Thursday's Rugby News - Green and Gold Rugby
Rugby

Thursday’s Rugby News

Thursday’s Rugby News

Thursday’s Rugby News has Slipper bulking up, Argentina-Wallabies chat, a date set for the clash between England and the All Blacks, and a whole lot more information on the Indo-Pacific Championship.


Slipper-y customer

Reds Captain James Slipper at the Reds v Chiefs post-match press conference

Reds skipper James Slipper is a man on a mission.

After a rough six months rehabilitating following a nasty torn achilles injury, Slipper has circled his goal of playing the October 14 match of the NRC, when he will represent Queensland Country and head to Sydney to take on the Greater Sydney Rams.

But he’s coming back with a lot more on his mind. He hopes to come back to the Wallabies. Often being seen as quite lightweight for being a prop, he’s added 10kg of bulk, and with the World Cup getting close to just under two years away, he could be timing his run perfectly.

With 86 test caps to his name, the 28 year old could certainly bring a lot of youthful experience to the front row.

“It’s taken an injury to have my first proper pre-season since 2009 and my strength just feels through the roof,” Slipper said to the Courier Mail on Tuesday.

“I haven’t been 120kg for five years, I’m eating everything under the sun and there’s no shoulder thing anymore to prevent me getting into the gym all the time.

“Being light over the past three years has not hindered me in Super Rugby but I have to be honest and say it hurt me a little at Test level having to work that much harder at every scrum.

“I don’t want to just get through scrums but influence them and be more physical in contact.”

While a national call up is certainly back on his mind, he plans to take baby steps, starting with the NRC.

“My first little goal is 20 minutes for Country next month so Wallabies stuff is way at the back of my mind right now.

“I’m pretty realistic that the tour is close but you’d never say no if the Wallabies did phone.”

Speaking of which…

Photo by Tom Offer

Photo by Tom Offer

The Wallabies will be looking for ‘patience and composure’, when they face a dangerous Pumas side in Canberra this weekend. While the Argentinians were pretty well outclassed outclassed by the Springboks in their opening two weeks, they pushed the All Blacks for the entire match on the weekend, and even led at halftime.

Vice Captain Will Genia was pretty candid when he spoke to rugby.com.au about what lessons needed to be taken from the draw against the Boks in Perth last week.

“I think at times, we spoke about it as a group, we’re probably not used to being in that position, particularly this year, of being in front 20-10 against quality opposition,” he said.

“It’s about just handling those moments better and it’s easy to do in hindsight because in the moment that’s when you are a little bit flustered.”

Blimey. Well, the Wallabies have only won eight of twenty one tests since the 2015 World Cup Final.

“In those particular situations, it’s going back to whatever’s comfortable, whether it be a simple play to take your focus off the scoreboard and just the process more than anything else,” said Genia.

“I think we’ll just be clearer in our minds as far as what our roles, what our jobs are and what’s expected of us in particular situations good or bad.

“As senior players we’ve addressed that, I think as a group as well we’ve addressed it.

“We’ve just got to make sure that when we are presented with those tough moments in games, we respond how we want to respond with clear minds as opposed to just being a little bit rattled.”

Israel Folau however made it clear that the Wallabies are far from underestimating Argentina this weekend.

“We didn’t help ourselves at the weekend because we were quite poor at the breakdown – we made linebreak, turnover, line break, turnover, and we couldn’t actually build phases,” he said.

“I think they’ll (Argentina) come at the breakdown pretty hard as well and look to attack us when they have the ball around the ruck.

“We’ve got to make sure we have a real conscious effort to tighten up those areas of our game.”

On a side note, Folau has caused a stir over the last twenty-four hours when he tweeted his opinions on Australia’s forthcoming same sex marriage plebiscite vote. And like Australian rugby didn’t have enough politics in it.

“I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions. but personally, I will not support gay marriage,” Izzy tweeted.

The tweet has seen a lot of different responses, ranging from outright condemnation from the support same-sex marriage, to users defending his right to express his own opinion, regardless of whether they agreed with it or not.

He couldn’t have timed it any worse. Wallabies captain Michael Hooper had chatted to rugby.com.au the day before about how the team supported marriage equality. This was followed by a public expression of support from all of the Wallabies social media pages.

Considering some of the other comments we’ve seen on other rugby websites around this tweet, let’s keep our comments rugby focused. The topic of same-sex marriage is for the plebiscite vote, so express your opinion on it by voting in it.

England-All Blacks locked in!

England win

November 10, 2018. That’s the day the we will find out if England have got the chops to knock off the All Blacks and show themselves to be a new power in World Rugby.  

Both teams share the record for the most consecutive number of wins (18). Interestingly, both of their records didn’t involved a confrontation against the other. This will be the first time they’ve met in four years.

Eddie Jones seemed pretty chuffed about it, but admitted that it was an important fixture in England’s World Cup campaign.

“The 2018 Old Mutual Wealth Series is incredibly important for England as we build towards the Rugby World Cup in 2019,”he said.

“We want to win that series 4-0 and we will need to play extremely well to beat four very good teams over a four-week period.

“The series will give us a really good indicator of where we are as a squad, a year out from the Rugby World Cup, and gives us a real focus on what we have to do over the next 12 months to be ready for that series and win.”

“Over the next year we need to continue to develop a bulletproof side, that can find ways to win in matches, and we will have to work hard and be smart in what we do to bridge the gap between us and the All Blacks.

“Our ambition is to be the number one team in the world going into the 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan.”

Indo-Pacific Competition Launched

twiggy-2

Finally, we finish on one of the most interesting news stories of the year: Twiggy has officially announced his plans to launch the Indo-Pacific Competition next year.

However, he stopped short of calling it a Rebel competition when he chatted to Fox Sports, instead insisting that it’s entire purpose was to work hand-in- hand with Australian rugby’s current set up.

The IPRC would start after the end of the Super Rugby season, and would run parallel to the NRC.

Pre-season will begin in July, with the 10-round competition to run between August and October next year. The top four teams will tee-off in finals.

Twiggy hopes that the competition will not only keep many of Australia’s players from going overseas, but also present an opportunity to bring some players back. A particularly noteworthy name that has sprung up is that of Liam Gill, who is off contract from Lyon next year.

“I would say we are prepared to go toe-to-toe with anything that is put on the table for an Australian player in Europe or Japan or the other destinations,” Forrest said.

“We need to say ‘hey boys, it’s time to come home’.”

Twiggy also made a comment about his relationship with Cameron Clyne, and said that he had some very encouraging discussions with the ARU Chairman.

“There’s been a fair bit of water under the bridge with Cameron and I,” Forrest said.

“We had a frank and friendly discussion when he was here recently.

“We were cast as adversaries. We did not agree with the cancelling of this magnificent team.

“In that adversarial form, we did have to go a little toe to toe.

“But now with the Western Force becoming an international team… there should be nothing but collaboration on behalf of Australian rugby.”

The ARU released a corresponding statement, confirming talks were underway.

“We do not wish to comment on the specifics of any proposed new competitions while these discussions are at a preliminary stage.”

Forrest said that he had recieved expressions of interest from twenty countries. Currently, Singapore, China, Japan, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Fiji, Malaysia, and Samoa are among the early favourites to participate. At least, according to Fox.

Dayne Haylett-Petty has also come out in support of the competition too and the future direction for the Force. Interesting times lie ahead.

  • onlinesideline

    Thoughts on the IPRC.

    Will young kids in WA who formerlly aspired to making the Force an beyond now aspire to making the Western Australian team playng in IPRC ? (assuming they can still play for Wallabies)

    Some will, the better ones probably not – they wil probably look for a Super contract elsewhere.

    Will a few former wallabies playing overseas come home instead of playing in Japan or UK-Europe ? Some. Will it help Australin rugby ? nope.

    To me this looks and feel like vengeance. Are Twiggy, Force supporters and WA govt, right to be angered ? – YES – but feeling wrongfully snubbed and started an Indo-Pac comp goes nowhere to adressing the age old probem that Australian rugby is still running away from.

    And that is NRL and AFL !

    It may in some way keep WA rugby alive which is GREAT but thats where it will END.

    Until we take NRL and AFL on head on with a nationwide comp Australin rugby will always struggle. We need a nationwide NRL syle comp with 10 -12 teams repping the whole country, played by former Super rugby players, which is a comp we need to ditch.

    Holies made a comment that the NRC lacks tribalsim and suggested that the IPRC and NRC should merge. So is he telling us that its a good thing that we are AGAIN going to ask a 12 year kid to pay allegiance to a comp played overseas by players who’s names are un- pronoucable by the average aussie, again at 3 in the morning, again probably on paytv.

    This is a WA only venture and will do absolutely nothing to help aussie rugby. The notion of helping aussie rugby that Twiggy touts is secondary to the primary objective of keeping WA rugby alive, which is totally fair enough, but lets be real here.

    If it was indeed Twiggy’s main objective he should have started a full rebel nationwide comp in Australia only, taking on not only the ARU but NRL and AFL as well with the view to reconciling in 3-4 years. It would have caused some short term pain as far as Wallabys are concerned but upon reconcilliation we would have come out much stronger, pulling NRL eyes and future NRL kids to aussie rugby.

    THEN I would have beeen excited.

    • Huw Tindall

      One of the problems with have is multiple tiers in one season – Super Rugby and Club Rugby, few Tests, finish Super and Club, then NRC and Tests, and then layer in IPRC! It hurts your brain just thinking about it. If Super Rugby is the pinnacle of provincial rugby it’s hard to get excited about NRC or IPRC off the back of it. Seems like it should be the crescendo of the season.

      From a WA point of view what are they doing from Feb to August when Super Rugby is on? IPRC doesn’t solve that gap for them.

      • onlinesideline

        Agreed, and that is why Super has to go mate and we need a domestic comp full of SR quality players, encompassing the whole country. That is what Twiggy should be financing, a truly rebel comp.

        The ARU has done the complete opposite of what has to be done. They should have kept the force and some major major cost cutting in other areas. The player depth argument will be proven totally wrong when next year and year after we lose to kiwi sides 26-0 again in SR. Its only then after 3-4 years of not beating the kiwis at all in SR that the present ARU will be seen to be totally clueless by those who are still in their camp. We still havent reached rock bottom.

        • Huw Tindall

          Yeah Super Rugby is the problem nobody seems to be able to fix…at least until 2021. The current TV deal is worth so many $ the SANZAAR members don’t want to cut and run. At the same time the broadcasters want a comp that fans are engaged with. Finding the middle ground is the challenge. So many people to keep happy we end up with a compromise that nobody is happy with.

        • onlinesideline

          The middle ground is a new mindset re money. Has it proven to be the one thing that has enabled the code to experience never seen before sucess v other codes in OZ. NO – it couldnt worse.

          As long as we are of mindset that broadcast money alone will save us we are going to struggle in a massive way.
          Its such a band aid its ridiculous beyond words.
          Are the players salaries THAT expensive that we need soooo much money to pay them. Something is majorly amiss here.

        • paul

          Agreed, aren’t we supposed to be divvying up all the money from Super rugby now. With the American & Asian conferences.

