- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined May 2019
0
Views
0
Published
14
Comments
Published
Comments
In the real world ignorance of the law is no excuse, so perhaps the players do have some responsibility to make their own assessments (with their managers) rather than just by ‘instinct’ accepting some arrangement, which one suspects they might have had an inkling was too good to be true.
Fireworks on the fifth: What the Saracens crisis means for the global game
2 years might be good in theory but if coaches are, on the whole, being contracted for 4 years it will make it hard to get a highly credentialled one for 2 years. RA has to work within a market. The main thing they have to avoid is extending the contract before it is finished as they did with Cheika.
How long does the new coach deserve to start the Wallabies rebuild?
I was surprised the see Seconds as an assistant referee this weekend after his poor performances in South Africa. This must mean that the referees’ selector(s) (whoever they are) have been relatively satisfied with his performances. In any other field of endeavour one would image him being given some additional training before taking the field again.
And if it was the NRL there would be formal and open clarification from the referees boss about contentious decisions.
No-one should want to see refs being constantly judged, to the point of mindless criticism, by the media or fans but some better accountability is required. While the referee is always right on the field, that cannot be the case off it. Poor work by referees must have consequences for them, as poor performances have consequences for players.
This is a difficult area for administrators but it is not the 60s or 70s where the quality of TV/media coverage/replays was ordinary. I fully support neutral refs, but more so I want to see balanced refereeing, and calling out of egregious decisions. Greater open accountability will help that.
Oh dear, away Lions draw the penalty count and lose the match
Angus Gardner, Spiro. Not Angus Gardiner.
Oh dear, away Lions draw the penalty count and lose the match
Would Twiggy do a Kerry Packer? No.
RA is a creature of its constitution with NSW and Qld RUs having most representation and votes. You couldn’t have an individual in charge without the constitution being changed and given RA has failed to change it for years ….
How would a Folau legal challenge affect RA?
Very unlikely an unfair dismissal case. Such a case would have to be in relation to the Fair Work Act and only employees on less than $140k pa can bring such a case.
How would a Folau legal challenge affect RA?
None of the well credentialed people you mention were actually in the room for the tribunal hearing, so they didn’t hear the evidence, weren’t privy to the evidence of Folau, Castle or anyone else.
So what if they know something about Rugby, only N F-J would have some knowledge about employment law, or any related legal aspect that would have come up, and his view – as was noted in the article -was based on talking to Folau, and his view about what he was told by RA ie one side of the story.
So its not really whether the men you mentioned were clueless, no doubt they are not. But is their expertise in the area on which the case was fought? Probably not.
How would a Folau legal challenge affect RA?
“It would seem reasonably obvious that he [ Alan Joyce] has told Raelene Castle that this sponsorship money is at risk if Folau is not stopped publishing his biblical views on gays on social media.” says Spiro.
Now i have a lot of respect for Spiro’s articles on rugby, something he knows about, but on the subject of Folau and the code of conduct he is out of his depth. How is it obvious that Joyce tried to influence Castle/RA on this matter? The first comment I saw from Joyce was after the initial decision by the tribunal. And given Joyce is reasonably out there on his views I suspect if he was to say something to RA it would be public, as he would have expected it to somehow become part of the conversation. So Spiro stick with facts, not supposition. Something the great half back Farr-Jones didn’t bother with when he put out his views on the matter (which Spiro advised us has been “barely reported”, yet it was also in newspapers). He spoke to Folau and blithely accepted his version of events (in terms on conversations about what Folau was told was expected of him): interestingly the tribunal which heard evidence from both sides didn’t accept this view. As a lawyer one would expect Farr-Jones to understand how the principle of natural justice is, and was, applied.
But of course the notion of religious freedom and freedom of speech has intersected in this debate (and just this morning some rather strange views on how the ‘extreme left’s’ (read Labor party I think?!) views on gender etc have impacted freedoms. Personally I have seen this issue as an employment matter. I’m not sure where all the commentators on this subject work but my experience is that most employers have codes which seek for their employees not to publicly impact the reputation of the employer, including one would think in being inclusive. In a competitive environment such as sport where a sporting code competes with other codes for players, viewers, sponsorship and officials (at all levels from schoolkids to professional) it would be very important to relate to all those who might be interested.
