Pocock Arrested

[Braveheart81]

Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? There is a world of difference between Quade's indiscretion and what David did in terms of impact on team culture.
There is only one measure on what sort of impact David's behaviour might have on the team's culture and that is how it affects what the other players think of him. Given that he hasn't been a Wallaby for some time and the previously apparent high esteem the players held him in, I would be shocked if this has had any negative impact on team culture. I wouldn't mind betting that it might have even had a positive impact.

I think Inside Shoulder's point is more along the lines of it not being the impact of the specific action on the rest of the team but the action itself not being core to a good team culture.

Everyone lauds Pocock because he stands by his beliefs and most of the causes he fights for have fairly widespread public support.

What happens if one of the fairly devout Christians in the team decided that they wanted to leverage their public persona to campaign against their perceived ills of abortion and homosexuality? Far less people would be arguing that was good for team culture.

As many fans have pleaded for a long time, they'd prefer all the media attention to be about the rugby, not about off field issues. If it's accepted that players can act in ways that are considered 'bigger than the team', you'll invariably end up with some of those actions hurting the team culture.

 

[TOCC]

Even as an avid Quade fan I can acknowledge that Quades's comments and Pocock's actions are worlds apart when it comes to team culture. One was a direct criticism of the team culture, another is a player protesting against something which went against his morals.

As mentioned this is the least of the Walllabies problems currently.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? There is a world of difference between Quade's indiscretion and what David did in terms of impact on team culture.
There is only one measure on what sort of impact David's behaviour might have on the team's culture and that is how it affects what the other players think of him. Given that he hasn't been a Wallaby for some time and the previously apparent high esteem the players held him in, I would be shocked if this has had any negative impact on team culture. I wouldn't mind betting that it might have even had a positive impact.

I was referring to Cooper's use of the word yellow to describe the jersey. (Particularly when we all know the things been yellow since Canterbury were ditched as supplier - if not before)
Yet again: because you agree with the politics you think its OK.
People swimming outside the flags tend to create unintended consequences: if Pocock had not been warned and someone in the wobblies decided to support a more divisive cause on one side or the other then the ARU would have to let that go by the board.
The inability of posters to see the difference between the merits of his stance and the way he expresses his personal views is staggering.

 

[fatprop]

I know why you say that and in a sense you a right but one of the major issues facing the Wallabies is cultural.
No individual is bigger than the team. If you're a Wallaby the team extends right up to the ARU (recall the outcry over Cooper disrespecting the wider team).
Putting your personal political views first is not part of a team culture.

dunno, a reasonably big lump of social awareness wouldn't help the team culture seen over the last few years

 

[Inside Shoulder]

dunno, a reasonably big lump of social awareness wouldn't help the team culture seen over the last few years

and insight

What happens if one of the fairly devout Christians in the team decided that they wanted to leverage their public persona to campaign against their perceived ills of abortion and homosexuality? Far less people would be arguing that was good for team culture.

I seem to recall religion raising its ugly head over the Saffers prayer meeting following their RWC 1995 success: Stransky wasn't really into christian rituals i gather!
Beware the law of unintended consequences: arguably nothing wrong with a prayer just a question which god you're praying to.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It's rugby @Inside Shoulder. It takes all types to play the game, and to follow the game.

The inability of wingers to see the difference between the merits of using a well constructed rolling maul to advance the ball, and the way they personally attempt to advance the ball by running cross field and ignoring the opportunity to pass the ball to unmarked players in the open outside them is staggering, but yet we keep selecting them to follow real rugby players around the field.

 

[boyo]

It's worth the risk of arrest to stop coal mining at Maules Creek
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/its-w...l-mining-at-maules-creek-20141203-11ym60.html

 

[TOCC]

Surely people aren't suggesting the religion and sustainable energy debates are on the same level..

If that's a comparison which is to be used, then let's examine the apartheid issue. Players objected to playing the Springboks team because of their moral views on apartheid in South Africa, in hindsight the decision is a given but at the time it caused controversy.

 

[Rob]

Pocock should stick to simple moral issues, like helping the poor in Zimbabwe. Any money or help he can provide there is obviously good and there is little downside.