          It is this never ending mindset of chasing foreign pots of gold, everything will be rosy once we conquer that foreign market and plunder there broadcasting dollars.

          We invest our soul in some far away land, yet cower in the corner at the prospect of playing in the next suburb.

        • Pearcewreck

          Yep, spot on Paul.

        • Tommy Brady

          Curious to understand 2 points olsl…

          1. If Super Rugby is to go, where will the required money come from in “a domestic comp full of SR players” that will retain the likes of Michael Hooper, Israel Folau, Kurtley Beale, Adam Coleman in Australia and not be lured to the NH because the payment premiums are so much higher. Doesn’t Super Rugby also satisfy their desire of playing a significantly higher quality opposition regularly? Can a domestic competition satisfy that need?

          2. In what areas could the ARU have made “major major cost cutting” and not had an impact on the code in Australia?

        • onlinesideline

          Tom, I have said all along and it will say it again.
          Let the ppl who want to go OS for higher bucks GO
          It will not make one iota of difference.
          IMO and its just my opinion a good game of rugby comes from a myriad of factors. Having faster than normal, or bigger than normal, or more skillful than normal doesnt instantly translate into exciting games to watch. Some of the best footy is at club rugby across alot of different sports because they are evenly pitted against each other and it makes for a seesawing contest even if the standard is not the highest in the world.
          English soccer fans in lower divisions love their players because they are gritty and games at that level are great because not soo talented but gritty players are pitted against other not so talented but gritty players. Its still entertaining.
          so many ppl seem to harbour such insecurity about big name players fleeing. Are you really telling me that if those players go there are not great young blokes coming through that will fill the roster and be of good enof talent so that a good rugby team is created and good games are witnessed. How may times have we complained of dour test matches full of these marquee players on high salaries. How many times has Genia seem average or Izzy very quiet.

          We need to do away with this model of raising massive money through media deals to keep good talent here so that our game flourishes. Be honest. How is rugby union doing against NRL and AFL? Have we made any inroads re people tuning in or more importantly re crowds at games that were once NRL followers but now follow rugby – as compared to 10 years ago. Even the converted struggle to be inspired with Super rugby.

          Rugby cannot be handstrung to broadcast deals and player salary demands – its that simple. This model is not working.

          TBH the game needs to call the bluff of the players and I bet you any money that over time the anticipated effect that alot of ppl fear will not occur. Yes quite alot will go but if we at the same time develop a truly nationwide comp like the NRL then the pool of players will be much larger and as a consequence the Izzys and Hoopers wont seem that special all of a sudden. There are plenty of young kids in this country who have bags of potential. The dont have the cattle argument is BS. The problem is the pathways are narrow, the academies are non existant and as a result the game is being held hostage by a few players and a commercial model that is reflects a fundamentally outdated and insecure worldview of rugby in this country.

          its a long convo and theres lots of things to discuss and ive got to do some bloody work – ill try and keep going later on.

        • Braveheart81

          What makes you think a national competition with substantially lower standard than our best players will be watched by enough people to make it financially viable? What makes you think anyone would want to broadcast it let alone a FTA network?

          Who aside from Twiggy Forrest is going to fund this loss making competition for a number of years in the hope that it will eventually be viable?

        • onlinesideline

          Conversely, are our best players at present providing a spectacle that is watched by enough ppl to make it commercially viable as of today ?
          Answer : No – the ARU are one crisis away from bankruptcy.

          Therefore is player standard the be all and end re the makings of a sustainable competition model ?

        • Braveheart81

          No, clearly things have to change and I expect they will post this Super Rugby deal. The reality though is that the ARU would be bankrupt within a year if they tried to run a larger national competition as their main competition. It would need to be entirely underwritten by external parties.

          I think player standard is important. We have access to lots of rugby (albeit on pay TV). If it isn’t a high quality product, enough people won’t watch it.

          Soccer is the largest participation sport in Australia and there is huge interest in the game yet the A-League struggles to garner even a fraction of that overall interest because on a global scale it just isn’t that good.

          Rugby has a different problem in that the size of the fanbase is much, much smaller. We can’t have something that only interests a small section of the fanbase. I readily acknowledge that Super Rugby is increasingly in that position and that needs to change but I don’t think you can replace it with something that is lower quality than that and expect more people to tune in.

        • onlinesideline

          But A league is a low standard but ppl do tune in. That is the point. What is A-League’s objective ? Is it to create a great nationwde comp with tribalsim / passion / drama or is it to produce top end players that produce a high quality national side. The answer is the former. And there in lies the problem. We have to first create a comp that ppl tune into. The Wallabies and the national side quality is a separate issue. Maybe if we lower our standard for a few years but create a proper nation wide comp that ppl do tune into then the comp will start to act as a bigger pathway to juniors all over the country, like in places like the top end or the country or in poor socio-economic areas. ( can you imagine how may young Kurtley Beales there are in certain parts of Australia that have buckleys of ever playing union through school) Once we create a nationwide, non elitist comp, which is open to kids across the whole country like NRL, then we have a sustainble model which is from bottom up. Then the player competition increases, then the comp becomes more followed, then the bucks start comin a sniffin , then the wallabies will be a team that can compete.

        • Braveheart81

          The A League collectively has lost over $200m since its inception. Not a lot of people follow it, particularly relative to the number of people in the country who would call themselves football fans. It comes from a starting point of being a sport with a vast number of fans in the country.

        • onlinesideline

          shit thats alot of money

        • Bakkies

          What Twiggy needs is for this competition to last three seasons than the Sanzaar tv deal will end. Hopefully by then de Clyne would have resigned or finished his tenure and a new board structure in place that will wake up and smell the coffee in regards to their competition structures. Much like SARU are doing now.

        • Bakkies

          That’s what Twiggy will answer in due course. I will imagine that this competition will have proper commercial deals unlike Super Rugby which is a dog’s breakfast. David Moffett stated that John O’Neill vetoed Heineken Cup competition wide sponsorship and commercial deals to look after the ARU’s self interest as O’Neill believed that it didn’t suit Australia. Due to O’Neill’s veto Super Rugby as ended up mess that doesn’t make a profit (that was answered by O’Neill himself). The ARU has often struggled to find a naming rights sponsor and has many companies pull out of it (Lion Nathan through Tooheys, Astereon Super, Investec).

          Instead of getting competition wide sponsorship deals paid in USD the unions have had to find their own naming rights sponsors in local currency and their teams have had to go out and find their own ground signage sponsors. The Heineken Cup now the not the Heineken Cup sponsored by Heineken has always had competition wide sponsors.

          I posted a comment on the podcast article in response to Australian Rugby relying on one man. Well that’s what being happening for the last 21 years and now that man is 87. Like the ARU we don’t know what News Corporation’s back up plan is after Rupert passes away. Their business model has had to change due to new mediums and his sons don’t seem to be as driven towards the business empire.

        • Human

          Well said. Will you run the ARU when Pulver goes?

        • onlinesideline

          mate just give me a week in the job, just a week

        • joy

          I understand SR is subsidised by test rugby.

        • Bakkies

          Super Rugby barely makes a profit in its own right.

  • Huw Tindall

    I imagine a problem with IPRC from a WA point of view is that it doesn’t give WA any 2nd tier comp during Super Rugby. All other states have club (3rd tier) and Super (2nd tier) from Feb onward.

    Will this mean we have ‘Force’ players playing Super Rugby Feb to August for East Coast teams then either (a) on Wallabies duty, (b) going back west to to play IPRC, or (c) playing NRC? So confusing…will WA have an NRC and IPRC team? Will WA be the only IPRC team?

    I can’t foresee any realistic circumstances where IPRC and NRC can operate in harmony without stepping on each others toes – from both a player recruitment and fan interest point of view.

    In saying all this good on Twiggy for wanting to help rugby in Australia and hopefully they can all come up with an excellent all around solution.

    • onlinesideline

      Its really hard to know what someones motives are. Its not that brave to make the call that a large of Twiggys actions are rooted in WA being snubbed. Any benefits to OZ rugby and there is a big “if” in that, will only be decondary at best to Twiggys main objective and thats looking after WA. Is that a bad thing ? No but it need to be put in perspective.

  • Strip Chief

    AB fan here but always had a soft spot for Izzy. What he did took guts and he risked being the bad guy, in order to stick to his beliefs. Can’t understand all the personal attacks against him as everyone had a choice to vote and he made his public, just like Hooper, Pocock and ARU.

    My respect towards him just increased ten-fold. Well done mate.

    • Known Rugby

      Couldn’t agree more!

      Such courage to speak out against the union of two consenting adults. It takes a pretty brave person to tell a community that they aren’t equal.

      Beliefs are beliefs, but when your the face of a sport it’s a beyond stupid remark.

      • joy

        What’s beyond stupid is sports getting involved.

        • onlinesideline

          why – isnt it great that sports people in 2017 are now considered more than just sports people and that ones career choice doesnt preculde them from having an opinion on the range of issues that every one else in society are free to express. If I am a butcher can I not have a view on something else besides meat, or if I am a farmer can I not have a view on something else beside what is the best tractor ?

        • Pearcewreck

          olsl, all celebs of various nature have been asked and expressed opinions on matters for decades.
          This isn’t a 2017 thing.

        • joy

          This is a case of the team taking a position on a contraversal issue where players in the team are likely to have a different view. It’s not about restrictions on individuals freedom of expression, or is it? The issue also divides supporters as well. All in the lead up to a test
          Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse. Nuts.

        • onlinesideline

          i think we are all adult enough to separate a test match from a governing bodies statemnt on an issue like this.

          Granted the team may hold differing views and its a good point and often raised point when corps,institutions make political stances but when employees sign up they sign up to somehing bigger or higher than themsleves. But its a fair point. Conversely though the ARU would never tell Izzy to quieten down either…so everyone today is free to express an opinion even if your boss may think differently. Obviously thats not the case in certain cirumstances in the corp world but on social issues more so.

        • Graeme

          Why not? Especially on the female side, a large number of players are in the homosexual community. Australian rugby has a large stake in saying it accepts equality.

      • onlinesideline

        So if you are the face of a sport your beliefs should now be kept behind close doors ?
        Isnt public pressure and being forced behind closed doors the very point.
        I thought you said “beliefs are beliefs”. Well are they or is that conditional ?
        For years pro marriage were afraid to air their beliefs for fear of public reprecussions. Why should Izzy now not be free to air his beliefs publicly on this issue without fearing reprecussions just like a gay chap should be free to air his beliefs on this issue publiclly. Goose gander ?

        • Pearcewreck

          100% spot there olsl.

      • Pearcewreck

        Sorry, your comment is confusing.
        Are you trying to silence him from saying what he believes in?

        • McWarren

          I think what he is trying to say is. Izzy is welcome to his beliefs but dont try and dress it up and hide behind the bullshit that he is brave for expressing them. His comments are completely hypocritical, if you love and respect all people why not let all people get married?

          I tried to stay out of this thread because this is a rugby forum as far as I remember, but its stupid comments like Izzy’s and then f..kwits applauding his homophobia as bravery as standing up for his beliefs that I can’t abide. This is exactly why the government should have done governing thing and just changed the laws.

