South Africa director of rugby Rassie Erasmus to face misconduct hearing

[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.

 

[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?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport

 

[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.

 

[Quel Carreleur]

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

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

 

[Quel Carreleur]

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.