Stuart Apologises

[Loudstrat]

He should have been gone by the end of the day of the incident. There are some massive no no's in RL and assaulting a ref is one of them. Bellamy got fined $50k for less. Shows the spine the ARL has, you sure you want them running the NRL?

ARL, yes. We'd be a richer code, and the Perth Reds would be preparing for their 14th season.

Geoff Carr - not necessarily so.

 

[Brutus]

Stuart should piss off back to rugby union.

 

[Loudstrat]

Well said. Was waiting for you to capitalise on the slim opportunity to bag Yawnion!!!

BTW, have you met Dave the Maori yet?

 

[Brutus]

Actually go back further - piss off back to primary school Ricky...kindergarten even... mothers womb ect...

 

[roughyedspud]

dads bollocks.....

 

[God-King Dean]

mothers womb ect...

Call a search party...

 

[roughyedspud]

we could call the indian commando's they'll never find him..

 

[MsStorm]

He should have been gone by the end of the day of the incident. There are some massive no no's in RL and assaulting a ref is one of them. Bellamy got fined $50k for less. Shows the spine the ARL has, you sure you want them running the NRL?

Much less Give us back our money....or fine / suspend Stuart.

Rugby League = no consistency.

 

[rlo]

I'm sorry, Mr Stuart, its time to go

Phil Gould | November 30, 2008



Two main issues arise out of the Ricky Stuart affair.
Firstly, all eyes are on the ARL as it determines appropriate action regarding the future of the Australian coach.
The second issue is the failing credibility of media members who tried in vain to dilute this situation to ensure Mr Stuart retained his position as coach of the Kangaroos. I'll deal with this point later.
Mr Stuart should resign immediately. End of story.
It won't mean the end of his coaching career but Mr Stuart would admit he's brought great discredit upon himself and the prestigious position of Australian coach. It's an international embarrassment. He can't honestly expect to survive.
His press release on Friday both confirmed and highlighted the seriousness of this matter.
Many have seen these admissions not so much as an apology but rather an acceptance of guilt.
You'll have to ask the English referees and the New Zealand Rugby League if they received a more sincere apology.
On the surface, however, this belated attempt fell well short of the mark. The tardiness of its delivery gives the perception he is trying to save his job rather than express total remorse for his actions.
After six days of avoiding the media, Mr Stuart confirmed he was "certainly not in control of my emotions at the time and acted irresponsibly and irrationally. But that's not an excuse for my behaviour."
He described his conduct as "inappropriate and offensive".
It's one thing to lose your cool in the heat of the moment, it's entirely different to continue your tirade the next day with allegations of both verbal and physical intimidation of game officials.
Let's get serious.
If Mr Stuart doesn't resign and the ARL refuses to sack him over his bizarre behaviour, it's going to make it very difficult for the NRL to ever again discipline a coach, official or player.
Many anticipate ARL officials might blindly ignore public opinion and place personal friendships ahead of the credibility of the game.
This would place the NRL management in a terrible position.
NRL chief executive David Gallop must be seething at this prospect given the stance his administration has taken against criticism of officials, questioning the integrity of referees and unruly off-field behaviour.
Let alone the junior and country leagues around the country that take their lead from the game's major administrative body.
This is the position of Australian coach we're talking about.

If the coach of the Como under11s behaved in this manner, what do you think would happen to him?
Mr Stuart has made no attempt to deny any of the reports surrounding these incidents. That pretty much destroys the flimsy attempts earlier in the week to explain away this unacceptable conduct as a symptom of passion and love for the game.
The abuse of officials and accusations of cheating had nothing to do with Mr Stuart's love of the game.
Talkback radio has been inundated with people criticising his "un-Australian" reaction to losing; and more than 80 per cent of fans voting on a media poll demanded his immediate sacking.
The irony is that while most of us saw this World Cup final as an "unlosable" game, Stuart went out of his way to say New Zealand would be hard to beat. If he told us before the game New Zealand had to be respected, then why didn't he show respect for the Kiwis in defeat?
Which brings me to my second point concerning the failing credibility and obvious bias in reporting by certain sections of the sporting media.
Who do they think they're fooling?
Countless times over the years they've blazoned headlines demanding the sacking of individuals from various sports for myriad minor offences.
The Daily Astonisher has demanded these transgressors are punished - or at least face public humiliation.
When compared with Stuart's behaviour, the majority of these offences pale into insignificance.
But now one of their own is being slammed in the court of public opinion, the Daily Astonisher resembles the officious policeman controlling onlookers at the scene of accident, yelling out, "there's nothing going on here - everybody move on".
Talk about destroying whatever was left of their journalistic credibility.
If anyone in professional sport - official, coach or player - abused a high-ranking official on the field immediately after losing a game, put himself in a position where this venting of anger was seen live on national television and perhaps even around the world, accused the officials and the tournament referees of conspiring against their team, accused them of cheating to achieve a desired result, failed to show respect or decorum during a post-match presentation to the winning team, continued this tirade after the match, approached the game's referee the following morning in an abusive and aggressive manner, abused those who tried to subdue him, abused journalists from a rival newspaper who were only trying to do their job, showed absolutely no remorse for behaving like such a spoiled brat or even offered the mildest form of apology in the days immediately following these incidents then I'm sure we could trust the Daily Astonisher to be onto them.