          If I turned around and said, I believe all people should be allowed to eat but I won’t let any short people into my restaurant i’d be rightly called a bigot, a strong willed and brave bigot maybe.

        • Dud Roodt

          Perfect response.

          The people saying “so Izzy isn’t allowed his opinion but Hooper/Pocock are” forget to mention that Izzy’s comments are denying a section of societies population a right the rest of us have, whereas Hooper and Pocock’s comments are supporting everyone’s right to be treated equally.

        • onlinesideline

          but is the issue about the opinion that Izzy holds or his right to express it ?
          Shouldnt all be free to express regardless of what their opinion is ?

        • Dud Roodt

          To be honest I think anyone’s opinion that would negatively affect the lives of others should be kept to themselves.
          His comment was akin to me tweeting (with my 3 followers watching on intently)

          “I love and respect everyone but I will be voting no to people of Tongan ancestry being able to marry caucasian women”

          I would rightfully be destroyed for having that opinion.

          One other point, people saying that he should be able to say what he wants because that’s freedom of speech fail to realise that freedom of speech isn’t freedom from criticism.

        • Waz_dog

          That’s only your opinion Dud – but I respect it. Hopefully you can respect Issy’s too.

        • moaning expat

          But you certainly don’t like it when the same criticism heads your way.

        • Dud Roodt

          I have no problem with criticism. Where’d you get that idea from moaning expat?

        • moaning expat

          I get that from this—“Dud Roodt onlinesideline • 6 hours ago
          To be honest I think anyone’s opinion that would negatively affect the lives of others should be kept to themselves”

          From your viewpoint- ‘everyone elses opinions are just opinions and should not be heard. My opinions are fact and shouldn’t be questioned.’

          You use disingenuous and unrealistic (ill use your terminology- i know you dont like ad hominum much) analogies and examples to try and prove your point. (E.G Barring red hair and blacks)
          However if you do that- one could justifiably use examples such as; why cant i marry my mother? (shes too old for children) so wheres the harm? why cant i have relations with a 14 year old if she/he consents ? etc etc. The government (and society) say we shouldn’t because they think the child is not old enough to make a mature decision on their own. (which i strongly agree which id like to note)

          Is that not your argument? the government telling someone what to do against their will on a moral, social and religious issue? And the populace must decide. Not you.

        • Dud Roodt

          You seem to have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension.
          Nothing in your above comment at all points to me having a problem with criticism. I would love you to point out one comment that leads you to think that way.
          Is it because reply to other comments disagreeing with me? That’s not an aversion to criticism mate.

          My argument is the following;

          We (including you and I) should not be able to dictate who gets married when it is not of concern to either you or I. It doesn’t hurt you, or me, if two consenting adults choose to get married and have all of the legal protection that affords them, just like you and I get.
          You, like Pearcewreck above who compared gay marriage to bestiality (unintentionally on his behalf), just compared SSM to pedophilia. A 14 year old is a child. In the eyes of the law they cannot consent to sex, or marriage.
          Allowing two adults to marry is not the same as allowing an adult to marry a child. I honestly didn’t think I would have to spell that out.

        • moaning expat

          I didnt think i would have to spell this out – Again either. My point is that you are saying that anyone who doesn’t agree with you- “Should keep their opinions to themselves” THIS is the one comment that leads me to think this way.
          IE “i dont want to hear anyone elses opinion on this matter”-
          If you dont understand that then i do truly give up.
          An aversion to criticism ‘mate’ (what happened to you calling me Moaning? Are we not friends anymore? ) is when someone doesn’t or refuses (or demands)that we dont listen to anothers opinion. You will come back and go on about if those opinions affect others yada yada- but its the same thing.

          You blatantly and erroneously claim that i compared SSM to paedophilia. Please point out where i said that it is the same thing? If you have don’t a ‘reading comprehension’ issue you would understand clearly that my concern – and why i used the analogy- was you comparing racism to this issue. I (and others) objected to your analogy (not your opinion or argument) as being over the top and not valid to compare.
          However im pretty sure you knew that already- you dont strike me as dumb- just deliberatly obfuscating.

          You seriously dont see the irony or sheer hypocrisy of what you just said in the second part? “In the eyes of the law” etc etc. This distresses me as Im pretty sure you do.

          If you hadnt yet noticed Mr Roodt (i guess we’re back to formal now) at this moment “in the eyes of the law” SSM is illegal. You want that changed. And there are plenty of sickos who want to marry 14 years olds too that want that changed. Allowing two adults to marry is certainly different to adult/child in my opinion too- but you started the crap analogies- not me.
          I pointed out the danger of using ludicrous analogies to express this point.

          Now- can i marry my mum?

        • McWarren

          Absolutely he should entitled to express his opinion. But he must also take the heat for it. I don’t see how expressing the myopic view he has as being brace or admiral.

          To answer you on the hypocrisy call above. I thought I was clear, how can you proclaim to love all people equally yet support the suppressing of their right to equal recognition of their relationship in a secular society, we do live in a secular society don’t we.

        • onlinesideline

          cant you still love someone but at the same time disagree with their choices ?

        • Dud Roodt

          Of course, but why should you be able to dictate what they do with their lives when it quite literally has no effect on you?

        • onlinesideline

          In Izzys worldview he would feel justified in having a say because he feels he is preventing the decay of society, a society he lives in and that any condoning of SSM would affect him and others in the wider sense.

          But these are not my views – was just curious how ppl think on this

          Its 5.30 in morning here in Budapest – got to get some shuteye
          Adios Amigos

        • McWarren

          Talk soon mate. Thanks for the back and forth.

        • McWarren

          Disagree yes, but actively stand in their way?

        • Waz_dog

          It’s his religious view – how myopic are you? Or are you trying to suppress is right to believe in God and the rules God sets?

        • McWarren

          God forbid!!

        • Waz_dog

          Tempered response with sarcasm after dressing everyone down on your soap box… guess we’ll find out who’s right and wrong when we die.

        • Pearcewreck

          You are way out of line McW.
          Shame, you are as bigotted as you say he is.
          Disgraceful.

        • McWarren

          Sweet bro

        • McWarren

          Is it his religious view? I didn’t catch that part of his comment and quite I don’t think it matters one bit if it’s his religious view or whether it’s because that’s what the top dogs on his street tell him to believe. Look at it this way, if we were to have a vote tomorrow on whether people are entitled to go to church and pray to a man who is said to have walked on water, as idiotic as that sounds too me I would not vote no, why? Firstly because the law in this land stipulates that people are free to practice any religion, just as any adult is allowed to love any other adult. Secondly it’s not up too me how you spend your Sunday mornings.

          In a secular country this should not be based on religious views. Of course your allowed to have your religious view, just as much as I’m allowed to disapprove of it.

        • moaning expat

          You are the hypocrit. You demand your view is the right one and Izzy is wrong. Your opinion is exactly that- an opinion. And so is Izzys.

        • McWarren

          And yet I can form a logical well thought out reason for my opinion. Has Izzy? I’m not demanding Izzy agree with me, I’m merely pointing out you can’t give with one hand and take with the other. You can’t preface a homophobic position with a catch all phrase of I love everyone and think all is cool. His first statement doesn’t ease the pain that will be caused by his intended actions, if he votes. I can’t stand right wing nut jobs ( I’m not making accusations okay) but I don’t stand in the way of them getting married.

        • moaning expat

          No accusation offense taken.

          By logic you infer that marriage actually means anything. Modern marriage is worthless. Divorce is easy and quick. Common law relationships hold as much legal Rights as marriage. If there were questions regarding pecuniary issues then a simple Will would suffice.

          Ironically we agree on one thing – i cant stand… left …wing nut jobs who try and dictate what others should say and think. And berate and bully others for disagreeing. And i see 95% of the bullying coming from the left.

        • McWarren

          Yes but there are a lot of benefits too being married, legally I mean. I have a close relative who is in a SSR with 2 kids from surrogacy. each partner has one genetic child. If one partner was to die, the family of the dead partner is legally entitled to take the dead partners genetic child away, the surviving partner has no legal claim to their kid. That is one example of why this is not just about a lot gay men putting on fabulous weddings, it’s not about the wedding day, it’s about the families already living as SSM without any of the legal protections provided to straight marriage.

          Funny how people see things differently, I’ve always lent to the left and copped a lot flack for it, thankfully 95% of people would rather a good heated but funny conversation over a stubby or a red.

        • moaning expat

          I dont mind lefties if they practice what they preach. Which mostly they do not. It distresses me when real lefties dont speak up aboit this hypocrisy.

          I would politely suggest that the courts would look at your friends relationship and circumstances and decide the right course of action would be to leave the child in situ. And i would bet money they would do so. Your description of ‘legally’ is a bit awry. Yes legally they could try (as could anyone else) but its up for the family court to judge. Family courts have a lot of flexability. Especially if the child has been raised in a good family the plaintiff would have a a hard time ripping a child away from its ‘parent’.

          Me.personally? When i become king of the world ill be banning all marriage. As that great sage once said (Al Bundy) “if i can save one person from getting married, my lifes work is done”

        • Pearcewreck

          Exactly.

        • onlinesideline

          ok I’ll bite Mcwarren, if I may (all in good spirit) Why is what he said hypocritcial ? Im just curious. He prefaced his opinion on the issue of who should particpate in his understanding of what mariage should be with the comment that he loves and respects all etc. He was perhaps intentionally differentiating his love for other human beings with the concept of what marriage is as being 2 different things.

          (Im not taking sides here) So if he feels the notion of marriage only works for certain humans and not others because he feels the very nature of marriage is for some humans and not others why is that mutually exclsuive of his love for all humans. Maybe he just doesnt think all humans are suited to this arrangement called marriage, does it mean that he doesnt in fact love all humans ? Is that not indeed possible that he does loves everyone but he genuinely thinks only certain humans should marry ? Why is having that opinion or lets be honest, having the opinion of homosexuality actuually a phobia or bigoted. Im just curious mate. This question in no way reflects my own opinions Im just curious to understand your thinking.

        • McWarren

          Okay let’s assume Izzy just doesn’t think my wife and I should have been married because I was too tall for her. That’s Izzys opinion but he couldn’t and shouldn’t have the right to stop me. SSM proponents want to deprive Izzy of couldn’t portion of the above phrase. I think from a societal view point Izzy should not even have the option to deny someone equal rights. Note I said right to deny, not right to think. If Izzy and everyone expressing support for a no vote truely believe in equal rights they should vote yes regardless of ethnic, religious or whatever other basis there is for voting no. That’s where my thinking is, Izzy and lots of others are going to exercise the right to stop two consenting adults from marrying.

        • onlinesideline

          Im just curious where you get this notion of equal rights from. OK strange question but Im serious. Where did this idea actually come from and who decides who falls outside of equal rights. In other words what happens if someone comes along with a behavour you find absolutely deporable but is still legal and that someone turns around and says, “hey equal rights – if you can do this why cant I do that?”.

