comment
Spiro – I’m sure you have more copy on the Lote saga – pray do tell!
Paul J said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:38am | Report comment
rugbyfuture
You can not help but notice the tone of your blog – rugby is an upper class gentleman’s game and professionalism has allowed some of those lower class scoundrels to sneak in.
It’s 2009 now and talk of “old boy networks of the GPS are weakened” and “with more and more players from a non-pampered background” is not how rugby is going to grow in Australia. The game needs to embrace and welcome all of society if it’s to grow beyond its GPS base.
Go to an AFL or NRL game and you’ll see a cross section of society which you still do not see to the same degree at a Super 14 game.
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:30am | Report comment
it is inevetable to rfer to the upper class status of rugby union when talking about the game, just look at the wallabies, where you can seperate the guys into GPS-sydnye, GPS-queensland, CAS, and other, what i was addressing to a larger degree, was the question as to whether the ARU should put up with problems like this off the field, or address them in the same manner as the lote saga. which might inevitably lead to a strengthening of the Rugby League community.
Crashy said | December 18th 2009 @ 8:51am | Report comment
Gatesy – that is precisely my point about the mungos. They continuously harp on about their depth and junior production machine but you will ALWAYS see scouts at any rep schoolboy rugby game / tournament.
Until we have a lot more pro-teams in Rugby, mungo will continue to pillage our talent.
For anyone who cares, Elsom was signed – sight unseen straight out of his rugby school in QLD by the Bulldogs. Obviously saw the light and is now a superstar.
sheek said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Interesting argument – is professionalism to blame?
Partly. Prior to full professionalism, players played up, but the media wasn’t as intrusive say 20 years ago, & some acts of bad behaviour never made it into the public domain.
Also, back in the days or semi-professionalism, players had to have other jobs, & their workmates helped keep them ‘grounded’. Part of the problem today, is professional sportsmen are separated from the rest of society, so have trouble understanding their behaviour can be viewed as being different from mainstream.
I’m not a fan at all of full professionalism. It createss too many problems, not least creating an unrealistic attitude among sportsmen of somehow being elitist or above general society behaviour & social mores.
Unfortunately, we can’t turn back the clock, it seems……….
Joh4Canberra said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Turn back the clock? Well, we could always form our own breakaway union over the issue of player payments
I suggest we call it the “Southern Rugby Union”.
Master Blaster said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
Good story today in the Herald about this. Says that it isn’t sportsmen that are getting worse. It is the media and us.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/golf/tigers-saga-reflects-the-ravenous-appetite-of-new-media-20091217-l00u.html
Redb said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Master B,
Spot on.
The newspapers are desperate to retain their readership and have tended more and more to the tabloid style to keep people interested. To keep up on most news items (war, natural disasters, locals news, sports results, weather, etc) you dont need a hard copy newspaper as the internet fills this need more than adequately.
The explosion of communication and technological choice combined with pay TV , internet and various TV news cycles demands that the ‘content’ beast be fed.
It’s the old story about a crowded market, how do you stand out?.
Redb
Bay35Pablo said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
Redb, surely a headline of “Sports star is good bloke and behaves self” sells just as many papers … ?
Corey said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
I would like to say that Rugby League does cop a raw deal at the moment. Every transgression is made public and blown up to preposterous heights. Jake Friend is a good example of this, along with the 3 Broncos in 2008. You cannot tell me that Rugby Union men are better people because of their ability to make money (upper class). So Mother Teresa is a hooligan because she is not rich and not of the upper class, ridiculous.
I work in a Rugby Union dominated area- in fact there is no Rugby League team in the area, the closest one would be Suncorp Stadium for the Broncos- and I find more promiscuity amongst the rich than I do the so called “middle-to-lower class”, the difference is that they can afford to make sure their other half doesn’t find out. I have married men come in with their old boys pins and ties driving their Lamborghini’s, Aston Martin’s, Mercedes Benz and BMW’s come in with other women than their wives (I have seen them with their wives), with escorts (you know who the escorts are) and the like.
The other thing I must comment on is that working there we see a lot of drunk people and the worst by far are the rich women or wives. They abuse us more than anyone else because they think they can buy it so they can have it, the men think like this too. A lot of them are nice, but the worst drunks come from the upper-class, and are not very gentlemanly at all.
