South Africa director of rugby Rassie Erasmus to face misconduct hearing

[ncurd]

Also if Rassie doesn't like his judgement (he'll probably plead guilty). World Rugby aren't the final arbiters of their rules ever hear of these guys?

Court of Arbitration for Sport - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Never claimed to be an expert. He told me i knew nothing. The burden of proof is with him, not me.
There, that's your first lesson, for free.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

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.

I feel like I'm getting deja vu,

I'm sure Cruz (or maybe someone else) has argued that what you say on social media can't have any impact on your work despite a lot of people on here saying the opposite (I know in my last...four? jobs there's been social media clauses)

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

It is gross misconduct and it is easy for companies to get rid of people for doing so.

You clearly never fired anyone, ever.

 

[ncurd]

Never claimed to be an expert. He told me i knew nothing. The burden of proof is with him, not me.
There, that's your first lesson, for free.

So you claimed expertise in UK law by working companies and when challenged have not defended how good your knowledge is. Meaning you actually know **** all.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm sure Cruz (or maybe someone else) has argued that what you say on social media can't have any impact on your work despite a lot of people on here saying the opposite (I know in my last...four? jobs there's been social media clauses)

Then you'd be wrong. That's not what i said (i assume you are talking about Foulau).
The ruling ended up being what i said it would thou. The posts are all there. Go check them.

 

[ncurd]

I feel like I'm getting deja vu,

I'm sure Cruz (or maybe someone else) has argued that what you say on social media can't have any impact on your work despite a lot of people on here saying the opposite (I know in my last...four? jobs there's been social media clauses)

Yeah we've already had 'Innocent until Proven Guilty' was waiting for 'Freedom of Speech' next.

My last job required me to not to say who I worked for on Internet at all. (They later reminded it to allow advertising of jobs).

 

[ncurd]

Then you'd be wrong. That's not what i said (i assume you are talking about Foulau).
The ruling ended up being what i said it would thou. The posts are all there. Go check them.

You've clearly never fired anyone for gross misconduct or been involved in it. Possibly don't understand the difference between gross misconduct and more general misconduct such as poor time keeping or just being poor at your job.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Sure, hahahahaah. Thanks, that was hillarious.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

You clearly never fired anyone, ever.

I have, plenty. Some easy, most hard. But in the case of a social media outburst it's really easy material breach of contract. Again you'd know this as a 'law expert' lol

 

[ncurd]

I have, plenty. Some easy, most hard. But in the case of a social media outburst it's really easy material breach of contract. Again you'd know this as a 'law expert' lol

Can I ask, just for clarification, I'm assuming most the hard ones were either you had to prove a pattern of behaviour or without clear evidence of wrong doing. Where as the easy ones were clear breeches with evidence that everyone could see.

 

[saulan]

Love it, no South Africans rearing their heads in this one.

Honestly, I was with Rassie until the 63 minute post. Most of those previous posts on twitter were pretty passive or subtle in what they were implying/trying to get attention on. I'm not proud of what he did, and it really cannot be justified. It's made South African rugby look bad and has just let loose our wolves of crazy internet trolls/fanatics who are looking to push a victim complex and provides more of a bad look for SA rugby supporters. Sure, maybe it impacted the way refs were thinking and they were assessing everything, but was it really necessary? The previous game was close, I don't believe this was needed to get a win. I'm proud of the win, but I couldn't really feel like we can celebrate it properly, because of how much of a mess that previous week was/embarrassed by the approach of our DoR. Did we really need all that? It has taken the shine off the game and we can't actually talk about the rugby. I watched the game in a London pub and afterwards a Lions supporter struck up a conversation that lasted about 20 seconds discussing the rugby and then for the next minute and a half I was being told repetitively how disgraceful/unnacceptable Rassie is (even after acknowledging and saying I don't agree with it) and he had no interest in actually discussing the rugby further, convo was a lost cause and took an opportunity that arised to escape as he just seemed to be getting angry.

I really hope the Springbok management just shut up until the third game is over now, don't make the mess any worse. Play to win on Saturday, but don't make the series have any worse of a bad taste than it already has.

Was there any toxicity even remotely like this in previous Lions tours?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Was there any toxicity even remotely like this in previous Lions tours?

P Divvy's "this is not ballet" got everyones hackles up, but it was pretty universal because Bok supporters knew he was absolutely crackers as well

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Can I ask, just for clarification, I'm assuming most the hard ones were either you had to prove a pattern of behaviour or without clear evidence of wrong doing. Where as the easy ones were clear breeches with evidence that everyone could see.

It's all about clarity of contract vs the evidence vs appetite of the company to pursue it. If one of those is missing it's a ball ache.

 

[Which Tyler]

Was there any toxicity even remotely like this in previous Lions tours?

There's been toxicity, but mostly around specific on-pitch actions

 

[Which Tyler]

Mostly though, this thread reminds me of nothing more than:

 

[ncurd]

Honestly, I was with Rassie until the 63 minute post. Most of those previous posts on twitter were pretty passive or subtle in what they were implying/trying to get attention on.

I'm with you on this one in some regard I didn't like the posts on twitter and the sniping but all coaches do similar so it wasn't worth getting bent over shape out of. The video was way over that mark, he might of got away with it if he highlighted where the Lions were wronged but by being purely in his own camp he clearly was coming in with an agenda.

I think your big problem with talking about the match is I get impression it was a pretty bad match to watch in general.

 

[Carlito]

With SA now moving into European rugby comp UK needs to get used to this malarky from South Africa always playing the victim card not to mention the dodgy TMO decisions....which is why NZ and Aus kicked them out the Super Rugby comp....good luck with their never ending bs

 

[BilgeConcerto]

With SA now moving into European rugby comp UK needs to get used to this malarky from South Africa always playing the victim card not to mention the dodgy TMO decisions....which is why NZ and Aus kicked them out the Super Rugby comp....good luck with their never ending bs

I really hope you are wrong. The off the field nonsense we've seen recently put me off watching the second test and would do the same if it came to the URC.

 

[BilgeConcerto]

I really hope you are wrong. The off the field nonsense we've seen recently put me off watching the second test and would do the same if it came to the URC.

There hasn't been this kind of issue with the Cheetahs and Southern Kings in the PRO14, so maybe its more of a Jaco Johan thing than SA rugby as a whole.