South Africa director of rugby Rassie Erasmus to face misconduct hearing

[Becca]

Imagine if he'd made similar claims in the Premiership ! He'd get a bigger ban than Cockerill or Diamond

 

[Lé Ddanno]

He needs to start stocking up on blood capsules before the halloween rush, only about 10 weeks to go

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He never called him Racist, said there was a clear difference of respect and communication given between the 2 captains by the ref which is correct.. Doesn't mean he implied the ref was racist.

Subtly veiled accusations of racism are still accusations of racism

Dog whistle (politics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

How many England captains have we had since Alun-Wyn has been on the block?

Because every single one of them has been listened to by referees LESS than AWJ.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Bringing the company into disrepute can be gross misconduct on a lot of companies so 100% he broke some rules.

First, it could be easily argued that if what he said is true then it wasn't him the one who brought the company into disrepute. If what he said is true it was the company who brought itself into disrepute.
What you are arguing is the equivalent of someone disreputing someone else by calling him a thief when he actually stole something. If you don't want people to call you a thief it is much more efficient to stop stealing as opposed to continue doing so and just expecting others not to call you out.

Second, this is not about what could have happened in a lot of companies. This is a very specific instance within a very specific organization.
I'm using your quote but others mentioned the same citing regulation 18. It's a rather vague and long regulation so I repeat, again, be specific. What part, exactly, did he break? Show me the exact quote of the regulation and quote the video as evidence of him breaking the rule.
You wont be able to,

When you accuse someone of something the process has to be clear and is generally quite straightforward.
- You claim he did A
- Rule XYZ says he cannot do A
- Here is the evidence of him doing A

I've yet to see the above.
I get why many do not like what he said, but this looks more like a witch hunt than anything else.

I don't give a flying turd who wins the tour. I really don't. I would be defending Gatland with the same energy had he done what RE did. What he addresses (albeit for the wrong reasons) is bigger, MUCH bigger than the tour. It's a tragedy that both coincide, but this is bigger.

Well he's being brought up in front of the authorities, I'm guessing they know the rules more than you and I

So you cannot explain what he did wrong according to the rules. You hope someone who allegedly knows more than us does.
That is not good enough for me.

This is not rocket science. Either they cant explain it or they choose not to. Either way, that proves RE's point.

Is it wooly and vague? Yes. But that gives them some discretion in these instances

Which is basically one of RE's points!!
How can you question the powers that be if by just questioning them you are infringing a rule that they can enforce arbitrarily? That is PRECISELY a huge part of the problem.
"Use the propper channels" Why bother, if when used you don't get answers?

He is asking for clarity and transparency and he gets accused of violating god knows what.

And to be fair with his comments, he presented in a very smart way, probably anticipating something like this.
He didn't say "This ref is shite and WR couldn't organize a pissup at a brewery"
He said: "i don't understand this, this, that and that call, and these others look quite inconsistent when it comes to implementation. I would like some clarity, could someone help me out?"

He put himself in a position that, from the outside, in order to prove him wrong or at fault you would need to address the issues he presented. That's the genius of it.

Are you serious?

Goddamm right I am. Just look at the flags from the posters that are arguing against my points. There's a trend in there somewhere.

The bottom line for me is this and it revolves around the answer to this question: if we get sincere answers to the questions Rassie raised, do you think the sport will become better?
I really, really do.

I have no evidence whatsoever but this is what my gut feeling tells me. Let's set Welsh, Irish, Scottish, English and RSA aside to eliminate bias. I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of coaches, from tier 1 to the lowest division have similar questions and they are just as unhappy with the answers they get.
Again, he touched a nerve that goes deep. He is a world cup winning coach saying 'i don't understand the rules anymore'. Imagine how the average fan, player or coach feels. Form? Let's care about the form when we've received answers for very tangible issues.

 

[Which Tyler]

How many England captains have we had since Alun-Wyn has been on the block?

Because every single one of them has been listened to by referees LESS than AWJ.

But then, I can only think of 1 international captain since I've been watching rugby who was listened to as much as AWJ.
In terms of ref communication, there's AWJ and McCaw, then there's a bit of a gap, and then there's the best of the rest

 

[TRF_Olyy]

This is not rocket science. Either they cant explain it or they choose not to. Either way, that proves RE's point.