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
oh theres no doubt about it, that rugby league cops an unfair blow, but because of the code war, we’re not complainin, kurtley beales incidient was big but then the next day that newcastle dude got done for dealing drugs, then it was gone. the fact is that the rich people are more secure about beign safe, less secure about places in the world and have more money to spend on grog or promiscuous acts.
what i was simply stating, was are the off field problems that are publicised just part of the pro era, and should be dealt with in a normal way, or should the ARU just get rid of them to retain what little niche they have left
Corey said | December 19th 2009 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
I believe personally that a team should deal with the player. I have noticed in the Cronulla Sharks (circa late 90’s) that they had very few incidents, because they got together as a team and made rules for themselves. Therefore the team took responsibility for the player and the player took responsibility for the team. They were never in the news for the wrong reasons (except not ever winning a premiership). Also, when Melbourne Storm came in to the league the board made a decision to pick players on their personal life, not just their playing ability- they chose players with young families. They won a premiership in their second year. Even now they are seeing the rewards- Inglis got in trouble for the alleged glassing and he was reprimanded (the biggest player in the competition), AFL would never do that, nor would some soccer leagues (Serie-A). But that was a club decision, not a league decision.
Dogs Of War said | December 19th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
I disagree with what you said about Cronulla. The reason they had few off field incidents is that the club had a lot of players with families. It’s something the Bulldogs looked at when rebuilding the club after some poor headlines over the past few years, and it’s done wonders on and off the field.
Sam Taulelei said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
I share many similar experiences with the wealthy Corey and there is an element of I can buy my way out of trouble. Given that they are generally the types that invest in sporting clubs and organisations as well as love to bask in the reflected glory of the athletes, if young, impressionable and immature men observe that kind of behaviour, it takes a strong will not to want to have that lifestyle and adopt the same attitude to law and order, respecting women and abusing your position.
Barking Glider said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
In the ranking of 400 NRL players where do you think Friend and Wicks sit? Barely first grade regulars.
Then there are the Wallabies Cooper and Beale.
Compare the news coverage.
There are 30 Wallabies, but even two of them being arrested for alleged burglary and alleged assault can’t score higher media or public interest than a low ranked NRL player.
Timmypig said | December 18th 2009 @ 10:46am | Report comment
I can’t help wondering if this is also part of societal changes too. There have always been elders complaining about ‘yoof’ and their disgraceful behaviour. Has the disgraceful behaviour become worse over the decades? The media loves a beat up, and tabloid media in particular – nothing rates like manufactured outrage. But 50 years ago the ambos, coppers, beaks et al didn’t have to deal with 4am nightclub glassings, crystal meth, etc. Loutishness in the 1950s was a far cry from loutishness in 2009.
What else has changed? Social mobility has … the wealthy folks to whom Sam & Corey refer may be wealthy, but I bet many of them will have been the first generation of their families to have that level of wealth. The SMH (I’m pretty sure) ran an article recently about the decline of etiquette and the new “I’m entitled” wealthy. Made some good points – the old social structures have broken down and the replacements have coursened behaviour and decreased civility.
Note that I’m not accusing the newly wealthy of being the cause of poor behaviour; certainly many of the North Shore sprogs with generational privilege are just as pushy, self-centred, egostistical and believe themselves to be beyond the rules that apply to everyone else. Society has changed; open professionalism, like Sheek said, has removed some of the barriers to disgraceful behaviour for young rugby players. It arrived at the same time as the full effects of ‘laddism’ hit Western societies. Add eye-wateringly large sums of money, too much free time, and people unwilling to say “NO” and there’s your ticking timebomb.
Then again, maybe I’m just an old fart!
Bay35Pablo said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
Artcile was http://newsstore.smh.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=smh&kw=etiquette&pb=smh&dt=selectRange&dr=week&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=SMH091212263F61JIB77
Corey said | December 20th 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
No most of these guys are from wealthy backgrounds, some are first generation (they brag about their rags-to-riches story), whilst others have been in the club for many a generation. Also, the upper-class use to be the only ones able to afford to go into a “gentlemen’s club” (I love the irony of the name), whereas the poorer classes were restricted to brothels and pubs. Truth be told, every sport has their deviant- even snooker with Alex Higgins. In the end, whether the sport is professional or not, there will be transgressions, whether they be increased due to professionalism, I would say (on a non-statistical measurement), yes.
