Better people making better All Blacks ...

What is our tolerance for thuggish behaviour when we're selecting our ABs?

Asking coz there was a Wellington/Canes hooker a year or so back who was a bit of a find. I think I'm conflating him with the bloke who is playing (played) 2 for Canes this arvo.

He's kinda going ok.

(Not saying he's All Black material but he got me thinking.)

Manaaki Selby-Rickett as an example, who IS AB material in my opinion ...

Throw in another sport and think Scott Kuggerleijn ...

And where do we draw the line at selecting Cunts?

@booboo yeah you might be overrating O'Reilly a bit (despite him being a fine hobm man) but he was fairly handy today.

To answer...fuck knows

@bones said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@booboo yeah you might be overrating O'Reilly a bit (despite him being a fine hobm man) but he was fairly handy today.

To answer...fuck knows

He popped up doing a couple of good things ...which got me thinking

Two ways to look at it. Got to give them a chance to redeem themselves. Or, They're cunts, don't pick them but that horse has already bolted (Reece, savea, for ex).

So obviously it's ok to beat your partner, or assault random people in the pub, or kill protected animals and be an AB. Always had been, always will be.The better people line has always been bullshit, rolled out for the press and any naive suckers in the public.

Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.

Did his time (unlike some).

Do we accept him?

I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...

@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.

Did his time (unlike some).

Do we accept him?

I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...

I don't. Abusing then murdering an infant should be a death sentence, so no.

I don't like having Reece in the ABs, but accept he's going to be and thus consider him in my couch coach teams. If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc. We can do without them wearing the silver fern. Same with anyone that dopes, leave them out forever.

But that's not how is works sadly, so we get these people being paraded around on world women's day.

@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.

Did his time (unlike some).

Do we accept him?

I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...

I don't. Abusing then murdering an infant should be a death sentence, so no.

I don't like having Reece in the ABs, but accept he's going to be and thus consider him in my couch coach teams. If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc. We can do without them wearing the silver fern. Same with anyone that dopes, leave them out forever.

But that's not how is works sadly, so we get these people being paraded around on world women's day.

I think you have to balance rehabilitation/player support with the image the sport tries to portray itself to the wider world. Then there's the fairness and justice angle - if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing? Shouldn't we strive to treat all people the same under the law?

It's pretty easy to decide for things like rape/murder etc and small stuff like shoplifting when your young - it's the things in the middle which are harder to get the balance right on. Get that right and make a better citizen (and AB,hopefully), get it wrong and you compound the problem.

It's difficult to get right at the best of times.

@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.

Did his time (unlike some).

Do we accept him?

I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...

Pownceby has faced numerous difficulties throughout his life. His father (a United States Navy serviceman) has never acknowledged him, his sister was murdered by her partner in 1990, and his mother died of cancer in 1993.... He converted to Catholicism following his release from prison in 1998.[13] In 2004 Pownceby said he could not change the past[18] but that he was "trying to be the best person I can be".[19]

In 2006 Pownceby announced that he intended to donate his first professional boxing purse to child cancer.[4]

Is he a better person now? Does being able to box help make him a better person and an asset to society rather than a risk? Or does it send a wrong message?

Glad I'm not the one making those decisions...

@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Shouldn't we strive to treat all people the same under the law?

I get what you're saying but I can't equate being an elite, professional sportsman with being a milkman.

@bones said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Shouldn't we strive to treat all people the same under the law?

I get what you're saying but I can't equate being an elite, professional sportsman with being a milkman.

Maybe. But it highlights to me how difficult this sort of thing is. If we want to treat elite sportsmen differently to other people with other jobs, where do we draw the line?

Poss. it comes down to the contract (written or otherwise) the player has with his team or sport. That can be challenged in a fair way in the legal system I guess.

@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.

Did his time (unlike some).

Do we accept him?

I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...

I don't. Abusing then murdering an infant should be a death sentence, so no.

I don't like having Reece in the ABs, but accept he's going to be and thus consider him in my couch coach teams. If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc. We can do without them wearing the silver fern. Same with anyone that dopes, leave them out forever.

