Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
Let me sum up why it's stupid: We didn't select Richie because he didn't hold the door open for a woman he didn't know five metres behind him. Dan's out because he didn't offer to carry someone else's shopping back to their car. But these two spastics will sit around all day helping people, so we hope they can tackle, kick and pass. What really tipped selection in their favour was the amount of causes they've liked on Facebook.
-
Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators, the All Blacks await you
-
@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.
The Wallabies would be the most morally challenged bunch of blokes ever to grace a rugby field
-
Israel Folau has some of the strongest moral values going around. As it happens, that's a major problem.
What teams need are people who are able to get along together, and who stay out of trouble. Strong moral values can easily get in the way of the first.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:
Israel Folau has some of the wrongest moral values going around. As it happens, that's a major problem.
-
@Machpants said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:
@Chester-Draws said in Better people make Better All Blacks...or do they?:
Israel Folau has some of the wrongest moral values going around. As it happens, that's a major problem.
Twenty-five years ago, his values would have been considered admirable by most people. They would still be the values of a major number of his team-mates.
As it happens I disagree with Folau. But I don't think he is immoral for believing what he believes. And he has the courage of his convictions, which is more than most Facebook warriors have.
Edit: if you think that being moral is believing what everyone else believes, and going with the majority, then you have the sort of morals that I can do without. For me being moral is having the strength of conviction that some things are right, and some are wrong, and being popular has nothing to do with that decision. That's why being moral is difficult. You will upset people.
