2022 R20 Thu - Manly 10-20 Sydney @ 4 Pines

[Iamback]

David Campese: Fawad Ahmed should 'go home' if he won't wear beer logo

Rugby star tweets in support of former cricketer Doug Walters, who criticised new Australian leg-spinner Ahmed

www.theguardian.com

Why couldn't RL allow this?

 

[Bazal]

We have seen it in other sports. Certain sponsors covered up etc, RL doesn't allow such a thing yet maybe into the future they will

Yeah Uzi Khawaja being a big one

But that's a case of the employer, governing body, whatever you wanna call it allowing that exception. Of course they can do that as well.

It just strikes me as very odd that these players beliefs have only presented a barrier now that it involves LGBT stuff

 

[Iamback]

Yeah Uzi Khawaja being a big one

But that's a case of the employer, governing body, whatever you wanna call it allowing that exception. Of course they can do that as well.

It just strikes me as very odd that these players beliefs have only presented a barrier now that it involves LGBT stuff

To me that is the easy fix. Personally I think think the jersey itself shows inclusivity but should they go down this path then. The easy fix is allowing those with an objection to not wear it.

Money talks. You can justify it as looking after your family but we have seen with the womens game that openly gay players aren't an issue...So I too like you don't see the issue with wearing a jersey

 

[Timmah]

Hey @Timmah What are the chances of getting the Manly pride jersey as one of the preset LU avatars?

Done

 

[Canard]

They are refusing to wear a jersey. Not quiting the club though... Not sure the club or clubs ( Should it get expanded ) can do to the players, Should they continue to train etc

Refusing to play in a game would be grounds for stand down in any sport wouldn't it?

 

[Cogburn]

You're not going to win this argument, mate. Console yourself in the knowledge that this will be the first and last time an NRL club tries it on.

Of course I won the argument.

 

[Iamback]

Refusing to play in a game would be grounds for stand down in any sport wouldn't it?

It is a tough one. They could argue the conditions changed.

Lets say Manly makes that a regular jersey, like the Panthers have the pink. Would not just these guys but Mormon players full stop just not go to Manly

 

[Rhino_NQ]

The folau's to get hammered by the cocks.

I'll see myself out

 

[Stinkfinger]

Wouldn't the Club then be liable for discrimination on religious grounds?

The NRL jersey already represents inclusivity, Hell even criminals are welcome in an NRL club.

I would suggest discrimination on race grounds, which is much harder to garner public opinion for.

 

[lockyno1]

I know the roosters have enough demand but the corporate packages would be popular too

Other sports do Pride games and they are an amazing success, you don't have to follow the teams to realise how important the message is. If players can't get it through their thick heads, well I hope Manly sack them/release them. Game will be better without them.

 

[Iamback]

I would suggest discrimination on race grounds, which is much harder to garner public opinion for.

It is a tough one

I know my cultural awareness training at work includes this very thing. So there is no easy answer here

 

[Bazal]

I would suggest discrimination on race grounds, which is much harder to garner public opinion for.

That's even less legally arguable...

 

[Stinkfinger]

That's even less legally arguable...

Do explain.

 

[Stinkfinger]

Refusing to play in a game would be grounds for stand down in any sport wouldn't it?

They'd want to be damn sure of their legal position before subjecting them to further detriment than they've done already.

 

[Bazal]

Do explain.

Well to argue racial discrimination you have to argue that the discrimination is based on race. I'd have thought that was obvious?

There's no discrimination here anyway, nor would there be in the very unlikely event anyone was stood down or released from a contract. But you would essentially have to prove that that action was taken because of race, which is clearly untrue even if there was discrimination. At a stretch you could claim cultural or social background or religion (which would also almost certainly fail) but unless a club sacked all it's Polynesian players, for example, including those that supported the jersey then the race card is getting thrown out before subs. It would be blatantly apparent in any other instance that race played no part.

They'd want to be damn sure of their legal position before subjecting them to further detriment than they've done already.

They are already sure of their legal position. They can provide a reasonable and lawful direction, and any player who refuses to comply with that direction is committing misconduct.

I'm not sure it will get to that stage though.

 

[Vic Mackey]

The all knowing Lee H on SEN this morning said the players are within their rights to refuse to play. Apparently in their contracts it says they can refuse to play if the club makes them play a) at a venue deemed unreasonable or b) in an outfit deemed unreasonable.

He said legally it would be impossible for a club to make them play, sack them, or fine them for refusing to play in this strip

 

[Stinkfinger]

Well to argue racial discrimination you have to argue that the discrimination is based on race. I'd have thought that was obvious?

1. An employer has issued an instruction to its employees (players) that certain apparel must be worn publicly on a specified occasion, completely without consultation.
2. This apparel is distasteful to some of the players, who indicate they don't wish to wear it.
3. The names of the players concerned are published in media, and a storm of outrage is directed at them. All of this amounts to a detriment.
4. The detriment is borne disproportionately (in this case entirely) by players of a certain racial group, due to characteristics found in that group.

This in my view amounts to indirect discrimination based on race.

 

[Bazal]

1. An employer has issued an instruction to its employees (players) that certain apparel must be worn publicly on a specified occasion, completely without consultation.
2. This apparel is distasteful to some of the players, who indicate they don't wish to wear it.
3. The names of the players concerned are published in media, and a storm of outrage is directed at them. All of this amounts to a detriment.
4. The detriment is borne disproportionately (in this case entirely) by employees of a certain racial group, due to characteristics found in that group.

This in my view amounts to indirect discrimination based on race.

1. Correct, as an employer is legally able to do. It is a lawful direction and does not require consultation.
2. Allegedly correct, although it should be noted that the reasons for refusal to follow that direction are important they do not necessarily mitigate any potential misconduct. In this case, it is unlikely that they do.
3. Potentially correct. However, you would need to establish that the club itself was responsible for publishing or providing those names and that doing so was motivated by the race of the players. For the reasons I mentioned earlier, the later is almost certainly incorrect.
4. That is likely to be incidentally correct, but the relevant consideration is not their race. This can be easily demonstrated (if any adverse action was to be taken) by the varying racial groups involved and the fact members of those same groups are not.

Like I said, you could argue religious or cultural discrimination but it would almost certainly fail. Race would be an impossible argument

 

[Bazal]

The all knowing Lee H on SEN this morning said the players are within their rights to refuse to play. Apparently in their contracts it says they can refuse to play if the club makes them play a) at a venue deemed unreasonable or b) in an outfit deemed unreasonable.

He said legally it would be impossible for a club to make them play, sack them, or fine them for refusing to play in this strip

That'd be a really weird clause but based on how dumb a lot of NRL contracts are I wouldn't be even slightly surprised

 

[AlwaysGreen]

I'm learning a lot from this Legal Unlimited site. I feel like Matlock or Rumpole of the Bailey.