[VIDEO] Ewen McKenzie resigns as Wallabies coach

William, let's not polarise over the point. You have something of a strict type of attitude to apparent literal rule-breaking, and I'm more your let's-look-at-what's-really-happening-here-before-we-get-too-uppity-and-let's-not shoot-ourselves-in the-foot type of citizen. I think my Beale rules should actually apply to everyone, but I know you'll never agree. I also think, yes, well, at 25, Kurtley is basically in High School, or about the end of a typical undergraduate degree, and it's all about par for his age. The guy has a hell of a lot more in front of him than he has behind, so let's not limit the majority. OK, we're probably speaking across an unbridgeable chasm, so I won't push it just to be annoying. We'll vote out different ways and see what happens. Yet I will part by objecting to your harshness about our young captain. Loyalty to your mates is a hallmark of a leader, earlier than the ANZACs, but upheld by them in legend. It diminishes only you to mark him down by such a standard. I think it's also worth highlighting that young Michael is not only an exceptionally strong player, but exceptionally fluent. The captain of Australian cricket is traditionally held to be the highest office in the land, behind which ranks the PM. Perhaps you're a Queenslander and are not used to it, but it's obvious to any fair minded person who watches Hoops in press conferences that he leaves Michael Clark, Ricky Ponting and especially Mark Taylor for dead in his ability to speak forthrightly, candidly and smoothly at length without aid of notes. I admit that I teach kids his age, so I know that any who speak so well are rare and valuable and worthy of respect and support.To be sure, he has much to learn in the art of captaincy, but only about as much as he's quickly learned so far. His potential is unknown and potentially great, and I think it only fair that you give the young man a break.

Well cs you clearly believe there is one rule for rugby players and one for the rest of the community - which eventually translates into: "winning isn't the main thing, it's the only thing". Good luck with Your "Beale's rules" as a means of guiding the conduct of rugby clubs. "The most serioius offence"? If we are leaving Beale's behaviour aside, as you would seem to prefer, it is Hooper's public - as opposed to private - support of Beale. Captains of national teams don't do that - if they can't support the coach, they shut up, or resign. Banned from using his phone - for a month? What is this - high school? But we can relax - McKenzie has too much class to pursue someone so incapable of controlling his behaviour and in need of remedial counselling in the decencies of dealings with other people. So let's get on with the latest one-championship-wonder to be made coach of Australia - and make our judgements on his behavioour and his results.

We're arguing at cross purposes William, with respect. Even if you're right, it's irrelevant in my argument. You're talking legalities, I'm talking about whether the people involved have done anything seriously wrong in moral or ethical terms, and on that score I find KB's behaviour totally normal, if bad taste, banter, carelessly managed. He has a poor sense of self-preservation. This is not a judgment based on 'deep/pop psychological insights', although it could be called common sense and can be well established with literary references. Properly identified, it's pedestrian sociology, amenable to research and empirical verification. But the best verification is available to anyone who's played half as much rugby as I have, for they will recognize the behavior -- although the form is by no means limited to rugby or men. It occurs wherever the sexes meet among themselves, are good friends, and have time on their hands. It's also understood in anthropology. So, even if you're right (and I sincerely hope you're wrong), that would only make the matter more ridiculous and potentially tragic in my view --- for rugby fans, not to mention KB --- showing the law is an ass. Perhaps I should add that I don't think Kurtley ought get off scot free. It must be drummed into him in no uncertain terms that he just cannot go sending stupid text messages that can be taken out of context by others and used against him. Whether he likes it or not, if he sends any more stupid bloody text messages he'll probably be out on his ear. Fair or unfair, there are only so many publicity blows any organisation can take. To underline how serious the matter is, I'd recommend that he be banned from using his phone for at least a month as part of his contract. These kids live off their phones, and it might be the best way to drum in the message that people are out to get him if they can and he just has to be more bloody careful in the future. That said, I think the most serious offence in this case was committed by the person who sent the texts to the media, thereby broadcasting a locally private bad taste joke nation-wide, to the embarrassment of the subject, who's weight will now be a matter of public curiosity. I also think Bill Pulver has a sensitive little job on his hands, since the joke was Adults Only and the sport aims to attract families. A two-match suspension (with one already served) might be a judicious token public relations gesture, and I assume that would only mean KB missing the Italy game. Anyway, you probably won't agree, but that's my view. Fingers-crossed for rugby fans.

I am not confused. Your pleading common sense or deep/pop psychological insights or literary references is no defence for your misunderstanding. You are deluding yourself into a world of hurt. If you publish a text/message (which you do by sending the message over a carriage service - electronic is the same as snail mail, remember) you cannot excuse yourself from taking legal responsibility for the content just because you think it is no different from making casual comments/jokes between mates. Or hanging dice in the back window of your car - addressed to no one, about no one in particular. If someone else sees it - say by looking over your friend's shoulder - and alerts the target of your wit, you may be held responsible for what you have written. And remember, the message may be retained or traceable on the server. Much safer to whisper something defamatory about someone else to a friend - that may offer you deniability. But if you are overheard, or your friend is offended and tell your targer, you may be held responsible for what you said. If you mention an individual (or it can reasonably be discerned that you are referring to a particular individual and that the recepient understands that) you may also be held legally responsible for what you have said. Be warned: it is no defence against defamation to argue "privacy". Whatever you intended about the "send to" list, the existence of the message sent to someone else is a fact that you must answer for. Just for fun, to test this out, type up a libellous message about your boss. (Good way to let off steam) But instead of erasing it, send it to someone in your work group - but accidently include your boss in the "send to" list. Then ring your solicitor and ask him to stand by - either for a defamation suite, or for your unfair dismissal plea. Let us know how you go.