Bay35Pablo said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
“with more and more players from a non-pampered background”
See my article on this issue at http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/11/13/aru-need-to-allocate-more-resources-to-schoolboy-rugby/
1/3 of this year’s Tahs (ignoring the departed Loti and Tahu) were from Joeys and Kings.
I am not sure th non-pampered background is providing any more players than 10-20 years ago ….
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
well, as we all know, when rugby players are so good at music and playing the flute, theres no wonder they all recieve music scholarships, its a bit dissapointing that the practice of paoching still occurs within the Joeys-Knox-Kings sort of arc (although knox is missing for sum reason) but many players within these schools, are now being poached from western suburbs and less well off communities than in previous times, alluring a good sportsmen by education is a good way though. The other thing to point out is the demise of these sports scholarships in only recent times which may build upon the fact that more players will come in. I’m not as knowledged in GPS rugby as CAS, but waverly have recently gotten rid of all their sports scholarships (in line with the rules) and are now being beaten by the traditional laughing stocks of CAS in rugby such as Aloys and Cranbrook.
to simplify what im pointing out is that those schools that do provide for the stocks of Rugby players, through scholarship programs, are looking to poorer communities more and more, which im not saying is a bad thing, but the school, does not always reflect on the socio economic brackground (although it does much of the time)
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
sorry went off the arc a bit there
Dogs Of War said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
I like how you seperated the two items “when rugby players are so good at music and playing the flute”, so it is true that Rugby players play a good flute wink wink nudge nudge
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:24pm | Report comment
hahaha, yeh well, they don’t have the same “team bonding” exercises as league players
Dogs Of War said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
I am sure they do get a special bonding after playing each others flutes.
Geez, what I am talkign about, I went to a boarding school that only offered Union. And no such flute playing too place, well not at my school anyway.
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
Come back to union then! hahaha, you know you want to, it s part of your history, *oooo ghostly presence*
Dogs Of War said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
Who says I don’t watch Union? Probably been to more internationals and Super 14 games than your average union supporter has.
Just that I like League more, Union is still my second favourite sport.
Dogs Of War said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
Duplicate.
Rod said | December 18th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
yes, but what about the famous Union initiations lol.
YUCK.
Ryan said | December 18th 2009 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
What amazes me in this time of so called intense media scrutinary on professional sportsman is that don’t learn from it. Take Jake Friend as an example, three dumb incidents in one year. Why do they continually put their career on the line to get on the piss. Doesn’t seem worth it to me.
Concentrate on footy, stay away from trouble and you are easy street. Retire from footy in your early 30’s with your house paid off. Seems simple even for 18 to 23 year old.
Bay35Pablo said | December 19th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
The first thing I though about Friend when they sacked him was “Sign him up for a Shute Shield side and sort him out …”.
waterboy said | December 18th 2009 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
As a person that works in the court system everyday, there is no doubt that society, regardless of the class, is becoming more and more, violent, selfish and disrespectful.
All sporting codes have their participants highlighted in the media when they transgress and this coverage is proportional to the popularity of the code ( with the exception of media deals done with the code re reporting as in the AFL). League may complain about their disproportionate media coverage, but I’m sure League players in areas where league isn’t the big game in town, would get away with more than those participants in that locations most popular code.
I often smile at the indignant ourtrage expressed by members of the general public on radio or letters to the editor on the behaviour of these sports. Do these callers and letters writers know what their sons, daughters, grandkids, etc get up to on a Fri and Sat night? If they did they may wish to keep their opinions to themselves.
The serious decline in societal behaviour imo is as a result of 2 things
1. Poor parenting ( which is the result of firstly the breakdown of the traditional family unit and secondly the time constraints placed on parents who work longer and longer hours to give their kids everything, except the most important thing of all….time with them)
2. The imasculation of the education and policing systems in Australia. Kids know if there are no consequences to their poor behaviour, not only will they continue to act poorly, it will encourage their peers to act poorly and each will push the boundaries of poor behaviour ever outwards as they try and impress each other.
The do gooder minority that infiltrate our public service sectors and create such policies have a very great deal to answer for.