Lastly Spiro: I’m not sure Qantas has ever had any arrangement with Etihad. Possibly a code-share with Emirates for the convenience of customers flying to Europe. If you get this fact so completely wrong….
Israel Folau has been unfairly hounded out of Australian rugby
Exciting match. Unfortunately poor kicking from Hegarty ensured no bonus point for the Reds. Otherwise he played well and looked good. Best game I’ve seen by Beale for a while: he may have locked in the 15 spot for the Wallabies.
I see no comment about Genia. He looked a bit tired and overdid his kicking which was generally poor. Makes me worry given the lack of high level game time for other 9s in the Wallabies, except for Phipps.
The Reds may miss Slipper. But overall the Reds failed to close the game out and gave the ball too often to the tahs who found ways to attack, in the last 15 mins.
'Tahs secure tight win over brave Reds
What an overreach “sponsors come and go”. They don’t: they’re hard to get and hard to keep. And Qantas made no comment until after the decision on the breach of the code. Will the NRL now pick up Mr Folau? I suspect not as they will be concerned about him breaching their code too.
Rugby Australia should have remained neutral on the Folau saga
I’m sorry Keith but your article is not really coherent:
You say: “Sure, Folau had already received his warning – but time has revealed that not all is as has been portrayed.” Yet you don’t say how not all is, as portrayed. Those not in the hearing and listening to the evidence may state such things but clearly the tribunal did not find it so. And remember Folau was represented.
You also say: “They [RA] could have pointed to the fact that they do not condone or enforce or regulate the expression of a person’s individual beliefs as they are merely a rugby administrator.” Many (if not most) employers have a code of conduct which requires employees to meet a set of behaviour standards including not bringing the employer into disrepute. In a commercial organisation like RA, who have sponsors that pour millions into the coffers of the organisation [about $28m in RA’s case], it is essential that the reputation of the organisation is maintained. To suggest that somehow it should be open slather and employees can say whatever they want -no matter the harm done – with the employer saying its nothing to do with them is just fairyland stuff.
All organisations have a set of standards they want their employees to meet, its not unusual or strange. And indeed in a team environment how can the team culture be strengthened where everyone can just say or do as they want, with no account taken of the effect on the team.
Rugby Australia should have remained neutral on the Folau saga
Oh really Wally…”an inept RA, a bullying sponsor…”. Starting with the 2nd first, we haven’t heard from Qantas on this matter until today: so where is the bullying? On the 1st its so easy to claim RA is inept, in general, because any organisation is subject to various opinions on what they should do.
But on the IF matter they have been anything but inept. A player apparently contravenes the code of conduct for players, is warned not to do it again, the player agrees not to, and even goes so far as to say they will leave the game if their behaviour in any way impacts on the game. The player one year later posts on social media a statement which on the face of it contravenes the code of conduct. The RA issues a notice to terminate and gives the player an opportunity to be heard on the matter by a tribunal set up to do so: the tribunal includes a representative of the players association. This is a normal natural justice procedure as is required in cases where a decision can impact a person’s rights and interests. This is a very appropriate and legal approach which gives the player the opportunity to be heard. How in any way shape or form is this inept?
And indeed if a player doesn’t have to go through some process to consider whether they contravene the code of conduct they sign up to, and/or the level of any breach that is found, how does RA actually deal with other players who also want to say things publicly which may contravene the code. Again RA has handled this matter very well.
Australia decides: Who would vote for Izzy?
The constitution of Rugby Australia is easy to find on the web (https://australia.rugby/about/about%20us/governance) . It was last changed in 2012.
para 5.4 is retirement and election of directors
para 3.4 notes who are the voting members
para 5.3 is the Nominations Committee (which inter alia instructs that the Chairman is on it, not because that person want to necessarily)
I can’t find anywhere how a ‘war cabinet’ is established and given powers to operate the organisation.
You can’t have such a company limited by guarantee without a set of rules under which it operates. It is extraordinary how some commentators fail to understand (or find about) these rules. If you want to take it over, its important to know how to do it, rather than complaining from the outside.
Rugby is facing a civil war unless Cameron Clyne goes now