The experience of disruptive behaviour is one I’m all too familiar with.
Disruptive behaviour is the inability to control one’s actions and how it violates social norms. My experience happened over a series of days on a tour, and I hadn’t really witnessed much of it, but I was aware that this behaviour could potentially be troublesome towards the team’s season.
When we touched down in Sydney after the tour had ended, I did not know of the extent of the consequences that not only the culprit would face, but also what ramifications that the team would endure due to the bullying that had been carried out.
It was only the week that we got back normal training that the bully, who was also our star player, had been suspended for one match, a match that happened to be the most important of the season. When it came to game day, it was obvious that we had a piece of the puzzle missing.
We put up a decent fight, but we still fell short, as a result of our morale being dampened by one player’s action.
This raises an important question: why break the code of conduct if you know it might impact your team? This question can be posed to many people and to what extent they thought their behaviour was acceptable, whether it was a minor break or one that attracted international attention.
An incident that reflected breaking the code of conduct that did affect the perpetrator’s team was the infamous Israel Folau incident.
This was an internationally-known incident where Folau said on Instagram that all homosexuals would go to hell, which was completely out of line, and the majority of the population agreed that he should be sacked by Rugby Australia.
Israel Folau (Raymond Roig/AFP via Getty Images)
Eventually, he was sacked not only by his club team, the NSW Waratahs, but also by Rugby Australia, which caused him to play the card that he was just speaking his religion, even citing the bible verse he used in the caption.
This incident ended up with Folau taking RA to court, demanding around $14 million in compensation. Folau and RA finally settled out of court on the 4th of December, with the rumoured payout being somewhere around $8-$10 million.
I find this behaviour from Folau to be extremely disgusting – using discriminatory comments to deliberately hate on certain groups is something that I could never support. The actions taken by Rugby Australia were necessary, as were the actions taken by the rugby board to suspend the player.
The emotions I felt when my team lost the title game were closely related to those felt by Folau’s teammates who spoke out against him, wanting his actions to be dealt with accordingly.
Another time I have experienced people in my team breaking the code of conduct was during a training session before one of the final games of the season. It was nearing the end of training and we were doing our normal team runs.
I was walking back up the field to get ready for a lineout, =but before I got to the mark, I heard a commotion coming from behind me, further back down the pitch. I turned around, and to my disgrace, I saw punches being thrown like handbags at dawn.
Although the fight was broken up fairly quickly, there still seemed to be a bit of bad blood between the two players. I thought to myself once the training was over, “How is this going to affect my team on Sunday?”
And it is safe to say that I was not alone in my thoughts, as that seemed to be the question floating around the grapevine. Nevertheless, the team quickly got over this bump and went on to win that game, with both players still playing in the same team.
This then raises eyebrows as to what effect these breaches of codes of conduct have, and whether it isokay to do this.
An example that could perfectly back up and relate to my own experiences is that of Mohamed Haouas, a French rugby player playing for France and Montpellier, when he punched teammate Bismarck du Plessis in a pre-game warm-up, while fans were in the stadium.
This punch confused fans and commentators, who were left shocked at the idiocy that was put on display by Haouas, just as my teammate had done. However, even though this outburst happened merely minutes before the game actually started, the team seemed to brush it off, which is what my team did when it came to game day.
Haouas’s team then went on to win the game in considerable fashion, defeating their opponent by an astonishing 41-3, which is similar to my team’s experience. Although both my team and Haouas’s won, I still believe that this action is punishable and should not be condoned in any way.
This raises the dilemma of whether disruptive behaviour should be punished, whether the rule break was minor or major, or even if it affected the team’s performance or not.
On one hand, you have the argument that is backed up by the Israel Folau incident, where his comments on the homosexual community were punished to the extent they should’ve been, but it did majorly affect his teams.
On the other hand, you have the argument backed up by Haouas where his actions weren’t really punished and didn’t affect his team’s performance.
Both raise good points, and both could have a place in the writings on how to handle breaches of the code of conduct.
BeastieBoy
Roar Rookie
No.. not if its amongst RA Management cause what they have done so far is NOT WORKING ! Change the Rules and change heaps of them to get the spectators and players back. Its the 11th Hour.. there is NO TIME Left..