How does it?
Just because they've not explicitly cited the laws in the press release doesn't mean they don't know what charges they're bringing him up on

Of course I don't know what rules are in the contracts the DoRs sign up to, I'm not a DoR

When you accuse someone of something the process has to be clear and is generally quite straightforward.
- You claim he did A
- Rule XYZ says he cannot do A
- Here is the evidence of him doing A

I've yet to see the above.

None of us on here work for World Rugby, though - so our accusations mean nothing
The facts of it are:

• Rassie made his video
• World Rugby have brought him up on misconduct charges

You're saying he's done nothing wrong, World Rugby are saying he's broken rules that he's agreed to.

"Use the propper channels" Why bother, if when used you don't get answers?

Did he not get answers? Or did he not get answers as quickly as he wanted (which is quicker than they've ever been given before)? Or did he just not get the answers he wanted?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Of course I don't know what rules are in the contracts the DoRs sign up to, I'm not a DoR

Well, that is precisely part of the problem. Here we are here picking sides on an accusation we don't even know the details of.
I assumed the "innocent till proven guilty" and the right to defend oneself were generally accepted principles in western democracies.

If it's a personal thing (salary, etc), I can see the argument for privacy. If it's an institutional thing, absolutely not. Regulating the behaviour or a coach regarding criticisms towards the organization? Please, for the love of god, make that public. Let us know, amplify it.

Are we seriously questioning the benefits of transparency on these issues? Are we talking about state secrets? Dear god.
Orwell would be proud.


One last thing. Sincere answers only, please: do you doubt for one second that behind closed doors every single coach has a pretty similar rant?
I for one am all in favour of having the behind closed doors and the public discourses aligned.

 

[ncurd]

I assumed the "innocent till proven guilty" and the right to defend oneself were generally accepted principles in western democracies.

This isn't a court of law and he isn't being judged by peers either but that's by the side. Plus brining up Orwell is like bringing up Hitler.

By the evidence he is guilty in my eyes of bringing the game of disrepute. In any sports questioning the competency of the official in charge to offciate a fair match is pretty much grounds for a lengthy ban. This isn't anything knew and exactly Rassie did.

'Innocent until proven guilty' is about criminal acts and taking liberty from that person by imprisoning them. Not someone ranting about how a Rugby match went against them.

 

[BilgeConcerto]

If what he did is considered misconduct let's close the shop. Poor taste, sure, i can understand, but what, exactly, did he say that was a verifiable lie? He basically questioned interpretations and inconsistencies 90% of the forum members question too, every single week.
Get me the video, exact time, and tell me, this thing which he presented as a fact is a lie. Be specific. You wont find many (in a 40 min video) because of how he presented it. He asked questions. He should be entitled to do so.


Every time i watch a rugby game (most tier 1, premier, top 14, SR, currie cup, pro14, like most here) i have very similar questions to the ones he presented and i am tired of not getting answers. I guarantee you I am not alone here. That is why a lot of people are behind him.
Shutting his arguments based on the form does not address the substance, which is kind of the main issue here.

This tweet from Will Kelleher highlights the rules he has likely broken:

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

By the evidence he is guilty in my eyes of bringing the game of disrepute. In any sports questioning the competency of the official in charge to offciate a fair match is pretty much grounds for a lengthy ban. This isn't anything knew and exactly Rassie did.

Really?
Could you point out the 'lengthy bans' Gatland and Jones received?
For congruence purposes, obviously.











That is the problem with your argument. It does not reconcile with facts. RE's message, as biased as it is, does.

 

[ncurd]

Really?
Could you point out the 'lengthy bans' Gatland and Jones received?
For congruence purposes, obviously.

That is the problem with your argument. It does not reconcile with facts. RE's message, as biased as it is, does.

Headlines are great but I could do with actual articles and quotes of what was said. Is either attack an individuals integrity in the way Berry was specifically targeted by Rassie? That's the difference for example EJ says Itoje is over reffed. That's a defence of a player, not an attack on an individual and the specific decisions that were made.

And let's be clear both have been very close to line or over it several times and have been very lucky to not receive anything other than warnings. Rassie did a hop, Skip and jump over it.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

This tweet from Will Kelleher highlights the rules he has likely broken: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1420711904910135298

Thank you, appreciated.

3 out of the 4 are basically pure judgement calls (as in no objective mechanism to judge them whatsoever) by the ones being accused and the other one (1.5) is precisely the problem.

The governing body puts in the rules that they are not to be criticized. And they enforce only when they feel like it.
And that doesn't ring any alarm bells?