          Utimately dont humans regulate other humans behavour, that there is no mean or standard as i a right to act or be in a certai way but rather it changes all the time according to the culture of the day / decade / century. And as lomg as humans are humans with all their emotions, perceptions, passions, fears, there will never be a priciple in society like equal rights because what is good for some isnt good for others and visa versa. If everything was equal in right then anybody can do or be or say anything under the protection of equal rights. But the world just doent work like this as humans will always want to regulate what other humans do in the enviromet they share with other humans. Everyone and everything is connected and has consequences.

        • McWarren

          Interesting points mate. I don’t agree with your summation on what equal rights is and it’s effects on debate. I’ve never said Izzy wasn’t entitled to have or express his opinion. He has an as equal right to form, express and live by his opinion. It over steps the boundaries of equal rights when his opinions are transferred into actions that negatively effect the right of someone else to obtain the benefits of a right entitled to one form of relationship.

          I for one don’t find that hard to distinct in my mind.

          Equal rights is just as it says on the gin and I don’t think any society has fully achieved it as yet. I don’t think equal rights is something at the mercy or whim of present day trends or fashionable opinion.

          If your child was stopped from going to school because he has red hair, would you still be so obtuse in your opinion on what is an equal right?

          Mate I completely understand and accept that hoy are talking from a hypothetical pov. So please don’t take offence.

        • Alister Smith

          OK here’s a tricky one McWarren and we are getting a bit far away from rugby here but anyway… There was a gay couple quoted in the Telegraph the other day who objected to gay marriage and said they are intending to vote no based on their Christian beliefs. incidentally they were also accused of being homophobic (given that this supposedly means a fear of homosexuals and they are in a homosexual relationship then that doesnt really stand up but anyway). Christopher Pearson who used to write in the Australian before he passed away was also gay but also objected to gay marriage. Are these people entitled to express their views as well? And if so then why is a straight male Christian who happens to play rugby pretty well not able to do so without attracting personal criticism and name calling. As it happens, his religious beliefs and mine for that matter, see marriage as a sacrament between to consenting adults of the opposing sex for the primary purpose of forming a family and having children. Two consenting adults of the same sex can’t physically meet that definition of marriage. Now obviously we are having a vote to determine what the majority of people feel marriage is and whether they accept that definition I outline above or another one. But one key aspect of this debate is, once a decision is made (and assuming the Yes campaign is successful) will Israel and the members of his Church and me and the members of my Church be allowed to maintain our belief and our definition of marriage, see that our children are educated in line with our beliefs and be able to express that difference of opinion without facing sanctions from the state. If not then clearly it is NOT just an issue of two consenting adults wishing to form a emotional bond without hurting anyone else.

        • Dud Roodt

          Well as long as you don’t discriminate against anyone, you should be fine?
          You can still believe they’re evil, if your god tells you to, but for e.g. you can’t not serve them in a shop. That’s pretty simple.

          I certainly wouldn’t deny you service, or the right to marry who you love simply because I think religion is ridiculous. So just treat everyone the same

        • Alister Smith

          I dont believe anyone is evil not at the start anyway Dud. I believe that God created everyone and God certainly doesn’t tell me gay people are evil. I have plenty of my own sins to deal with and I won’t be the final judge of my or anyone else’s. I wouldn’t deny service to someone because they are gay – I have clients who are gay and I would hope my service to them is equal to anyone else even though its not a lifestyle I agree with (nor do i agree with defacto relationships, adultery or sex before marriage or polyamory for that matter – weird I know!). However, as I don’t believe in gay marriage then I feel that I shouldn’t have to provide a service for an event that I don’t support and, if that situation happens, I would explain my position and refer them to another company who does provide that service but supports gay marriage. So just to clarify I would be prepared to bake them a cake but not a wedding cake. As it happens I do provide music sometimes for weddings and funerals but probably not often enough that my position will be tested but that will be my response if it does come about. Not because I hate gay people or think they are evil but because I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

          Also I know that a lot of the arguments being made for the no case are being made on the basis of religious belief however there are some atheists who have also expressed that they will vote no. Primarily the believe because they view traditional marriage as an important societal institution and the best way to raise children. The ancient Greek and Roman cultures

        • Waz_dog

          The Bill isn’t just SSM either – they’ve snuck the word ‘gender’ into the bill also. This word in law, will in time be the basis for hate speech and those that don’t call people by their gender preference will be charged/jailed. It’s already come to fruition in Canada. Fascism here we come…

        • McWarren

          I will go back what I’ve said elsewhere, why is religion even part of the debate? We are a secular country not run by the church. But to answer you more specifically I think the Christian churches are homophobic. They like Izzy profess to love everyone but their actions speak otherwise. And did Izzy say his thoughts were based on his religion?

          Throwing red herring of state intervention into the discussion is an attempt to distort what this vote is really about. Tell me when abortion was legalised were the churches sanctioned for not supporting it? By the government I mean.

          I sat in mass a few weeks ago and listened to our priest read a letter from the Bishop stating that everyone is welcome in the church no matter your preferred sexual preferences ( think of all the meanings that has in the church). The letter then went on to stipulate just like you above that the marriage is to be between two people of opposing sex with the end goal being the production of children. You know because we Christians don’t have sex until we’re married.

          So I guess I don’t find it tricky at all Alistair. Even though I was brought in a devote Christian environment I don’t filter my world view through Christian glasses. And even if I did I would vote yes as I don’t want to force my religious view onto others.

        • Alister Smith

          Well I listened to the same letter read in Mass and thought it perfectly represented my views and beliefs and for me my Christian faith informs and forms my view of the world so I guess we are a fair way apart on this one but I hope you enjoy the game this weekend.

        • onlinesideline

          being a secular state only means separation of church and state and that officially G-Ds law is not adhered to by the state.It doesnt mean that an individual cant still see things / life / issues through the religiously obsevant lens.

        • Who?

          McWarren, isn’t abortion technically still illegal in Qld..? It’s just not prosecuted, was my understanding (and I say that as someone who knows several people who’ve been down that path).
          Also, I don’t think you and Dud should get married. Really wouldn’t work out – too much provincial bias! :-P

        • Dud Roodt

          Don’t you dare stand in our way who!

        • Who?

          Just make sure they allow SS Divorce first (currently also illegal!). I don’t know how you two would survive, what with all the ‘But he’s a Tah!’ ‘But he’s a Red!’ arguments. :-P

        • PJ

          How is it homophobia? He just doesn’t think gay marriage should be legal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, isnt that what a democracy is about? Seems like you are coming across as a bit of a flog due to the fact someone doesnt share your belief…..

        • Dud Roodt

          Would you think someone who doesn’t think black people should be able to marry is a racist?

        • PJ

          Again it is someones opinion that they are entitled to have, it doesn’t make it right. This is the point Izzy is allowed an opinion its irrelevant if it is right or wrong. The simple fact is he is allowed an opinion. My opinion is he is wasting his time with that mythical figure in the sky. I think religious people are the nuttiest people on the planet. It is an opinion not a fact, some will agree some will disagree, just like Izzys stance of gay marriage.

        • Dud Roodt

          But just answer my question.
          In the above scenario would you think that person was racist?

        • Pearcewreck

          Stop trying to muddy the waters to score a point.
          Marriage in our country was never about race.
          Show me where it says it is.
          It was between a man and a woman.
          This debate isn’t about any imaginary racial issues.

        • Dud Roodt

          Firstly, just because you can’t argue the point doesn’t mean it’s got nothing to do with the issue at hand.
          This debate is about allowing one minority group the right to marry.
          People of colour are a minority group, who, in a number of countries, had to fight for the right to marry who they wanted.

          Secondly, I was referring to PJ’s comment that it’s not homophobia.
          Now, if someone was to want to deny a particular races’ ability to marry, we would call them racist.
          How is that different to someone denying a particular sexuality the right to marry?

          It’s OK if you’re not comfortably answering the question, but don’t pretend they are not a like as it’s disingenuous

        • Pearcewreck

          Quote: Firstly, just because you can’t argue the point doesn’t mean it’s got nothing to do with the issue at hand.
          This debate is about allowing one minority group the right to marry.
          People of colour are a minority group, who, in a number of countries, had to fight for the right to marry who they wanted.

          Firstly, and lastly, that debate, if there was one in Australia, has been run and won.
          No-one is arguing about that. So yeah, your point is disingenuous.

        • Dud Roodt

          So that’s just a “no, I’m not going to answer that” from you then?

        • moaning expat

          Challenge- write a comment without resorting to ludicrous analogies and misguided logic.

        • Dud Roodt

          Glad to have you on-board moaner, can I call you moaner?
          Very witty retort, happy to discuss where the analogy was ludicrous and the logic misguided.

        • moaning expat

          Happy to be here…Dud. Can I call you (a) Dud?

          To be pedantic I didnt directly accuse you of that, however;

          # “I love and respect everyone but I will be voting no to people of Tongan ancestry being able to marry caucasian women”
          # *”Would you think someone who doesn’t think black people should be able to marry is a racist?” (sic) note your open reference. You may be taken as Black people not being allowed to marry at all. Or taken as not being allowed to marry outside their race.

          Not you but used by someone arguing your ‘side’ so perhaps a tad unfair but as its just as ludicrous as the first 2 so i thought id throw it in ;
          . # “If your child was stopped from going to school because he has red hair, would you still be so obtuse in your opinion on what is an equal right?”

          I call these examples ludicrous because they are. Racism is a pretty long drawn bow from anyone who feels the institution of marriage is a family/social/religious thing.

        • Dud Roodt

          How can one minority group fighting for equal rights not be compared to another minority group fighting for equal rights?
          Seems like a fairly solid analogy to me

        • lee enfield

          How else are you supposed to close down debate and silence those who have a different opinion, if you don’t resort to base name calling, ad hominem attacks and bullying.

          A lot of the precious little darlings in this country need to respect democracy and freedom of speech, and stop throwing tantrums and every time someone has differing view, opinion or belief.

        • Dud Roodt

          Wow, I feel like I’m on an American website discussing politics with the number of cliches you just busted out (you could have used “snowflake” to really hammer your opinion home!).

          How is people being upset at his comment any less an example of freedom of speech than his initial comment?

          Ooooh, I get it, you think freedom of speech is freedom from criticism.

        • lee enfield

          Nope, i think freedom of speech comes with the right of reply. If the reply relies on name calling, bullying, threats and ad hominem attacks, it is a tantrum from someone who has run out of intelligence, logic and reasoning, not criticism.

        • McWarren

          Do you mean name calling like ‘precious little darlings’? That sort of thing?

        • Dud Roodt

          No McWarren, you know as well as I do that it’s only name calling when Lee says it is, and it’s only name calling when it’s against what he believes

        • lee enfield

          Am I calling anyone a precious little darling because I don’t agree with their opinion or beliefs? Nope.

          Am I calling them that because of their behaviour and how they choose to respond, or express their opinion or beliefs? Yep.

          Is their a difference? Yep.

          Calling someone who uses ad hominem attacks as a debating method, a precious little darling, is like calling someone who uses king hits in a fight a coward.

        • Dud Roodt

          Challenge: write a comment without using the term ‘ad hominem’.
          Do you accept?