Multiple addresses - therefore "texts" or "messages"if you prefer.

As the reply facility apparently isn't available under the comment itself, this is a reply to: "William Tell said | October 20th 2014 @ 12:37pm "So if someone were to publish (send to others over a telecommunications network) scurrilous comments about you, but not send them to you, cs, you would be ok with that? To be offensive you think the comment has to be sent directly to you – everything else is justified? Logic please." This overlooks key features of the case. This was a cheap joke in poor taste about sexual attractiveness between friends of the same gender about a member of the opposite, a commonplace everywhere at all times (I could quote you Greek authors of popular drama, Shakespeare, or modern tv shows, notoriously Benny Hill, who specialized in making bad taste jokes about the unattractiveness of fat women, or in subtler forms in more modern shows such as Friends). It's useless to say people should not do this, for they always have and always will, more or less. It's a cheap laugh. Two conditions apply. The jokes are between the same gender, so that there is no chance of giving offence to the other, and between friends, so it's understood that this is not necessarily a reflection of what they really think or how they behave in relation to the other gender in person. This commonplace cannot be compared with sending a scurrilous telecommunications message to strangers, and particularly not a gender-unattractiveness joke to mixed gender, where it will not necessarily be understood as a joke, can be offensive to the opposite gender, and obviously cruel and hurtful to the butt. Kurtley made two mistakes: (1) inadvertently sending the joke to the butt (for which he was mortified, as we all would be, and sincerely apologised, as we all would); and (2) making the joke with a text, which can be taken out of context and used against you. Otherwise he is guilty of nothing more than my neighbours' kids of about the same age, who swing oversized dice from their car's rearview mirror that read 'no fat chicks'. Actually, that's not true. Those dice can be seen by any women passing by and are therefore qualitatively more insensitive and sexist. I trust that clears up your confusion William.

So if someone were to publish (send to others over a telecommunications network) scurrilous comments about you, but not send them to you, cs, you would be ok with that? To be offensive you think the comment has to be sent directly to you - everything else is justified? Logic please.

Abuse does your case no favours. Not to be respectful toward Kurtley is to commit the very offence that you allege of him, although he didn't intend to be hurtful (the person only found out by accident), let alone deliberately intend to be personally offensive in public (in your fashion). Standards, please.

You were saying essentially the same thing about Deans for years. Found a new target now?

He's a disease to the wallaby jumper....Beale is Ebola.

In brief obviously didn't get the brief.

Lol U serious? That drunken, brawling, self-pitying, sexually harnessing thing?

Here here......cancerous players. A strong NSW is a liability to AUS rugby.

He's a cancer.....he's disgusting.....his actions over the Di situation were first class sad, and his onfield captaincy is a joke.

One "bumbling coach" after another..."he can only do so much with the cattle he has to work with"...the irony. By the way, Andy, you forgot to mention Ewen never won against the all blacks , and has a 1-3 record against the boks.

Yeah, I think the comments back you up on that. Pity they also feel so strongly towards anyone not from QLD :-)

I wish you well!

So sad to hear a comment like that from someone with such an appealing name! Luister so n bietjie....Jake White helped South Africa win the WC and his reward was a promise of a sacking before the cup was even won regardless of the outcome for reasons that someone like you should well understand. Frankly he is probably highly motivated to win again just to show those lovely people at the SARU how hopeless they really are. Try a bit more biltong and then come back with some deeper thoughts boet!

I'm not excusing it, any more than I would excuse a fart. I'm just pushing a realistic perspective against the unbelievably sanctimonious and I'm sure generally hypocritical tide of this discussion. Members of both gender do, always have, and no doubt always will everywhere, play on the relative sexual attractiveness of their opposites for cheap laughs among their own kind. If you don't have any same gender friends of your own to know this is mundanely true, you can see it on shows on the telly everyday of the week. Conventionally, it is entirely understood between friends that this behaviour is played purely for laughs and cannot be taken as a reflection of how they would behave toward the other gender in person. That such jokes are often cruel reflections on unfortunate physical attributes is par for the course, and we would all be mortified if they were actually overheard by their butt .... as indeed Kurtley was. as per normal. Honesty, perspective and understanding is in short supply on this matter, and is now called for to save a great talent from being buried in appalling sanctimonious hypocrisy.

The bones are all there - the issues have been decision making, particularly under pressure, consistency and basic skills. I know I am over simplifying it, however if you were a world class coach, I would think that pulling those loose ends together and applying a game plan to an already pretty decent side would be something that could be achieved in a year, with the right assistance? I mean, we probably won't win the World Cup, but we would have a chance of being very competitive.