People don't get surprised when WR says it is against the rules to criticize them but get surprised when people speak on behalf of coaches?
This is why people are behind him. Again, look at the flags here.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

First, it could be easily argued that if what he said is true then it wasn't him the one who brought the company into disrepute. If what he said is true it was the company who brought itself into disrepute.
What you are arguing is the equivalent of someone disreputing someone else by calling him a thief when he actually stole something. If you don't want people to call you a thief it is much more efficient to stop stealing as opposed to continue doing so and just expecting others not to call you out.

Second, this is not about what could have happened in a lot of companies. This is a very specific instance within a very specific organization.
I'm using your quote but others mentioned the same citing regulation 18. It's a rather vague and long regulation so I repeat, again, be specific. What part, exactly, did he break? Show me the exact quote of the regulation and quote the video as evidence of him breaking the rule.
You wont be able to,

When you accuse someone of something the process has to be clear and is generally quite straightforward.
- You claim he did A
- Rule XYZ says he cannot do A
- Here is the evidence of him doing A

I've yet to see the above.
I get why many do not like what he said, but this looks more like a witch hunt than anything else.

I don't give a flying turd who wins the tour. I really don't. I would be defending Gatland with the same energy had he done what RE did. What he addresses (albeit for the wrong reasons) is bigger, MUCH bigger than the tour. It's a tragedy that both coincide, but this is bigger.


So you cannot explain what he did wrong according to the rules. You hope someone who allegedly knows more than us does.
That is not good enough for me.

This is not rocket science. Either they cant explain it or they choose not to. Either way, that proves RE's point.



Which is basically one of RE's points!!
How can you question the powers that be if by just questioning them you are infringing a rule that they can enforce arbitrarily? That is PRECISELY a huge part of the problem.
"Use the propper channels" Why bother, if when used you don't get answers?

He is asking for clarity and transparency and he gets accused of violating god knows what.

And to be fair with his comments, he presented in a very smart way, probably anticipating something like this.
He didn't say "This ref is shite and WR couldn't organize a pissup at a brewery"
He said: "i don't understand this, this, that and that call, and these others look quite inconsistent when it comes to implementation. I would like some clarity, could someone help me out?"

He put himself in a position that, from the outside, in order to prove him wrong or at fault you would need to address the issues he presented. That's the genius of it.



Goddamm right I am. Just look at the flags from the posters that are arguing against my points. There's a trend in there somewhere.

The bottom line for me is this and it revolves around the answer to this question: if we get sincere answers to the questions Rassie raised, do you think the sport will become better?
I really, really do.

I have no evidence whatsoever but this is what my gut feeling tells me. Let's set Welsh, Irish, Scottish, English and RSA aside to eliminate bias. I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of coaches, from tier 1 to the lowest division have similar questions and they are just as unhappy with the answers they get.
Again, he touched a nerve that goes deep. He is a world cup winning coach saying 'i don't understand the rules anymore'. Imagine how the average fan, player or coach feels. Form? Let's care about the form when we've received answers for very tangible issues.

You obviously have no understanding of how law works in the uk. Gross misconduct, end of.

 

[ncurd]

This is why people are behind him. Again, look at the flags here.

The people behind him are SA fans and yourself who has an axe to grind against GB and Ireland constantly.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

And let's be clear both have been very close to line or over it several times and have been very lucky to not receive anything other than warnings. Rassie did a hop, Skip and jump over it.

Kinda hard to know where that line with no guidance. Again, in order to prove the point the governing body (or a proxy) would have to admit they are guilty of what they are being accused. Judge, jury and executioner in one.

Easier is to do what you do and claim that others crossed the line when it suits you and your team and not so much when the coach from the team you support does it.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

You obviously have no understanding of how law works in the uk. Gross misconduct, end of.

I was working with top UK law firms while you were being breastfed, but please, educate me. This should be fun.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The people behind him are SA fans and yourself who has an axe to grind against GB and Ireland constantly.

I guess you have evidence of this, right?
Let's see it.

 

[ncurd]

I was working with top UK law firms while you were being breastfed, but please, educate me. This should be fun.

What as?

I've worked with ex-members of the SAS doesn't make me anywhere near an expert in Special Forces.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I was working with top UK law firms while you were being breastfed, but please, educate me. This should be fun.

I doubt that very much. You have no idea of my background.

But to educate you, criticising world rugby via the public forums on social media is a sackable offence on nearly every company via their social media policy. It is gross misconduct and it is easy for companies to get rid of people for doing so.

Not sure why you wouldn't know that.