        • lee enfield

          Yep.

        • Pearcewreck

          It’s people trying to silence, calling him names, ridiculing him that is the problem.

        • McWarren

          So tell me Lee, little Darling that I am, who has the right to free speech, just Izzy?

        • lee enfield

          Did I mention that? Nope.
          But if you feel it applied to only you and the yes side, that is your problem.
          It was an observation that regardless of the topic, name calling, bullying and ad hominem attacks are used to silence opposing beliefs and opinions.
          So yep, anyone who resorts to such behaviour is a precious little darling who

        • Pearcewreck

          Quote: “So tell me Lee, little Darling that I am, who has the right to free speech, just Izzy?”

          Oh please McW.
          Don’t make a tool of yourself mate.
          Don’t twist people’s words.
          No-one said only Izzy was entitled to anything.
          This is just sad.

        • moaning expat

          +1

        • McWarren

          Yes everyone is entitled to an opinion. They just aren’t entitled to allow that opinion to infringe on the equal rights of someone else. Saying you aren’t anti gay but you don’t believe they should have the same rights as you is homophobia. Maybe look at it in Izzy rugby terms, he isn’t anti passing the ball, he just doesn’t think he should.

        • PJ

          he has as much right to vote no as you have to vote yes.

        • McWarren

          Of course he does but don’t try and make yourself feel better about by saying I love everyone but……

        • lee enfield

          So places like fernwood, curves are bigots?

        • Alister Smith

          He isn’t homophobic because has a different definition of marriage to you.

        • Pearcewreck

          Quote: “IIzzy is welcome to his beliefs but dont try and dress it up and hide behind the bullshit that he is brave for expressing them”
          What you are saying is he should be silenced for his beliefs.

          Quote: “but its stupid comments like Izzy’s”
          What you are saying is he should be silenced for his beliefs.

          Quote: “standing up for his beliefs that I can’t abide.”
          What you are saying is he should be silenced for his beliefs.

        • Dud Roodt

          None of those quotes at all reference McW wanting him to be silenced?

        • Pearcewreck

          Oh please.

        • Dud Roodt

          OK then

        • McWarren

          No what I’m saying is I think his beliefs are bullshit.

        • Pearcewreck

          Quote: “I tried to stay out of this thread because this is a rugby forum as far
          as I remember, but its stupid comments like Izzy’s and then f..kwits
          applauding his homophobia as bravery as standing up for his beliefs that
          I can’t abide.”

          His opinions aren’t homophobic.
          He just believes marriage should stay as it is.

          Example, I love my dog, but I don’t think I should be able to marry him.

          or

          I don’t think women should fight in combat in the armed services. Does that mean I hate women?

        • Dud Roodt

          As I’ve posed this question below without answer, maybe you’ll indulge me Pearcewreck;
          If Izzy’s opinion was that black people shouldn’t be able to marry, would you think of him as a racist?

          Also, it’s a slippery slope when you start comparing SSM to bestiality. The evangelical nut jobs have done it, and it doesn’t reflect well.
          And besides, you dog wouldn’t be consenting would he?

        • Pearcewreck

          Quote: The evangelical nut jobs have done it, and it doesn’t reflect well.

          Wow, bigoted much.
          That is a disgraceful comment.
          Why are evangelicals nut jobs?
          Have you not judged and vilified a whole section of society because of their beliefs?
          Have you not displayed hatred of them?

          Hang your head in shame. Please, have along hard look at yourself you bigot.
          SMH at your hypocrisy.
          Please don’t be all butthurt that I called you a bigot.
          Just telling it like it is.
          Sad.

        • Dud Roodt

          Are you speaking in haiku or in your own version of Donald Trump tweets?

          To break it down for you, I didn’t refer to all evangelicals as nutjobs, just the one’s who compare SSM to bestiality.

          (But secretly I do think evangelicals are nutjobs – just between you and I though OK Pearcey, shhh!)

        • Pearcewreck

          See my above comment, I had just explained my dog comment. Was not trying to link SSM and bestiality.
          You made that link, not me.
          I was thinking of “someone” whom I love that I can’t marry, ie my dog.
          I was not thinking of the sex side of it at all.
          So sorry to do that.

          I won’t delete that part of my comment as it would be a bit disingenuous now.

          Re you comment, sorry, I don’t know what haiku is, and I am not on Twitter.
          So no.

          Also, I am an evangelical.
          I attend an evangelical church. The nicest people I have ever known in my life also attend it and other evangelical churches.
          Honest, loving caring people. Strong too. They also do fantastic things in our community, donate heaps of money to charities as well. Does that make them or me perfect, or even good? No way. I am the worst of the lot.

          However, not they, nor I, am a nut job.

          But in your bigoted mind we are all nut jobs.

        • Dud Roodt

          And in you’re bigoted mind no gay people should have the same rights as you, except I still think people who believe in god should be able to marry. See the difference?

          I didn’t I say I thought you were bad people, just that’s it’s nuts that you believe in god.
          I’d say the same about scientologist, Buddhists, pastafarians, everyone

        • Pearcewreck

          Sorry, I above comment I inadvertently dragged bestiality into the argument, as Dud Roodt has pointed out.
          That was not my intention.
          I was thinking of “someone” whom I love that I can’t marry.
          I wasn’t thinking about the sex side of marriage.
          Anyhoo, most marriages don’t involve much sex anyway, or so I’m told.

        • McWarren

          So now your saying the love between a woman/man and their dog is comparable to the love between two adults in a same sex marriage. And you called me a tool!!

        • MungBean

          “If you love and respect all people why not let all people get married?”

          Love and respect are demonstrable without pretending to be married.

        • MungBean

          “If you love and respect all people why not let all people get married?”

          Love and respect are demonstrable without pretending to be married.

      • Waz_dog

        Is a lot of courage in this leftist day and age.

        • Dud Roodt

          Yes, this damn forsaken leftist age with those famous left wing people in charge like Trump, and Duterte, and May, and Turnbull!

          I’m sick of it, I say!

        • Waz_dog

          Do you even know why I said what I said? You might want to look carefully at the language that is used in the Bill that is being proposed, and what is actually being voted on. We’ll have laws like Canada in a decade if this gets passed. You can quote me on this. The left is ushering in Global Marxism Hegemony – everyone wants that…

        • Dud Roodt

          Yes, this is definitely the first signs of the Armageddon.

        • Waz_dog

          Check out Bill C-16 in Canada.

        • Dud Roodt

          Do you spend a lot of time on Breitbart by chance?

        • Who?

          Why oh why have we lost the centre..? If the left weren’t so self-righteous the right’s reactionary posturing wouldn’t get any air play. Instead of understanding, we have the ‘enlightened’ on the left telling us how much more evolved they are than us, and in response those on the right stand back and point out the complete lack of connection the leftie elites have with the ‘common man’, who then rallies to him. In spite of concepts that can be truly abhorrent.
          I wish we didn’t all jump to extremes… :-(
          But I wouldn’t lump Turnbull in with Trump and Duteurte. Not sure I’d even lump May in with those two, and Turnbull’s instincts are well left of May.

      • MungBean

        Izzy didn’t speak out against the union of two consenting adults. That’s called civil union. Civil unions are enshrined and protected by law and quite rightly so.

    • Pearcewreck

      I like everything about your comment, except for the fact that you support NZ.
      Apart from that 100% agree with you.

      • Strip Chief

        Tell me about it mate. Supporting NZ sucks…its like watching an 80’s Chuck Norris movie.

        • onlinesideline

          isnt that more a metaphor for NZ generally ?

          ha bloody haha

        • Pearcewreck

          Go away then. This site is not for you.

        • Missing Link

          That’s great because we prefer watching 80’s slapstick comedies around here :)

      • Kiwi rugby lover

        That’s ok mate, I can do the 100% agreement thing

    • Alister Smith

      I agree 100%, David Pocock’s comments are seen as courageous free speech and Israel Folau is accused of being homophobic and discriminatory. Sometimes it seems like it is only free speech if you agree with the particular view that’s trending at the time. I would personally like to see commentary left to individuals rather than organisations. I think it’s fine that the ARU (or Qantas etc) has equality in providing opportunities for all to play the sport and for all its employees but I don’t feel it needs to make a comment either way on same-sex marriage issue. The ARU represents all people who play rugby and it should allow for all people who have different opinions to make their own decisions on issues that are not directly relevant to rugby. Does the ARU need to have a public view on abortion, the state of the economy, the value of the Australian dollar or the necessity for a welfare card. I think this is just an example of wanting to market rugby by making sure we don’t have a different position to rugby league or AFL. I would rather the ARU had no position.

      • joy

        Spot on.

      • MNIMD

        :(

      • Funk

        “Sometimes it seems like it is only free speech if you agree with the particular view that’s trending at the time.”…Welcome to the internet!

        • Alister Smith

          yes a little naive of me I know.

      • MungBean

        If anyone thinks that the ARU’s stance has anything other than to do with their sponsor and, more specifically, their sponsor’s CEO, then they’re delusional.

      • MungBean

        If anyone thinks that the ARU’s stance has anything other than to do with their sponsor and, more specifically, their sponsor’s CEO, then they’re delusional.

      • Bertram Lai

        Agreed with 95% of what you say, however whether an organisation takes a public stance or not is not as simple as saying it’s none of their business. An issue that is pervasive and has been a past wrong that is being righted can and should be supported by public organisations – like the “Welcome to Country” – I think it shows an organisation that is forward thinking and inclusive. To say nothing at all is regressive. Of course you’re absolutely right though – if the ARU stance had been vote “no” I think the outcry would be incredible. A tricky issue.

    • cantab

      If you use your profile to voice a discriminatory view, there will always be backlash and rightfully so.
      I doubt many of his sponsors would be impressed.
      (Though obviously any threats or out right abuse is completely unwarranted.)

      It’s refreshing to see that the ARU will be on the right side of history for something this year.

    • MNIMD

      He gets a +1 for speaking out and a -10 for his beliefs.

      My respect towards him just DE-creased ten-fold..

    • Graeme

      I can’t say I’ve followed any discussions, but I do suspect the media is trying to make the condemnation comments into a story that doesn’t exist.

      The rugby community is quite acceptive, and while disagreeing with his personal religious beliefs, I don’t think that many would condemn him for making a statement about those beliefs.

  • Bay35Pablo

    You don’t bring the boys home with a 4 month competition. Unless you are paying so much in overs it is unsustainable, and you end up with a lightweight competition where the pre season is longer than the season like the Japanese Top league seems to be.
    The ARU also won’t kill the NRC unless what is introduced is better than what they currently have. Which means not playing lightweight Asian sides and keeping at least probably 6 Aussie sides.
    The Wallabies don’t play the NRC as they are off playing for the … Wallabies. So those players won’t be available. Period.
    This is all building castles in the sky.
    Far better to pump cash into Pindan Cup and grass roots, bolster Spirit for next 3 years, have WA players banging in door to get contracts for other SR sides and perhaps on limited contracts from Twiggy to stop them heading overseas, and aim to get Force into whatever ANZ comp is likely to emerge from 2021 on.