Unfortunately issues around energy use are very complex, as are issues around whether or not chopping down Leard St Forest for a coal mine is good or bad.

If Pocock were to achieve his stated goal of stopping coal mining he would be essentially stopping many poor people around the world from accessing cheap electricity with all the things that go with it. Similarly he may have benefited from checking out the history of land allocation in the North East of NSW (the CRA/RFA process ) that found a number of years ago that Leard St Forest conservation values were low and hence other St Forest areas were allocated to conservation and this area was left for other uses.

Unfortunately, Idealogical causes often require that the person checks their brain at the door. I worry now whether he is captain material.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Pocock AT THE MOMENT is a has been. He is not and hasn't been a member of the team for 2 years.

Its probably like Chris Latham or Peter the Pirate doing the same thing.

Difference is he is still being paid by the ARU AND that does make a difference.

Do I think he will make it back. Yes of course I do and Mr Hooper will be under immense pressure to hold his spot.

 

[Spieber]

Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.
― Howard Zinn

Who then should be the arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable act of anarchy and one that does not?

 

[Spieber]

Surely people aren't suggesting the religion and sustainable energy debates are on the same level..

If that's a comparison which is to be used, then let's examine the apartheid issue. Players objected to playing the Springboks team because of their morale views on apartheid in South Africa, in hindsight the decision is a given but at the time it caused controversy.

And the gentlemen in my avatar choose to not be selected in order to protest their views.

 

[Baldric]

Who then should be the arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable act of anarchy and one that does not?

Thats me of course.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Surely people aren't suggesting the religion and sustainable energy debates are on the same level..

If that's a comparison which is to be used, then let's examine the apartheid issue. Players objected to playing the Springboks team because of their morale views on apartheid in South Africa, in hindsight the decision is a given but at the time it caused controversy.

Not quite right - and actually illustrates the issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_..._tours.2C_1985.E2.80.9386_and_1986.E2.80.9387
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Cavaliers

 

[TOCC]

Not quite right - and actually illustrates the issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_..._tours.2C_1985.E2.80.9386_and_1986.E2.80.9387
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Cavaliers

Inside Shoulder, those cavalier and rebel tours occurred more then 20 years after the first Wallabies protested against apartheid.

Lloyd McDermott refused to sign on as a honorary white for the 1962 Wallaby tour of South Africa, this would have circumnavigated the apartheid laws allowing him to play but he refused.

Anthony Abrahams objected to touring on the 1969 tour due to his objection to apartheid, he eventually did tour and stayed in the country after the rest of the team had returned home and used what he witnessed as the basis for the player driven anti-apartheid movement, he was a key figure in opposing the 1971 Springbok tour which culminated in QLD declaring a state of emergency in the face of protests. Australia and South Africa wouldn't play each other again until 1992.

 

[TOCC]

I should say i was very reluctant to use the apartheid subject in relation to this issue, but i felt it necessary after religion was identified as a reason players shouldn't express their opinions and moral stance, i feel apartheid stands as an example of why players should be allowed to express their moral opinion.

 

[Braveheart81]

That apartheid issue certainly related far more directly to rugby though.

I think things are quite different in the professional game though. Amateur players had far more scope to state their opinions on anything.

The pay cheques of the Wallabies are so closely linked with the Wallaby brand that they have to tread carefully (and be made to do so).

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I should say i was very reluctant to use the apartheid subject in relation to this issue, but i felt it necessary after religion was identified as a reason players shouldn't express their opinions and moral stance, i feel apartheid stands as an example of why players should be allowed to express their moral opinion.

And that's precisely the problem: you think there is no room for argument about apartheid. I hope you're right. And yet people couldn't hold the line on that issue.
So take an issue on which there are, beyond argument, legitimate differences of opinion and the stage is set for difficulties.
You may want to argue the issue of the legitimacy of the opinions that run counter to Pocock's but a not insignificant number of people hold them.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

The inability of posters to see the difference between the merits of his stance and the way he expresses his personal views is staggering.

Absolutely right. It's what's got this thread to 11 pages.

 

[Sully]

enough.