News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[Valheru]

Move the whole circus to the side, would Folau actually bring value to a team? He’s been out of the game for the best part of a decade, is the wrong side of 30 and would demand huge wages. Would he actually be worth it purely from a footballing standpoint?

If the answer is yes, would he also be worth the sideshow that comes along with him? I doubt it. He was always a good target for cross field kicks, but he was never as good as the top earners in the game in my opinion. Always a class below Hayne, Inglis, Gasnier, Hodges and the other elite centres and wingers in the competition. I’d assume he’d be paying fullback if he returned but I can’t imagine him being in the same class as Tedesco, Ponga or Tommy T.

This is all reasonable and there are plenty of reasons from a football perspective to not sign him.

My issue is that should be up tot he Dragons (or nay other club to decide) as opposed to the NRL mandating an inconsistent moral compass.

 

[Disillusioned Tiger]

Who will speak up for the drunks, the adulterers and the idolaters? Because they're all going to hell too according to Izzy.

Oh, thanks very much, it was three not two. I think you’re correct, they are the forgotten in all this mess.

 

[Vic Mackey]

Move the whole circus to the side, would Folau actually bring value to a team? He’s been out of the game for the best part of a decade, is the wrong side of 30 and would demand huge wages. Would he actually be worth it purely from a footballing standpoint?

If the answer is yes, would he also be worth the sideshow that comes along with him? I doubt it. He was always a good target for cross field kicks, but he was never as good as the top earners in the game in my opinion. Always a class below Hayne, Inglis, Gasnier, Hodges and the other elite centres and wingers in the competition. I’d assume he’d be paying fullback if he returned but I can’t imagine him being in the same class as Tedesco, Ponga or Tommy T.

Honestly I reckon he would more then hold his own and be one of the better center/wingers in the game. This is a competiton that had Clint Gutherson as an Origin center.

 

[Valheru]

Fair enough

And yes i certainly agree Haas is a rung below these guys

However, if we are going to say 'it was just a threat, not an action' then can't we say the same about Folau? I mean, it was just a post, he didnt actually do anything

To me it feels like the whole Folau thing is disengenuous. They are simply pandering to a fashionable cause, they arent doing it because they genuinley care.

This is the pertinent point to me.

They are essentially trying to mandate player's speech saying it is potentially hurtful to the wider community but if you actually physically hurt people that is not cause for a life ban.

How far do we take this? Do we ban Anti Vaxxers, COVID deniers etc.?

 

[SBD82]

This is the pertinent point to me.

They are essentially trying to mandate player's speech saying it is potentially hurtful to the wider community but if you actually physically hurt people that is not cause for a life ban.

How far do we take this? Do we ban Anti Vaxxers, COVID deniers etc.?

Although Lodge and Packer’s actions were obviously awful, there is a key difference that I think gets missed: they showed contrition.

There’s no way that I can see Packer or Lodge putting up social media posts endorsing criminal violence. And the NRL loves a redemption story. They get to take credit for the violent young man who made bad choices and turned his life around.

Izzy on the other hand is not likely to ever apologise for what he’s done, as he doesn’t believe that what he has done is wrong.

So the best outcome for the NRL is that they are viewed as a place that ARU rejects can come and be given tacit approval for their antisocial views, and the worst case scenario is he does it again and they end up in a very public legal battle in the industrial courts.

Where’s the upside?

 

[The_Frog]

Although Lodge and Packer’s actions were obviously awful, there is a key difference that I think gets missed: they showed contrition.

Do you really think that's it? I don't. Anyone can show contrition, real or otherwise, especially when they know they've done the wrong thing. It takes a stronger will to stand by one's convictions. The Dragons or more likely the NRL were terrified not of what Folou might do (although the NRL would have feared him in a courtroom situation), but what his detractors might do. There is nothing he could post on social media now that would make the desire for retribution greater than it is already.

 

[SBD82]

Do you really think that's it? I don't. They were terrified not of what Folou might do, but what his detractors might do.