    • joy

      He is saying overseas players can return to Super Rugby and then, if not selected for tests, go and play in the IPRU tournament as a top up. He believes the combination of both will rival overseas inducements.

      • Brumby Runner

        That’s how I also see it happening. Together a SR contract and a generous contract for a later four month comp will probably entice some, maybe many, of those O/S back.

        However, if there is a sudden influx of many of these quality players from o/s, that will in itself limit the number of SR contracts available to the up and coming brigade who we all want to be developed here, and so the overseas caravan will probably continue but more aligned to the younger players approaching SR level.

        • joy

          Good point but losing some players OS may well be unavoidable but tolerable if the best stay. I do have some doubts about our ability to identify the best.

      • Bakkies

        That’s how the South Africans who haven’t gone to Europe are operating. Players like Combrinck, Whiteley (when he wasn’t in the Springboks), etc have gone to Japan after the Super Rugby season.

        McMahon and Gill have taken deals overseas due to the fact that they have got low offers from the ARU.

  • Brisneyland Local

    Morning Fellow GAGR’s, sorry for the lack of contibutions. Too much travel, not enough rugby. Arghhhh!
    – Any way it is great to see Slip’s coming back into the mix. Heaven knows our front row doesnt have a lot of options, and when we go to our bench our scrum goes backwards so that really is a positive.
    – With an 8 from 21 record I must say that it is axiomatic that our Wallabies dont know how to win and how to close out tough games. We have a Captain who’s tactical decision making hasnt matured, we dont have go to kickers, our set piece is falky at best. Nothing will change on the scoreboard front until we sought these out.
    – Twiggy’s comp is starting to look intersting and as I predicted earlier it is starting to have the desired effect of pressuring the ARU.
    – In regards to Israel having his say. Good on him for having his say. But to be honest his view or any other players view is none of my business. I listen to these guys to hear about rugby!

    • Pearcewreck

      Well said BBL.
      No rant today, did you get a good night’s sleep or something??

      • Brisneyland Local

        PW, How are you Hapy Thursday!
        I dont rant everday, that would consume far too much energy. Just on the days that I am sufficiently motivated to do so. To be honest, sometimes the rugby world wears the rant that I want to have at my staff, but it would be too impolite to do so.

        • Pearcewreck

          So… we cop the blame for their stuff ups.
          Sounds like a mans role in a marriage!!

        • Brisneyland Local

          Yep something like that.
          But in relation to the marriage issue, I have just accepted that the correct answer to everything is “yes dear!”

        • joy

          You are very wise.

        • Brisneyland Local

          Please tell my wife that!

    • Brumby Runner

      Slipper is the new (or should I say resurrected) saviour? Who will we blame, I wonder, when the scrum continues to go backwards with JS in the front row and three rugby midgets in the backrow?

      • joy

        So why did the front row constantly buckle?

      • Brisneyland Local

        True. I dont think he is the saviour but he is part of the solution, and so is fixing our weak back row!

      • first time long time

        I think they prefer “little people” BR

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      And good morning to you mate.

      Be good to see Slipper back although I think the Scrum issues come from the light weight loosies as much as the front row. What really gets me about Genia’s comments is that the same old crap is rolled out in different way from different players and yet nothing on the field changes.

      I hope the investment of Twiggy ends up supporting rugby here not creating divides but I guess you have to let some things crash before you can fix them.I’m with you on the vote. I don’t care what they think and I’ll vote what I believe regardless of what others say.

      • Who?

        Genia’s comment is quite hilarious. “We’re not used to being 20-10 up on such quality opposition.” Well, the other week you were 17-0 up on the best!!!

  • DK

    Ha twiggy, China….good luck with that. (Insert something about snowballs and hell).

    • Who?

      You obviously haven’t looked at how many Kiwi coaches they’re paying over there, and it’s now one of their military sports… They’re spending BIG money on Rugby, following the path they did with Soccer. Won’t be superpowers overnight, but better to be there with them on the ground floor.

      • DK

        I live in China. Coach rugby here, develop rugby here, etc unless their is a massive cultural change competitive Chinese rugby is 40yrs away. I wouldn’t believe everything you read. Any money goes straight to NFL as they fall under the same dept of ‘olive ball’, the current administration will never see the game grow as it’s not financial enough. They’ve realised (and amazingly admitted) they made a huge mistake with soccer and the central govt is now reigning in the spending to develop Chinese players.
        It’s been a military sport for 40yrs, it’s the only way you can be selected for any national teams.
        Being a lazy culture it’s hard to motivate their kids to just do anything and most of the kids are single children so you need to teach them to share and be part of a team. The schooling never even does small group projects it’s all individual, probably why they grow up to act like spoilt kids in business. E.g., they constantly finish top 3 at the Olympics but almost all their medals are individual sports or pairs badminton etc.

        • Who?

          Wow – usually a throw away comment like your first one indicates a lack of knowledge in the field. Not the complete opposite!!!
          Thanks for the grassroots view from that part of the world. :-)

  • formerflanker

    Why the ARU would politicise itself by joining the Yes bandwagon is beyond me.
    Knowing that the issue of SS”M” is divisive should have been a hint to not lock all players into a Yes position.
    I assume the ARU knows a little about its players under contract and that some of them would not be accepting of an ARU sanctioned political stance in favour of SSM.
    I doubt that the ARU was ignorant of the religious sensitivities of several players but went ahead and spoke on their behalf.
    The fallout is not of Folau’s making. His courage in speaking up for his beliefs is refreshing.
    The ARU has made a huge mistake in committing all its employees to this political philosophy.

    • Braveheart81

      Pretty much all sports aim to be inclusive and increasingly so. The ARU is no different and like most of the major sporting bodies in Australia it has come out in support of marriage equality.

      • formerflanker

        Love to have a beer and discuss our differences. Don’t want to clog up this great rugby web site with my views on other matters.

      • joy

        The position ARU has taken is anything but inclusive. The only inclusive position to take is to say nothing. This is an issue for individuals to resolve, not organisations. Since when did the ARU get a vote?

    • Pearcewreck

      Yep, ARU has had yet another shocker.
      Add it to the list.
      Why is ARU politicising itself on this issue, and not every other issue?
      Why aren’t ARU wading into the power/energy debate?
      What is the ARU’s stance on the citizenship debate?
      It is completely hypocritical.

      • Dud Roodt

        Maybe they, like a myriad of other organisations, feel they need to speak up for what they think is right?
        Like the NRL, like the AFL, like QANTAS, Westpac, Foxtel etc etc they feel that them speaking up will have a positive effect.

        Why are they not commenting on those other topics? Perhaps because those topics aren’t at all related to equality and the treatment of members they represent.

        • Pearcewreck

          “Maybe they, like a myriad of other organisations, feel they need to speak up for what they think is right?”
          Well why not do it for all issues.
          Why aren’t they supporting refugees, the poor etc?
          Where are their big “statements” about those issues?

          It is hypocrisy.

        • Dud Roodt

          How so?

          They aren’t a political party. They a sport governing body. They have the right to comment on whatever they want to.

          If this is hypocrisy then so is Israel not commenting on refugees and the power/energy debate

        • Pearcewreck

          To pick only one issue and promote it, whilst ignoring all the other issues surrounding equlity.

        • Dud Roodt

          Or, just picking an incredibly prominent one currently in the landscape and deciding it’s worthy of commenting on.
          It’s not hypocrisy at all.

        • Ads

          Isreal has most likely commented in response to the ARU position on the issue. I doubt (but admit it is speculation) he would have said anything if the ARU hadn’t.

          Also 2 elections ago “stop the boats” was all the rage. Easily as prominent as SSM now. But the ARU felt no need to comment on that then. To me it is just them looking to attempt to bank some easy political wins and warm & fuzzies.

          Their failure (from a marketing point of view) is to not realise both the religious beliefs of a number of players and supporters, and the generally conservative views many Rugby players/supporters will have.

          Morals aside (and I’m confident the ARU hasn’t done this out of any great moral conviction for the reasons stated above), a sport dominated by both private schools and islander communities is likely to be reasonably conservative – more so than AFL or NRL. NB I’m not supporting private schools dominating etc – merely stating the demographic.

          So to me the ARU has again misread an issue, and their core “market”. And created division within the players/rugby community, when it could have just kept it’s big, dopey mouth shut.

        • Dud Roodt

          Personally I believe the ARU has made the decision to support the SSM side because it wouldn’t look very inclusive of them to be against it.

          Maybe they haven’t misread anything and have decided rather than going along with what their conservative followers want, they’ll go with what they think is right?

          There are plenty of companies supporting the yes vote who would have incredibly high numbers of conservative workers and they’ve still done it.

          Let’s face it, there’ll be a time soon, it might not be this year (although I think it will be), might not be in 5, where gay people are allowed to marry just like the rest of us, and everyone who thinks the ARU should have stayed out of it, will be over it and we can all carry on.

          I think if this was a vote to allow interracial marriage people wouldn’t be freaking out about it

        • Ads

          Just to be clear, I’m not advocating they come out as a “no” which would be what they had to do to comply with your first para of it not looking very inclusive of them to be against it. Why didn’t they have a position on Syrian refugees, the Stolen Generation, Mabo or Justin fucking Biebers’ abuse of various music genres?

          I’m saying they should say nothing. I agree it will likely happen, which makes it even crazier to risk pissing half your core demographic off.

          And to be clear, I would be as happy for them to have no opinion on interracial marriage, the fed’s position on QE, climate change, the Adani coal mine, or pretty much anything else that does not involve Rugby.

          It’s not like they don’t have a huge festering turd of a problem of their own creation with Super Rugby to focus on.

        • onlinesideline

          thats all music genres not various

        • Dud Roodt

          To be honest, I think that for every person who thinks they should have a say in dictating how someone else lives their life and that the ARU should say nothing, there’ll be at least one other person who thinks this whole thing is a fucking joke and is glad the ARU supports it.
          I am one of those people.

          I think companies and governing bodies who have huge social influence should promote what they think is right.

          Anyone who would genuinely be pissed off that the ARU supports SSM needs to take a seriously long look at themselves.

        • Ads

          Still reckon you are not seeing the significant difference between no response to a response of no. No response is not equivalent to a response of no. Billy Pulver could even do a Turnbull and say he personally supports it, but doesn’t want to speak on behalf of others (which he has done).

          And there are a number of times we are happy to tell people how to live their lives – obeying the law, paying taxes, immunization, education etc. So again it is opinion (& often subjective) so I’d go easy on the moral high ground of telling people to have a look at themselves.

        • Dud Roodt

          I understand there is a difference, but I think a few people have failed to see that companies can have any opinion they choose to have. Thousands of companies outwardly put forward their opinion daily. Their employees don’t have to personally believe what the companies stance is, but the company can take any position they want.

          Are any of the things you listed above done for one part of society but not for another?
          For instance, are there laws for a particular race of people but not for other races?
          Are women taxed at a different rate to men?
          Can people with dwarfism only go to particular schools?

          If not, then they are in no way related.

