- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
A coach sitting in the stands is not happy with what is happening on the field. He moves down to the sidelines to talk to his coaching staff, runners and reserves.
An alert cameraman sees the chance for some eavesdropping. The coach tells him to “f*** off” once, though the cameraman says twice.
It is agreed by the SANZAR Judicial Officer Nigel Hampton QC, a New Zealander, that there was no evidence that the coach made any threats, “whether to person or property”.
How can this scenario of what with Michael Cheika when the Waratahs played the Sharks at Kings Park on March 29 result in him being suspended from involvement in any kind of rugby at any level for six months (suspended until 31 August 2015), having to write an apology to the cameraman, and paying a $6000 fine to SANZAR?
Mr Hampton QC found Cheika guilty of Misconduct under Section 8.3 (i) of SANZAR’s Code of Conduct: “All persons shall not use crude, insulting or abusive language or gestures towards Match Officials, spectators or any other persons involved with the running of a Match.”
I am not an advocate of what Mr Hampton QC calls “foul and abusive” language. But in this modern age, telling someone to “f*** off” in a non-threatening manner does not constitute ‘foul and abusive’ language.
If Cheika had physically threatened the cameraman or smashed his equipment, the case against him would have been justified. But this did not happen. Language was used that is not exceptional, but certainly not regarded by most people as ‘foul or abusive’.
SANZAR should never have allowed this matter to go to a hearing. Mr Hampton QC should have thrown it out immediately, especially when he decided that there was nothing threatening about Cheika’s behaviour.
And most importantly, the cameraman and his employer SuperSport should never have allowed the matter to go to a hearing.
The relationship between the media and the people the media televise, write about and photograph is a fraught one. People are happy to be written about, photographed and televised when there are pluses for them in the exercise. They are not happy, as in Cheika’s case, when they don’t want to be televised.
But for the media, ‘real’ news is something that someone does not want published, so there is a constant tension between the media and the players who are being covered.
A cameraman has a duty to move in on a discussion when a coach, his staff and his players are trying to to turn things around on the field. But the same cameraman has no right to move in and film the meeting.
And if the coach doesn’t want him there filming, the coach has every right to tell him to “f*** off”.
The case constructed by Mr Hampton QC that Cheika by pointing his finger and using a word known and used by kids even is a total nonsense.
If Cheika was ‘abusing’ the cameraman, which is the charge found against him, then the cameraman was also ‘abusing’ Cheika by trying to film a private conversation.
The future success of Super Rugby is very much tied up with coaches like Cheika having the courage to produce teams that entertain and win. He should be applauded for this approach rather than being hounded for having an excess of passion for his teams to succeed.
Other factors that told against Cheika, according to Mr Hampton QC, were that he was “not a first time offender” and that it would be “farcical” to disregard his behavoiur in his nine years as a coach. Apparently there were misconduct allegations against Cheika when he was professional coach in Europe and ‘a warning’ from SANZAR in 2013, though Mr Hampton QC does not say whether they were proven.
This does not amount to a serial offender in my book, even if the smashed glass door at Bruce Stadium in Canberra is also included in the list of apparent misdemeanours. Even if it is deemed serial, the misdemeanours are pretty much small beer from what a really rogue coach could get up to.
When Charles Dickens said that the law is an ass he was not commenting on the Cheika case, but he very well could have been.