Bay35Pablo said | December 19th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
Waterboy, I tried posting a similar reply to an earlier post yesterday, but I often have problems posting from work. So your post will give me the chance to put it again.
You seem to subscribe to the Golden Age approach to history, in that everything was better when you were young or in ages gone by. I have serious problems with this.
This is like the people who subscribe to the Jane Austen/Victorian England view of history, where everyone was polite and well mannered, and it was all sweetness and light back then, with the worst people be “horrible Mr Wickham” eloping with your sister (I have watched enough of this stuff due to my wife …).
If you watched this, you wouldn’t know there was a rural or urban underclass. It’s like watching King Arthur or Robin Hood movies and not seeing the drudgery of the serfs working in near slavery.
As such, whether you go back to the 1950s or the 1850s you would find as much if not more drunkeness, debauchery, prostitution, and sheer badness as today.
The fact of the matter is that nowadays:
1. A working class boy from Macquarie Fields or Footscray (or Glasgow) can be a millionaire because he can kick a ball. That doesn’t mean he has the social skills or wisdom to know how to behave when it is all trhust upon him. Hell, little Lord Fauntleroys of the world have problems. However, I don’t have a problem with that relative meritocracy.
2. The media nowadays is both rapacious and instantaneous. 40 years ago Tiger Woods dalliances would probably have remained unmentioned by the media until after he died (JFK anyone?). Now they just about have a camera on him as he staggers out of his car crash, get their hands on the 911 call recording, and any woman who talked to him in the last 10 years can get their face on TV saying he knocked her off.
Technology is a double edged sword, and I don’t know if people have changed but the media certainly has.
westy said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
I have never accepted that a working class background is an excuse for bad manners ,drunkedness or violence towards women.
Once upon a time it was an indicator of discipline. Opportunities were few and far between and not to be thrown to the wind.
I am also mindful that the opportunity I was given was from one of those private school men who thought western sydney started at George Strreet in the city. He was raised with what was once best of elitist private schools an attitude of obligation to self ,family ,and the whole community.
He told me at the interview he went through Liverpool on the way to the snow. He also gave me a job and a great start .
In my youth $2 purchased 6 schooners and two packets of chips and it lasted a whole night. You drank to socialise over hours of company.. you did not drink to write yourself off in less than an hour.
Boy or girl binge drinking is rife. 14% sweet sparkling sprtzers 6 or more in less than an hour legless in less than two hours.
rugbyfuture said | December 18th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
i think people are writing me off as having this article being classist, i was pointing out rather that the training achieved through a pampered background taught them to be told what to do, whereas those from a less pampered life arent taught to listen and obey as well, although from the comments heard it seems possible that it is just a reflection of society, and i know what you mean sorta about the whole western subrubs end at george street, i live to the west of the lane cove river, and most of my north shore friends consider it too far west were all the bogans are. in terms of drinking to socialise, it has changed, but now its getting smashed off your face to socialise, im stifled by the fact that my friends go out and get pissed, but as i don’t drink, miss out on many occasions.
brad said | December 19th 2009 @ 1:02am | Report comment
before proffesionalism union was clean. As an amateur game one had to be wealthy to be able to devote time into the sport. As this is a young mans sport the wealth would have come form the family most likely the “old Rich” hence the games stronghold in private schools. In SA and NZ where the game is more for the middle classes the calibre of young man was alwasy more refined through good farming and religious upbringing. With Proffesionalism the riff raff have an opportunity to excell in the sport thus we will see union players doing things we most associated with Footbal and league. Proffesionalism killed the union star
Bay35Pablo said | December 19th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Brad, working while playing top level rugby grounded players a lot more. This was similar with league before full professionalism. You realised how things worked in the real world, that it was a privilege not a right to play the sport at that level, and it kept you grounded. Aand anyone who was a lair would get the p!ss taken out of them when they came back to work.
Now they live in a cocoon and think it is a right not a privilege, especially when they spend most of their teens being told they are a superstar and are destined for great things.
It is always interesting seeing the blokes who cracked it later in life, who usually worked or thought they weren’t going to make it, or those that stuff up enough or get injured and come back, who realise what it might be like the lose the life. They tend to be pretty grounded or have got a big dose of humble.
waterboy said | December 19th 2009 @ 7:44am | Report comment
Brad, you have to be taking the piss……