        • Ads

          There are heaps of examples of selective discrimination. ABSTUDY for example – laws for Aboriginal and Torres straight islanders only. Or womens only gyms. Or selective/musical/sports schools with specific catchments. Or kiwi residents not getting access to the dole. 457 visa holders rights. Or people in the bush not having access to healthcare. Buildings/stations without disabled access. Where is the ARU position on all of that? Should I tell Billy Pulver to go have a good hard look at himself because he hasn’t articulated a formal ARU position on any of that? The immoral prick should be on record as supportive of Abstudy and improved regional healthcare!

          I do agree company’s can have an opinion & put it forward. More often than not, this might be a dumb idea. The main reason it is done is not support of a moral issue, but alignment with a perceived target demographic. Or it is a vested personal interest issue like Joyce/Qantas. Foxtel will be concerned about losing the young market to Netflix and look to win em back with their liberal tolerances. Westpac might be looking to not appear like the big 4 bank they are, and differentiate themselves. In all those cases, it is likely to make minimal difference to those companies operations. Gen Y wont suddenly sign up to Foxtel and move their mortgage to Westpac (if the poor bastards can even afford one). I think they risk pissing off core (existing) consumers as a far more likely guaranteed outcome.

          The proof is kind of in the 50 odd pointless posts on this in this blog (none more so than mine). If they had said nothing we would’ve been happy arguing who is less crap at 6, 8, &10. No one would be thinking those ARU guys are immoral unsupportive shits.

        • Dud Roodt

          But none of those things you listed are about denying rights to people?
          ABSTUDY is to BENEFIT a minority group. Not to shit on white people.
          Women only gyms are to make women feel more comfortable, not to shit on men.
          Selective schools select bright kids, they don’t stop all other kids from getting an education.
          Kiwi residents not getting the dole is due to them BEING RESIDENTS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY!
          I would list all of the rest, but the common thread is, none of them are in place to deny rights to one sector of society.

          The ARU has commented on this because they chose to and they have the right to. Simple as that.

        • Ads

          Yeah, all of that is just your perspective. Putting it in caps doesn’t make it any less wrong.

          The ABSTUDY stuff discriminates against the rest of the population. This might be a good thing. But it discriminates. They giveaway is in the name – positive d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n. You said “are there laws for a particular race”. I gave you multiple examples.

          Only bright kids can attend that selective school. Other kids can’t attend that school. I could just as easily say gay people are free to marry hetero people if they wanted to. They aren’t denied a “marriage” option (or education in your example – just go to another school – just marry hetero). Kind of a stupid argument. They aren’t able to do what they might want to do.

          And no the kiwis are not residents of another country. They are citizens of another country, but residents of Australia. They are not afforded the same rights as other residents. This has been done as an immigration & cost control measure.

          The key point you are missing is that it is your subjective opinion that the “yes” vote is good.

          The “no” voters might see benefits to children of having a father and a mother. This is a BENEFIT to the children (that one has been statistically proven to be true by the way). The no voters might be concerned about the risks of what a yes vote will entail (see John Howard’s comments today). Your perspective chooses not to see any benefits or risks. Fair enough. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Or you have the right to judge.

          So yes all those examples deny rights to another. Simple as that. Sometimes denying rights to one party is a good idea for society. I think for most of the examples i listed this is true (not the remote health or disabled access bits which you ignored as they didn’t suit your BENEFIT narrative).

          You just think it is a good idea.

          The ARU has commented on this because they chose to and have the right to. It is also just a dumb thing to do.

        • Dud Roodt

          Ha, I’m very glad you brought up the lack of health services and disabled access (I actually left them off as they were the weakest of all of your points) – please show me where there is a law in place dictating the absence of both of those things. Then we can discuss the discrimination at play.

          “This is a BENEFIT to the children (that one has been statistically proven to be true by the way).” – please provide sources if you’re going to claim things like this. Because at the moment it sounds like you just made it up. What statistics are you referring to? Kind of like 75% of statistics are utter bullshit?

          The ARU has made a decision because they probably know that they will be on the right side of history by doing so. Better to be there than back with the archaic bible thumpers being indoctrinated by people who “speak” to their fairy tale being – I guess was the thinking at ARU HQ.

        • Ads

          Now it makes sense. It’s not about SSM. It’s about the no vote being a proxy for you to express your religious bigotry.

          Got it.

        • Dud Roodt

          That’s funny because that’s how I view the no vote. Religious bigots expressing their religious bigotry to dictate how others live their lives

        • Ads

          The error in that particular part of your argument, is you are assuming that it is only the “archaic bible thumpers who are being indoctrinated” who might consider voting no.

          Anyway – you have proven my point more than adequately. All the ARU have achieved is to give oxygen to bigoted opinions like those expressed by you. A great win for humanity.

        • Alister Smith

          Really well reasoned argument Ads – (though maybe just because I agree with everything you say)

        • Alister Smith

          Yes I am not sure of the timeline with Israel’s comment but it seems that the ARU had their press release and then Michael Hooper spoke on behalf of the team and then Israel made his comments re: his personal beliefs. In which case he may have been clarifying that “hey, we all don’t share this belief” or at least “I don’t share that belief” that the organisation and the team appear to have expressed on my behalf. Because I work for a company the company will occasionally make statements that I won’t agree with. For the most part, I have to live with that, however, they rarely if ever make statements on personal issues or ethics etc. When it comes down to personal ethics or personal belief or a view outside the direct reference of an organisation then I think an employee should have a right to say “well my view is different to the one the group has expressed”. For Israel for instance, his parents or others my have been confused when his team captain comes out and says “we’re all behind the Yes vote”, thinking that meant Israel was as well.

        • jamie

          “What they think is right?” What if they came out as no? Would you think the same then?

        • Dud Roodt

          As I’ve replied replied elsewhere I wouldn’t disagree with it.
          Mainly because it is a vote against treating people equally

        • joy

          How would you react to the ARU supporting the no case? Outraged yeh. This highlights the problem with the yes strategy. Yes supporters think anything is justified because they “know” they are right. Therefore it doesn’t matter to them that half the players and half the fans are pissed off (and may even boycott the code).

        • Dud Roodt

          Well I wouldn’t be happy with it just for the simple fact that the no vote impinges on other people’s basic rights, the yes vote impinges on no ones rights

        • McWarren

          Half their fans hey? We could have saved millions on the plebiscite by just measuring the turnout in Canberra this weekend.

          This isn’t a vote on daylight saving, this is about something with real impact on people’s lives. The ARU should be commended. And I don’t give the ARU credit very often.

        • jamie
        • onlinesideline

          Jumping on the bandwagon is a strategy where they are in effect talking to ppl in the wider community external to rugby and saying, “hey look at us, we are x, y and z”
          This is not an exercise in making their rugby community happy.
          They see this as an exercise in marketing what values they hold to people outside rugby
          Weird but true. Its all rooted in fear.

        • Ads

          100%. But the risk is you are Macca’s chasing the kale smoothie vegan soy latte hipsters, and in so doing piss off all those fat bastards who supersize. They thought they were adding a happy meal, but it turns out they’ve added heirloom choko granita with 6 grains of cauliflower rice and a cucumber jus. No self respecting fat bastard wants to eat that. And now they’re pissed off. Sack the marketing guy!

        • onlinesideline

          true but its the old story – they dont care about those who have already signed up, they’re already in camp, so screw them, lets go and get some more followers under the pretense of offerring them a kale smoothie only to then offer them a cheese burger once signed on.

        • Ads

          That is the gamble. But half the followers have already gone to Burger King, KFC, and that weird kebab shop with the round ball falafels. They aren’t exactly in a position of strength.

        • onlinesideline

          Mate Im on avery strict diet here and you’re starting to make me feel very bloody hungry

        • Who?

          So you watched Gruen last night. :-D

        • joy

          If they had the common sense to realise they might piss off a large slab of their supporters (not to mention their players!!!) they wouldn’t.

          Can you guys just put the boot on the other foot for a moment and imagine what would happen if the ARU exercised their so called right to an opinion and decided to back the no case?

          The ARU doesn’t have the right to a vote and along with the vast majority of organisations it should exercise some wisdom and be silent on this issue.

        • Dud Roodt

          Maybe they made an educated decision and still came out where they are?
          Maybe they realised it would be better for them to support this issue than support the backward way of thinking?

          You should try putting said shoe on your other foot, how would you feel if someone who has nothing to do with you, has never met you and is not affected by you at all decided that you didn’t deserve the same rights as everyone else?

        • Brumby Runner

          PW I think you would have to concede the refugee issue is multiple times more political than the SSM issue which is more a human rights issue which incidentally happens to have majority of bi-partisan support in the Parliament.

          I would also think that the ARU expressing an opinion isn’t meant to deter or prohibit any of its members from expressing a differing opinion.

          Just wish the whole matter would curl up an leave this rugby site forever.

        • McWarren

          Maybe your onto something. I think a plebiscite on refugees, welfare benefits, the usefulness of rugby forums and maybe politician salaries is needed. Then lets see what the ARU’s position is.

        • jamie

          Considering the amount of devoutly religious Pacific Islanders in Australian Rugby it may not be the greatest thing in the world to take on a unified Yes stance in Australian rugby, because it sure as hell doesn’t speak for them. I don’t like being spoken for, even if I agree.

        • Dud Roodt

          Nor do I, but I’m also adult enough to realise that if my company makes a statement, it doesn’t have to mean I agree with it.
          Because I’m an adult

        • Ads

          Ha, it must be nice up there on that high horse. So now everyone who has a different opinion isn’t an adult. Maybe when you’re done sorting this one out, you could move on to peace in the middle east given your vastly superior “adult” reasoning skills. Remember – anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, regardless of logic, facts, or intent. You are the sole determiner of what is a benefit, what is right and what is adult. We would be lucky to have someone with that level of intellectual prowess running the country.

    • Dud Roodt

      People seem to be confusing this equality issue with a political issue. It has nothing at all to do with what side of politics you’re on, just whether you think two consenting adults should be able to do what the rest of us can do.

      That’s it, nothing more, nothing less.

      It’s not labor vs liberal or anything else.

      • onlinesideline

        so you’re saying that the conservatives dont see the issue as a religious issue and that religious issues dont form the basis of political parties ?

        • Dud Roodt

          The conservatives can see it however they choose to. As can Labor, and the Nationals, Greens etc. That’s their prerogative, but it doesn’t change the fact that all this is, is a survey to allow or not allow all people the same rights as everyone else.

          There are conservatives who are adamantly pro gay marriage, and others than are against it. Same goes I assume for most of the other parties.

          I don’t know why people are making this about anything else (other than because of fear and religious indoctrination).

        • onlinesideline

          it may be a survey but its a survey that illicits a passionate repsonse from every sector of society for a reason. By its very nature when ppl vote on this, they are deciding on an issue that has been central to society for 2 millenium at least. The institution of marriage, is an issue that has been seen as one of the bedrocks of a functioning and healthy society (is changing today though) and one of the ways that society has in the past curtailed human sexual desires and also one of the preferred options in raising children. I am not expressing an opinion here, just a offering a reason as to why for alot of people deciding on who the participants of a mariage should or shouldnt be is more than just a survey. It DOES cross religion for some people, across all walks of life. So some see it as an issue of human rights only but many dont.