Pretty sure I covered that here:

So the best outcome for the NRL is that they are viewed as a place that ARU rejects can come and be given tacit approval for their antisocial views,

 

[The_Frog]

However, if we are going to say 'it was just a threat, not an action' then can't we say the same about Folau? I mean, it was just a post, he didnt actually do anything

It's not what he said so much as who he upset, and the power to detrimentally affect the NRL's (and its and club's sponsors) business they have now attained, to the point that the NRL and its clubs are running scared of them. I'd be very surprised if the Government isn't looking at this right about now.

 

[Angry_eel]

Who will speak up for the drunks, the adulterers and the idolaters? Because they're all going to hell too according to Izzy.

I would like to represent "The Fornicators"!

 

[Valheru]

Although Lodge and Packer’s actions were obviously awful, there is a key difference that I think gets missed: they showed contrition.

There’s no way that I can see Packer or Lodge putting up social media posts endorsing criminal violence. And the NRL loves a redemption story. They get to take credit for the violent young man who made bad choices and turned his life around.

Izzy on the other hand is not likely to ever apologise for what he’s done, as he doesn’t believe that what he has done is wrong.

So the best outcome for the NRL is that they are viewed as a place that ARU rejects can come and be given tacit approval for their antisocial views, and the worst case scenario is he does it again and they end up in a very public legal battle in the industrial courts.

Where’s the upside?

I take your point.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Lodge, Packer etc. did do something wrong according to law so there is really no recourse for them other than showing contrition and moving on. Although most of us find Folau's comments reprehensible he didn't do anything he is not entitled to do.

So it comes down to the NRL adopting a set of values and morals and deeming it unacceptable to have players that don't adhere to those standards. The obvious problem being that actual criminals are running around playing and can not possibly, by definition, meet said moral criteria, contrition or not.

I do agree with your last paragraph and can understand why the NRL wouldn't want him to play. My position is that they shouldn't be able to stop a club from employing him if they so wish especially given who they have allowed to be registered in the past.

I will say that on the surface it looks like the NRL have realised the conundrum they are in and have ensured the decision didn't get to their table as the dragons withdrew interest which is probably best for all concerned.

 

[Bazal]

I take your point.

The problem with this line of thinking is that Lodge, Packer etc. did do something wrong according to law so there is really no recourse for them other than showing contrition and moving on. Although most of us find Folau's comments reprehensible he didn't do anything he is not entitled to do.

So it comes down to the NRL adopting a set of values and morals and deeming it unacceptable to have players that don't adhere to those standards. The obvious problem being that actual criminals are running around playing and can not possibly, by definition, meet said moral criteria, contrition or not.

I do agree with your last paragraph and can understand why the NRL wouldn't want him to play. My position is that they shouldn't be able to stop a club from employing him if they so wish especially given who they have allowed to be registered in the past.

I will say that on the surface it looks like the NRL have realised the conundrum they are in and have ensured the decision didn't get to their table as the dragons withdrew interest which is probably best for all concerned.

Sure but on the flip side, and taking the social/moral aspect out of it, the NRL are still functionally the employer, or one of the, "employers". It's their brand as well.

Do they not have a right to mitigate the risk of an "employee" bringing them into disrepute? And if they do, do they also not have a right to their own policies regarding that risk and what constitutes acceptable, borderline, and unacceptable behaviour?

In that context I would certainly have an issue with Packer and Lodge being allowed to play, because I already do. I would disagree with their assessment, particularly Lodge who has shown no remorse to my knowledge. But every other business in the country has that right (although I admit I've simplified it quite a lot), should the NRL not?

 

[The_Frog]

Although most of us find Folau's comments reprehensible

I don't find them reprehensible. He's done what his faith tells him he should do, spreading the good news. He was merely quoting a bible passage but in a confronting manner. Ill advised and silly, certainly with hindsight, but I don't think anyone could have predicted where this would go.

The thing is, his post was directed at one person who baited him, but ended up all over the media which was not his doing.