But that's not how is works sadly, so we get these people being paraded around on world women's day.

I think you have to balance rehabilitation/player support with the image the sport tries to portray itself to the wider world. Then there's the fairness and justice angle - if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing? Shouldn't we strive to treat all people the same under the law?

I wouldn't utilize the services of a plumber who hit his wife so in that regard it actually does work the same. The fact that you're more likely to be judged as a pro rugby player because you're in the public eye is simply a pitfall of the job innit.

@frye said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

you're more likely to be judged as a pro rugby player because you're in the public eye

Exactly the point I was making

I wouldn't utilize the services of a plumber who hit his wife so in that regard it actually does work the same.

It doesn't work the same though (as you pointed out later) and that's the contradiction and the difficulty. Tricky one.

@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing?

I think there are other careers where you can lose your job hitting your wife, definitely in the corporate world, probably in parts of the entertainment world, probably in any industry where public perception is involved.

They'd probably only loose their NZ international part of their sporting career.

I remain somewhat old school in the sense that despite professionalism it is still a national rep team and we should be picking the best players from those eligible.

If the board were able to introduce some sort of eligibility rule and terminate Super contracts around criminal convictions of a certain length/type I would be 100% in favour providing the rules were transparent and consistently applied. But elements of the NZ legal system including diversion and name supression would seem to make that impossible.

Consistency is important though and as unpalatable as it is, unless there is a rule that can be consistently applied I would want to case by case moral judgements of individuals. I wish there were a way to do this and make things simple. The Keith Murdoch incident shows that things can go too far the other way.

@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc.

It's strange that the Better People Make Better All Blacks mantra was preached the most publicly around the 2011 RWC win. If that rule was in place at the time, especially in retrospect, it would have been pretty tough to cobble a squad together. Where do you stand on seals?

@nepia said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@victor-meldrew said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

if an AB has his career ended because he hit his wife, then why should say, a plumber, be able to continue his career for doing the same thing?

I think there are other careers where you can lose your job hitting your wife, definitely in the corporate world, probably in parts of the entertainment world, probably in any industry where public perception is involved.

They'd probably only loose their NZ international part of their sporting career.

For sure. But my point is being a well-known sports/business/media star means it's more career-impacting than on someone who isn't and that makes it way more difficult to get back on track. I think, in terms of fairness and justice, that should be taken into account in these situations.

@rotated said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Where do you stand on seals?

Duh. On their necks.

@frye although in most cases you would have no way of knowing about the Plumbers indiscretions so you would be engaging his services based on his work he has done for you before and/or word of mouth.

@machpants said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

@booboo said in Better people making better All Blacks ...:

Or take an example of Soulan Pownceby.

Did his time (unlike some).

Do we accept him?

I'm just bouncing this idea around in my head. Wondering TSF's thoughts...

I don't. Abusing then murdering an infant should be a death sentence, so no.

I don't like having Reece in the ABs, but accept he's going to be and thus consider him in my couch coach teams. If I was in charge, those sort of people would never play for their country (in Reece case it's a double whammy, he's not even a kiwi). Drunk drivers, spousal abusers, pissed up public assaulters, etc. We can do without them wearing the silver fern. Same with anyone that dopes, leave them out forever.

But that's not how is works sadly, so we get these people being paraded around on world women's day.

Interesting take we have isn't it? Do we say ok you stuffed up so you are no longer ever going to be a good person, or do we take the Steve Hansen idea that sometimes you put your arm around shoulder and try and make them a better person (or not repeat mistakes).
I find it hard to decide, as if I ignored family or mates who ballsed thing up, I not sure I would be much of a person, someone who keeps doing worng well maybe!
And remember we only ever know of people who get caught, and I will be honest I have driven after a few beers when I younger, etc etc, have been pissed in public, I did plenty when I was younger and I find it hard to judge people , glasshouses etc.

I think things should be taken on a case by case basis. For example, Domestic Violence is incredibly complex and it is virtually impossible to know what goes on behind closed doors and between two people. Having a blanket rule would be unfair.