In brief
Guest
articles condemning Folau are a very strong indictment of our poor education system. The bible states that all sinners will go to hell. It’s definition of ‘sinner’ is so broad that it includes all straight men and women (adulterers), liars, drunks, fornicators, and yes, homosexuals. The list of sinners is exhaustive and inclusive- everyone in the village gets a sinner guernsey. So why the potted outrage at a Christian man quoting the bible? Oh, that’s right, identify is the new religion and non followers such as Folau the modern heretic.
K.F.T.D.
Roar Rookie
Moistly? Really? Interesting OM. One of the best things I’ve ever seen is the opposing captain sending off one of his own for being a consistent d**khead. Will never forget it. The captain was also a well known good guy, good sportsperson, and journalist of some repute. It can be dealt with in house.
Lano
Roar Guru
Agree completely cashead within a legal or policy framework, but I was just pointing out the content was wide ranging - and the comments are moistly off topic!! But I do like Ricky Gervais' take that being offended is a choice. After all, it is merely someone's opinion. And what other folks think is none of my business.
PeterK
Roar Guru
wow - so ONLY some special privileged are allowed to discuss some topics then? Not the public, whose taxes will go to a lot of the solutions, who vote in the people who appoint those special people. Sounds a lot like a authoritarian country where only some people are allowed to talk about some subjects.
Markus
Roar Rookie
“Those type of discussions” are being had, constantly. The difference is that they are being had by people who: - actually have significant knowledge on the subject - actually care about the issue and are working to better outcomes, not just people looking for an excuse to spout the one factoid they know that lets them seem superior to those “other” types. The world is not worse off for old mate Daz being told to stop running his mouth at work about stuff that he knows nothing about and has absolutely no relevance to his job.
PeterK
Roar Guru
What an unfair generalisation and besmirching of people who believe in free speech. That is if they are strong advocates then they are bullies. If people feeling offended is the price for free speech then so be it. Otherwise important topics cannot be objectively discussed and analysed without fear or favour. If the consequence of such analyse / discussion means career death or becoming a target of social media frenzy that is far too much of a cosnequence and isn’t really free speech. I am not talking about denigrating people or intimidating people or some such but as an example domestic violence is much higher in some communities and the community / culture is very relevant to improving the situation. Now a lot of people may become offended and outraged on others behalf but that does not invalidate the need for those type of discussions.
Markus
Roar Rookie
Funny, but not shocking in the slightest, that bullies are the loudest members of the free speech brigade. It is likely the first time in their lives they have suffered consequences for their actions - or not even had consequences themselves, simply just seen someone else they relate to who has - and think this is what censorship must be.
cashead
Roar Rookie
Sure, but "free speech" does not mean "free from consequence." If someone's idea of free speech includes denigrating them based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc., then they're free to face the consequences of that, which could include being shown the door.
Lano
Roar Guru
I'm not sure where to start in a piece with such a wide range of issues from culture, aberrant personal behaviour, codes of conduct, leadership, how and why individuals disrupt group cohesion, and not least of all free speech. Thanks for the contribution, OM.
cashead
Roar Rookie
I'd say there are two factors: 1. Does the disruptive player's behaviour affect the rest of the team's performance in any way? 2. Does the player demonstrate any contrition? I used to be involved in high school rugby, for the 2nd XV, where I managed and acted as assistant coach. We had one player who was incredibly talented, but was a disruptive influence. He, and another player (who had been suspended for his role in a post-match punch-up) were hugely disruptive influences during training. The next day, I had a quiet word with him, where he showed no contrition. I made it clear to him that after a post-training meeting with the team leaders, his attitude would determine his future on the team. He made it clear he didn't care about the team, so I thanked him for taking the decision about his ongoing role in the team out of my hands, and making the call for me. Long story short, he was immediately dropped from the squad. They went on to make the final of their competition and were runners-up. The squad may have lost a hugely talented player, but they also lost a disruptive influence, which meant they were able to maintain their focus and be the best team they could be, rather than a team of 1 jerk and 21 players that increasingly hated his guts.