Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?



  • Saw this article on NZ Herald (and a similar one on Stuff)
    'lacks emphasis on morals'

    This article has annoyed me a little. Gist of article is that a university study has found that NZ Rugby selects players based on performance, rather than moral standards and should consider change.

    Well bloody hell, of course they do. If they chose on moral standards and behaviours, then I'd be in the AB's (actually wouldn't) and I was never a rugby player (although I did throw an outrageous dummy during the Tukapa RC touch comp vs. some Taranaki front rowers) and the AB's never win.

    What a completely ridiculous study and waste of money.
    Rant over.



  • @westcoastie Stupid article



  • @Chris agreed. It was on both Stuff & Herald. Just bewildering.



  • Didn't bother reading the article as the headline is enough. However I do have an issue with Sevu Reece being chosen for the AB's.

    He didn't come to NZ until he was 17 FFS



  • How did they select who gets to do that study? Was it merit, or was it an emphasis on morals?



  • Crazy just think how many players would have. Never played for and been great AB’s if that was a selection criteria
    The AB’s also have a saying by being in their environment players become better people and there is lots of instances of that.



  • @dogmeat yeah but on the other side
    Has he become a better person everyone who knows including his partner say so.
    J Savea was discharged in court of the same sort of offences and carried on as AB
    That didn’t generate as much comment.



  • @Chris My issue is he didn't come to NZ until he was 17. His domestic violence thing is unsavoury but he was discharged without conviction so he shouldn't be punished again.

    I do think Hansen has surprisingly mis-stepped with his public defence. He's usually much more media savvy.



  • If we start selecting based on moral standards rather than performance then we'll just become the Wallabies.



  • Imagine if NRl clubs only picked players based on moral standards.



  • @dogmeat he seemed to draw a lot on his police experience around DV, but agree he wasn't quite as savvy as he typically is. Perhaps he's not as fussed given his tenure is coming to an end?


  • Banned

    At the end of the day you have to be a little nuts to be a top level rugby player. Even at the pitfully low level I played at, I felt like I'd been run over after every game. It takes a special kind of psycho to want to put themselves through that week in week out, particularly with the incredible collisions in the modern game. That's definitely not saying that it's acceptable for rugby players to be violent criminals or wife beaters (have to say I feel uncomfortable with Reese's selection) but expecting them all to be gentleman scholars and boy scouts is farking stupid.



  • In the selection process?

    “...principles such as honesty and sportspersonship...”

    Oh ffs. Same ol’ lame ol’ politically-correct claptrap New Puritanism that has infected all levels of contemporary academia and media. These researchers and news orgs can’t help themselves, they want mind & behavioral control.



  • I wonder if this is inevitable in our current environment.

    Next thing we'll have to pick on is representation quotas. This garbage destroys everything.



  • @No-Quarter said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:

    If we start selecting based on moral standards rather than performance then we'll just become the Wallabies.

    I read it differently. I think they want moral and social values to be considered in addition to performance related values, not instead of.



  • Do we want the AB'S to win the WC or The Noble Peace Prize I know which one I prefer.



  • @Salacious-Crumb said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:

    In the selection process?

    “...principles such as honesty and sportspersonship...”

    Oh ffs. Same ol’ lame ol’ politically-correct claptrap New Puritanism that has infected all levels of contemporary academia and media. These researchers and news orgs can’t help themselves, they want mind & behavioral control.

    Sportperchildship



  • @Stargazer said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:

    @No-Quarter said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:

    If we start selecting based on moral standards rather than performance then we'll just become the Wallabies.

    I read it differently. I think they want moral and social values to be considered in addition to performance related values, not instead of.

    Purity tests. I can see the interviews already. “Sure, you’re prepared to piss blood to wear this jersey, but what’s your position about a womans’ right to choose?”



  • The purpose of the study was to gain understanding of how character is understood in the New Zealand Rugby (NZR) ecology and how the Player Development Manager (PDM) in one Provincial Union (PU) negotiates, constructs and operationalizes interpretations of character within talent identification and development practices. The study design was informed by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model of development and the methodology was case study. The participant in the study was the PDM who worked for one provincial rugby union and NZR. Data was gained using; interviews, document analysis and observations. An iterative strategy was employed when adopting the deductive and inductive analysis. The study found that across the NZR ecology there was no universal definition of character, or set of criteria used to assess players’ character. Within the NZR macrosystem there were formal policies that explicitly identified character as a value to be assessed. Yet, implicit understandings and assessment of character also existed. The PDM working in a microsystem constructed his understanding and assessment of character based on his experiences working with, and for, NZR (macrosystem) and the PU (exosystem) respectively, as well as drawing on his personal value set. The findings of this study are significant not only for rugby, in New Zealand and elsewhere, but they are relevant and topical for any selector, recruitment agent or coach who implicitly and explicitly (de)selects participants based on character.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1747954119847172



  • The whole problem with considering moral and social values in a selection process, whether it's for a job or for selection in a sports team is that you only often find out what a person's values are after you've known them and worked with them for a while. From the fact that Reece hit his missus and was charged for it, you cannot infer that he thinks it's okay for a man to hit a woman, which would be a moral value that would stand in the way of selection in any rugby team. From his actions afterwards, the processes he's been through, the discussions he's had with the Crusaders' coaches, players and staff, they would get to know him and they've concluded that he's a good guy who has made a bad mistake, but who has improved and is still improving himself as a person.

    If a guy thinks it's okay to hit a woman and says that publicly on a regular basis, including on his social media, or if he has been convicted for it multiple times, then you will know some of his moral values and can use that as a reason not to hire/select him. But how often does that happen? In a job interview or before signing a player, on most occasions, a candidate/player wouldn't say such things (except in case of convictions, which you can be asked for on an application form, or during a job interview). You'd generally find out later once you get to know him.

    Another problem is that it is a slippery slope. Which moral and social values are we talking about? Who asseses what your values are and whether they meet those of your organisation? Some values will be reflected in certain protocols, such as those adopted by NZR after the Chiefs stripper debacle, but what about others?

    NZ society has some common moral standards. Most of them are just boundaries, like those laid down in law. Others are more common sense, unless you work in certain situations like working with children or other vulnerable people. Usually these are regulated. Also working for government agencies mean you have to agree to certain standards (not sure whether you'd call them social or moral standards though).

    Why isn't this enough? I don't see why they should be made explicit, only because we're dealing with rugby teams.


Log in to reply