Aussie Pro Rugby
-
10 year ban is bullshit on the low side.
That is life ban from Rugby and ten years from all other sports
-
@Damo I dunno, I think this is probably a good example. 2 years allows him to come back and rebuild a career...which shouldn't be a possibility.
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo I dunno, I think this is probably a good example. 2 years allows him to come back and rebuild a career...which shouldn't be a possibility.
Why shouldn't it be a possibility? Do you believe that nobody is capable of redemption?
-
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo I dunno, I think this is probably a good example. 2 years allows him to come back and rebuild a career...which shouldn't be a possibility.
Why shouldn't it be a possibility? Do you believe that nobody is capable of redemption?
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
-
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
I tend to think that people who assault referees almost always do so because they can't control themselves at that particular moment. Someone in that state is not thinking at all of the consequences of their actions. Even if they were, the difference between a 2 year ban and a 10 year ban is largely immaterial for the offender at that moment. If he gave it a moments thought he wouldn't assault the referee!
I get the outrage, and I'm outraged about the incident too. I just don't think the feeling of outrage need be our master when deciding upon sentence in cases like this.
I appreciate my view is in the extreme minority - I've had a similar debate over this incident elsewhere with no supporters to my view.
-
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
I tend to think that people who assault referees almost always do so because they can't control themselves at that particular moment. Someone in that state is not thinking at all of the consequences of their actions. Even if they were, the difference between a 2 year ban and a 10 year ban is largely immaterial for the offender at that moment. If he gave it a moments thought he wouldn't assault the referee!
I get the outrage, and I'm outraged about the incident too. I just don't think the feeling of outrage need be our master when deciding upon sentence in cases like this.
I appreciate my view is in the extreme minority - I've had a similar debate over this incident elsewhere with no supporters to my view.
@Damo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
I tend to think that people who assault referees almost always do so because they can't control themselves at that particular moment. Someone in that state is not thinking at all of the consequences of their actions. Even if they were, the difference between a 2 year ban and a 10 year ban is largely immaterial for the offender at that moment. If he gave it a moments thought he wouldn't assault the referee!
I get the outrage, and I'm outraged about the incident too. I just don't think the feeling of outrage need be our master when deciding upon sentence in cases like this.
I appreciate my view is in the extreme minority - I've had a similar debate over this incident elsewhere with no supporters to my view.
I'll support you Damo. Makes sense to me.
A ten year ban is effectively ruling him out of the sport anyway.
-
nah fuck him.
Ban him for ever. 10 years is good
That little fluffybunny was simply playing out the "I'm the centre of the universe" mentality that has got the world so fucked upRefs have been sacrosanct in rugby for centuries because of the "no ifs or buts you can't do it" culture that's been handed down.
It's totally the deterent that shapes behaviour.
Finding excuses for him does nothing to address the root cause - the little shit, (like many), feels entitled to lash out on others when he fucked up.
-
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
I tend to think that people who assault referees almost always do so because they can't control themselves at that particular moment. Someone in that state is not thinking at all of the consequences of their actions. Even if they were, the difference between a 2 year ban and a 10 year ban is largely immaterial for the offender at that moment. If he gave it a moments thought he wouldn't assault the referee!
I get the outrage, and I'm outraged about the incident too. I just don't think the feeling of outrage need be our master when deciding upon sentence in cases like this.
I appreciate my view is in the extreme minority - I've had a similar debate over this incident elsewhere with no supporters to my view.
@Damo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
The good thing is that these assaults are really really rare, and so they make headlines when they do happen. Ironically, the guy who was about to be sent off was in line for a 'best and fairest' award.
There is not always enough thanks for refs, it's a tough job and we don't have a game without it.
-
@Damo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
The good thing is that these assaults are really really rare, and so they make headlines when they do happen. Ironically, the guy who was about to be sent off was in line for a 'best and fairest' award.
There is not always enough thanks for refs, it's a tough job and we don't have a game without it.
@nzzp said in Aussie Rugby in general:
Ironically, the guy who was about to be sent off was in line for a 'best and fairest' award.
According to this: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4907229/maitland-colt-cops-10-years-for-striking-referee/
He'd just elbowed someone after one of his guys got lifted in a tackle and things got a bit heated. So the elbow was a 10-match ban.
Someone was saying he was spotted roughing up a guy the week before, too, but it went unsanctioned.
Best & Fairest was already off the table at that stage.
-
@Damo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
The good thing is that these assaults are really really rare, and so they make headlines when they do happen. Ironically, the guy who was about to be sent off was in line for a 'best and fairest' award.
There is not always enough thanks for refs, it's a tough job and we don't have a game without it.
-
@Bones said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Damo sure, the only thing there is I reckon it should be known that assault a ref, you're done. If that's drilled into players then that can only be a good thing.
Rather than assault a ref and you risk up to 2 years. Then can come back and start where you left off.
I don't really buy the argument that banning someone for 10 years has a greater deterrent effect than banning someone for 2 years.
I tend to think that people who assault referees almost always do so because they can't control themselves at that particular moment. Someone in that state is not thinking at all of the consequences of their actions. Even if they were, the difference between a 2 year ban and a 10 year ban is largely immaterial for the offender at that moment. If he gave it a moments thought he wouldn't assault the referee!
I get the outrage, and I'm outraged about the incident too. I just don't think the feeling of outrage need be our master when deciding upon sentence in cases like this.
I appreciate my view is in the extreme minority - I've had a similar debate over this incident elsewhere with no supporters to my view.
@Damo sure, I can see where you're coming from, but that's the thing right...if it's drilled into them so that it doesn't need to be an "in the moment" consideration, then that is what's needed. Players can now see this and know the outcome if they assault the ref.
I can't see how that wouldn't be a factor even in heat of the moment (which I'm not sure I buy when the guy is standing there talking to the ref for a while)
-
IMHO he should have got life. Heat of the moment is in the middle of a fight or if someone had said something nasty to trigger him.The ref was just doing his job and was assaulted for it. That can never be tolerated. Shit like that sickens me.
-
IMHO he should have got life. Heat of the moment is in the middle of a fight or if someone had said something nasty to trigger him.The ref was just doing his job and was assaulted for it. That can never be tolerated. Shit like that sickens me.
@Rancid-Schnitzel yep - he's standing there, getting told what he did wrong, then takes it up a notch. No excuse.
-
Now there are rumours that Twiggy "Force White Knight" Forrest might help the ARU expand the NRC here to include more than just local teams and Fiji, instead of the breakaway comp proposed.
Its an interesting idea but you'll be fighting Sydney and Brisbane Premier Club rugby all the way unless they're inside the tent.
-
Stiles gets the arse from The Reds in favour of Brad Thorn.
Only one year in the Head Coach role seems a bit harsh, but with that playing roster you don't have many places to hide.
Wessels goes from Perth to The Rebels after McGahan got the boot earlier in the year. That will be great for Melbourne as he appears to have the right stuff.
I'm going to call them "The Webbels" from here on in.
-
Stiles was hopelessly out of his depth. Wessels to Rebels is a good move for the Mexicans - with their roster and his coaching they'll be much better.
-
Stiles gets the arse from The Reds in favour of Brad Thorn.
Only one year in the Head Coach role seems a bit harsh, but with that playing roster you don't have many places to hide.
Wessels goes from Perth to The Rebels after McGahan got the boot earlier in the year. That will be great for Melbourne as he appears to have the right stuff.
I'm going to call them "The Webbels" from here on in.