 

[Perth Red]

I'd be very surprised if the Government isn't looking at this right about now.

I'm sure scomo was praying for guidance on what to do at church last week lol

I would like to represent "The Fornicators"!

I'll have a crack at being the drunks representative in this outrage

 

[The_Frog]

Do they not have a right to mitigate the risk of an "employee" bringing them into disrepute? And if they do, do they also not have a right to their own policies regarding that risk and what constitutes acceptable, borderline, and unacceptable behaviour?

As I posted earlier, I don't think they were worried about what Israel might do, but what his detractors might do.

 

[Perth Red]

I don't find them reprehensible. He's done what his faith tells him he should do, spreading the good news. He was merely quoting a bible passage but in a confronting manner. Ill advised and silly, certainly with hindsight, but I don't think anyone could have predicted where this would go.

.

I'm surprised that you don't lol. Really you think no-one could see how this would blow up for him at a time of gay rights, inclusiveness and equity being a massive social conversation across the country? You are as naive or delusional as he is!
Saying something damaging, homophobic and generally unpleasant about a group of people because a book written by some blokes 2000 years ago says so is not an excuse anymore. For more compassionate and empathic people its actually been great to see organisations like the ARU, NRL and companies who sponsor them come out and say not ok anymore. Believe what you want to believe but treat people with kindness and keep ugly opinions to yourself. Traditional religion is dying and its not hard to see why.

 

[Rhino_NQ]

As I posted earlier, I don't think they were worried about what Israel might do, but what his detractors might do.

Could dumb it down a lot and say if the dragons spoke to every sponsor and asked what they thought of izzy and every response was "he is a merkin" then that would be enough on its own to make that decision

 

[The_Frog]

I'm surprised that you don't lol. Really you think no-one could see how this would blow up for him at a time of gay rights, inclusiveness and equity being a massive social conversation across the country?

No, not like it has. I don't suppose he counted on MSM plastering it all over their publications hundreds of times ensuring widespread dissemination. But he probably should have realised he was being baited. I'm sure no-one will make the same mistake again.

 

[Perth Red]

No, not like it has. I don't suppose he counted on MSM plastering it all over their publications hundreds of times ensuring widespread dissemination. But he probably should have realised he was being baited. I'm sure no-one will make the same mistake again.

Baited? He put it out on social media of his own volition! Maybe it was "Gods" will and he had a grand plan to get out of playing rugby union any longer lol

 

[The_Frog]

Baited? He put it out on social media of his own volition! Maybe it was "Gods" will and he had a grand plan to get out of playing rugby union any longer lol

Someone (I'd imagine a journalist who must be feeling very pleased with him/herself right now) asked him what happens to sinners (maybe gays) when they die, or something to that effect. His graphic was in reply to that. And I'm sure he believes that his current tribulations are tests of his character from above, a la Job. This is how the devout deal with adversity, rather than self harming and blaming others.

He should have just directed the enquiry to 1 Corinthians 6.10 without actually quoting it. They publish that in the SMH, who gives a f**k?

 

[Valheru]

Sure but on the flip side, and taking the social/moral aspect out of it, the NRL are still functionally the employer, or one of the, "employers". It's their brand as well.

Do they not have a right to mitigate the risk of an "employee" bringing them into disrepute? And if they do, do they also not have a right to their own policies regarding that risk and what constitutes acceptable, borderline, and unacceptable behaviour?

In that context I would certainly have an issue with Packer and Lodge being allowed to play, because I already do. I would disagree with their assessment, particularly Lodge who has shown no remorse to my knowledge. But every other business in the country has that right (although I admit I've simplified it quite a lot), should the NRL not?

Good points.

I'm not expert on such things but my understanding is the clubs are the employers, not the NRL. Sports is quite unique in that the employer does not run the competition they participate in and the governing body adopts risk for anyone that the clubs employ to play.

So yeah not sure how that would all hold up in court. I assume it would take a club (not a player) to challenge such a decision.