        • Dud Roodt

          I agree with all that (to the exception maybe of it being the bedrock of a functioning and healthy society), however, the ARU, like many other organisations have deemed it a worthy enough human rights issue to comment on it as an organisation. That will always be unpopular with some people, the ARU would have known that and decided it was worth the potential for negative repercussions from some sectors.

        • onlinesideline

          I think the ARUs decision to comment reflects a wider held belief among most corporations, institutions globally that from the perspective of branding strategy its beneficial to make a pro active decison in favour of the zeitgeist of the day, which happens to be in 2017 quite liberal. They know they cant please all ppl, but they also know todays media is decidely pro-liberal and very active politically so they discern that there is more to gain by being pro-liberal publicly than to lose by being silent. Its called Political Correctness.

        • Dud Roodt

          Well yeah, I’m sure the decision was made to ensure that the ARU is on what they perceive to be the right side of history.
          But they obviously feel enough about it to publicly state it, as opposed to stating their company wide belief on other topics.
          It’s not political correctness as that simply states you avoid forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.
          This isn’t that at all. If they were being PC they would have stayed quiet.

        • onlinesideline

          I dont think there are many issues that would come close to being as topical as this. I dont they actually “feel” anything other than the need to be seen as you say on the right side of history. Im not sure that your explanation of what PC is, is one I share. I thought it more to be the dogmatic tactics that certain groups use to police viewpoints that threaten their hold on power and that in this context, the ARU being aligned with the zeitgeist of the day they are avoiding any negative reprecussions by not jumping on the bandwagon pro-actively.

      • Pearcewreck

        It is a political issue because there is a vote being held.
        End of.

        • Dud Roodt

          Well you’ve convinced me, that’s for sure

      • jamie

        It’s Religion vs Equality down to mine.

        It’s ironic, the more this yes campaign goes on the more I’m tempted to vote no.

        • Dud Roodt

          So you would genuinely take away someone’s right because you don’t like the way their side argues their point?

    • McWarren

      Because the ARU, AFL, SA and NRL all beleive in equality. Why shouldn’t they have an opinion. If they were asked and didn’t respond they’d be howled down for being so limp wristed.

    • jamie

      It confuses me. You can’t lose customers for saying nothing but you can lose customers for bringing politics into a company.

      Organisations can’t vote. People can. The ARU CEO can come out in support of Gay Marriage, but how can the ARU, when clearly it’s not an entire organisation of yes’s?

      • Dud Roodt

        Same way Westpac can, same way Foxtel can, same way the NRL can etc etc, they can because they can. I know that sounds fucking simple (because it is), but they have avenues afforded to them by their standing that allows them to have a voice as a whole, and the take stances.

      • McWarren

        In talking to a high up in Telstra I was told Telstra have an official position on this in case they are asked. I think these companies and orgs are also taking a calculated bet that more people are in favour of SSM. Though with the ARU’s record on judgement calls lately I think the no vote is in with a chance.

    • Who?

      The interesting thing about this is saying that the players are behind it. It’s one thing for the organization to be behind it – and, with clubs like the Convicts and events like the Bingham Cup, the ARU does actually have a good history of inclusion.
      But to say the team and specifically that the players are behind it – when half of them run out onto the field with Bible verses and the like scribed onto their strapping – is presumptuous. Folau may well have felt pushed to come out with his comments, and I’m sure he’d have strong support from a significant number in the playing group, even if they do all have no ill-feeling towards people based on their romantic preferences (which would be my hope – that, in spite of their feeling on SSM, they’re good with LGBTI people in general, given that, once you look past the LGBTI – or ‘straight’ – label, they’re just people).

  • FucktardStorm

    I am a big fan of someone like Twiggy getting on board and throwing a lot of money at Oz rugby, and quite frankly, being a private school boy’s sport, I’m amazed it hasn’t happened long ago. But crikey, Twiggy’s solution turns the current dog’s breakfast that is Super Rugby, into an even bigger dog’s breakfast. I can only assume this is a mere place holder to keep The Force name alive until Super Rugby can be completely revamped at the end of the current TV deal.

  • Will

    Twiggy is set to become Australian rugbys Frank Lowy I feel. What Lowy did with his financial backing of soccer in this country was immense despite the form of the current Socceroos. The ARU need to work with Twiggy on fixing our union up – there aren’t too many billionaires in this country prepared to give a shit… massive opportunity.

    • BigNickHartman

      …and then Frank gave his job to his son and even FIFA thinks the FFA is run poorly.

      • onlinesideline

        FIFA ? – oh did they express that view from their jail cells or has the trial been postponed ?

        • Bakkies

          The people that have taken over from Septic Bladder and Warner.

        • onlinesideline

          guilty by association

        • BigNickHartman

          nope, they expressed it rather freely actually. came down to Sydney the other day

      • Who?

        If Twiggy’s not going to give his kids his money, then I don’t think he’ll give them a game. I could be wrong, but…

    • Oscar Redding

      Yeah, massive. I reckon they should hand him the NRC and see what he can make of it and play the finals in Perth as compensation for cutting the Force.

  • Missing Link

    Happy for the ARU to wave the rainbow flag, as long as they don’t wave the white flag!!

  • Hoss

    Did i read that right – Sanchez and the boys were ‘flustered’ when in front on the scoreboard ???

    Try this – catch, pass, kick, run – repeat.

  • Hoss

    Wallabies (15-1): Israel Folau, Henry Speight, Tevita Kuridrani, Kurtley Beale, Reece Hodge, Bernard Foley, Will Genia, Sean McMahon, Michael Hooper (c), Ned Hanigan, Adam Coleman, Rob Simmons, Sekope Kepu, Tatafu Polota-Nau, Scott Sio.

    Reserves: Jordan Uelese, Tom Robertson, Allan Alaalatoa, Izack Rodda, Jack Dempsey, Nick Phipps, Samu Kerevi, Marika Koroibete.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      So Moore has gone for good then. I think the Wallaby pack will struggle, especially the loosies. More of the same I feel, although that should be enough to beat the Argies.

      • Hoss

        i am tired of hearing myself complain a bout the loosies KRL – its the reality i guess. I like the fact young Uelese gets a second run i was impressed with the young guy last week and Rodda on the pine is a good call. Arnold probably just slated for a break more than dropped.

        If only Holloway’s Super form of 17 matched 16, my fetish for a big bodied, ball carrying 8 would be met. I hear his NRC form is good though, so fingers crossed for EOYT.

        • Kiwi rugby lover

          Yeah it’s a lost cause. I would have liked Tui to have got a look in but I also like Rodda. Good luck against the Argies

      • Who?

        I don’t see us winning many lineouts. Not without adding some loop to Taf and Uelese’s throws… I know Los Pumas aren’t the Bokke, but still…
        Certainly won’t be unhappy when I’m seeing ‘Slipper’ in place of ‘Robertson’.

  • Hoss

    Lost – Rugby Sanctuary

    Reward if found.

    There used to be a rugby site on this domain where God’s Games was discussed in detail, selections, form and great banter

    Answered to GAGR – if found please let me know – i get enough of the other stuff posted on this site everywhere else.

    • first time long time

      Oh dear Hoss…. I read your post and thought what’s he on about????
      Then I started reading below… yikes!

      • Hoss

        Yessirrreee bob – it’s ‘my opinion’s better than yours day’ on GAGR

        • first time long time

          I erased my comment about land rights for gay whales for fear of retribution!!!
          Uh oh going straight to hell for that one!

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Damn right mate

    • McWarren

      My sincerest apologies Hoss. I’m off to bed to see if I can wake up on the right side of it tomorrow

      • Hoss

        done good, played strong Macca.

    • Tommy Brady

      Well said sir!!

    • Who?

      Careful Hoss, don’t reference ‘God’ when everyone’s talking SSM!!!
      Isn’t Rugby ‘The game they play in Heaven..?” :-P

      • Hoss

        Good catch my learned friend – the game played in whatever spiritual place you choose to believe your god (him or her) resides in

  • Adrian

    Hmmmm
    Just changing the subject.
    I’m disappointed again with the Wallaby team, ….but It could be worse.
    Re Timani, I think it’s a combination of old scars and sooky was, perhaps on both sides. A big shame though.

    I’m surprised that McMahon is fit, but not surprised Hanigan is still there…. though I wish he wasn’t

  • McWarren

    Great too hear Slipper has packed on some beef. I’d love to see him back to his best.

    As much as I want Twiggy to stick it up the ARU and as much as I’d love the Force to survive in some guise, I just can’t help thinking this new comp will become a Mickey Mouse affair.

    So the Wallabies have learnt some more lessons? I wonder at the expense of previously learnt lessons.

    I wonder if the AB v England game will be all it’s cracked up to be. I get the feeling that by Nov 18 the two best teams in the world could well be Ireland and the Boks.

    • Kiwi rugby lover

      Pffft. No way mate. Ireland – maybe but I’m not sure even a loss against the Boks will get them to the top above us

      • McWarren

        Now now I don’t mean to suggest ABs are a spent force, I just see the gap closing. And although I’m looking forward to the game in Nov18 I just feel we are looking at it to be the game we’d all like to have seen in Nov 16. the horse has bolted in terms of how good it would have been to see it played last November.

    • mikado

      Unless the moon falls out of its orbit and the sun goes nova, the ABs will remain in the top two. They’ve a great pool of players, good coaching setup and there’s no reason they should go backwards from here.

      The Boks won’t make top two unless they change their coach and find better half backs.

      Ireland could very well overtake England.

      • McWarren

        I think the boks are on the right track. They’ve picked the form players and most of them are young. They’ve also got good depth. I don’t think the ABs will fall back or drop off, I do think other teams are closing the gap though and the ABs run the risk of staleness under Hansens continued guidance. Really though when I made my first remark I was thinking how the match would be so much better this year while both teams are in form.

        • mikado

          The Boks are better than last year, but that’s a spectacularly low bar. They looked good against France, but merely ok in TRC so far. I think they’re a long way short of the sum of their parts, which has to be Coetzee’s responsibility.

          England may be better in 2018 than they are now. They’ve some significant structural weaknesses that may be fixed by then and there’s a magnificent crop of young players coming through. But who knows.

  • Dud Roodt

    is this… is this what I think it is?
    Are you proposing?!

    • McWarren

      Well not yet, obviously, that would be against the law!!

  • Dorothy Ball

    Well, it’s a good thing so many acquiesced to Nick’s request to keep the comments to rugby…

    I for one think the Pumas will give us a touch-up in the scrum and at the breakdown. The bookies have the Wallabies at short odds to win. If I were a betting person, I’d be backing the Pumas based on that. I have no idea where the confidence is coming from.

    • Moose

      Yes, re your first line, a valiant attempt Nick. I wish I had as much time during the day as some of the commenters below…

Rugby
@Nick_Wasiliev

Die-hard Brumbies/Country Eagles fan now based in Sydney. Author, anthropologist, musician and second-rower trying to kick start a writing career in an increasingly bonkers world...

More in Rugby