After all, it has repeatedly told us players and coaches are role models with a responsibility to behave in a professional and sportsmanlike manner as an example for our youth, not to mention for sponsors who support our product and the fans who keep the game going.
Why is it now going soft on the man who has the most high-profile rugby league coaching job in the world?
What do you think the Daily Astonisher would do if a John Kosmina, Eddie Jones, John Connolly, Brian Smith or Wayne Bennett behaved like this?
Would they write fluffy little columns telling us they're great blokes and should be forgiven?
It makes you wonder.
Hell, Bennett lost his position as Australian coach because he dodged journalists at Brisbane airport when he returned home from a losing tour in England. He was slammed by the media for getting into his car and driving off without saying a word.
Maybe he would've been better served if he abused the media, branded the officials cheats and given the match referee a shoulder charge on his way out of the country.
Maybe the Daily Astonisher would've supported him as simply being passionate and a great bloke.
Actually, if I recall correctly, Bennett didn't lose his job. He resigned.
He probably realised he'd done the wrong thing and took all the pressure off the officials by making the tough decision for them.
I guess that's how a fair dinkum bloke would handle it.
We'll see what happens this week with Mr Stuart.


--------------------------------------------------------

Yeah well, I didn't expect that coming. ;-) I'm eagerly awaiting for the half baked excuse the Telegraph is going to come up with.

 

[deluded pom?]

It's not often I agree with Gould but on this occasion I'll make an exception. Well said Gus.

 

[Mr Manly]

Well said gus and i agree more than youd ever know - stuart is an off field grub - but i must say would the exact same article have been written if the year was 2002 and ricky was roosters coach????

 

[bartman]

Yep, not good enough Ricky. Too little too late.

POQ back to the Sharks, and let someone with decency and grace in defeat be our national coach.

 

[ozbash]

Former New Zealand Rugby League chairman Andrew Chalmers last night told Australian coach Ricky Stuart: "Yes, Ricky, you were stitched up."

Unquestionably, New Zealand won the world cup on the field with their tremendous performance last Saturday night, but, for once, it appears they may also have out-manoeuvred the Australians in the boardroom.
The Sydney Morning Herald claimed part of Stuart's post-match complaint was that tournament organisers conspired to make it difficult for his team.
Chalmers, whose colourful and controversial reign as Kiwi league's top official ended last year, said "the die was cast before the tournament", declaring New Zealand held a pre-final advantage because:
* The Kiwis were the only team allowed two warm-ups despite a supposed ban on such games.
* The NZRL always believed the draw was to their advantage as the teams who finished the group stage second or third had the tougher run to the final.
* Australia's refusal to stage a 2007 Tri-Nations left their players underdone and the draw left them untested before the final in Brisbane.
It's understood Rugby League International Federation chairman Colin Love wanted no warm-up tests before the world cup but New Zealand wrote two games into a national calendar published in September 2007 and they deputed Wellington lawyer David Rutherford to negotiate a $300,000 contract with Sky to screen two such tests, without consulting Love.
When the NZRL were desperately short of cash (Chalmers' chairmanship leaving them deep in debt), cancellation of those games would have left Love in an invidious position.
Australia were asked if they wanted to be the opposition for one of those games, but declined, leaving them without any match practice before the event.
Australia also refused to sanction a Tri-Nations in 2007, saying their players needed a rest. So their only test football between late 2006 and the world cup was two mid-year tests against the Kiwis, games which have always been one-sided.
The Kiwis are traditional slow starters but have a recent history of improving through tournaments. In the 2005 and 2006 Tri-Nations they played themselves into form and finished the group stage second, before winning one final and forcing the other into extra time.
When the NZRL saw Love's tournament draw ensured the second-placed team would play the third-placed team two weeks in a row, in theory making the semifinal winner match-hardened, they readily agreed.
Expecting Australia to finish top, they were also ecstatic that the Aussies would play the best team from Pools B and C in the semifinal, knowing it would most likely be a low-intensity contest against an island nation.
"Stitched up because the NZRL got your [Stuart's] predecessor [Wayne Bennett] in as mentor? Does that constitute stitching up?" Chalmers asked.
"[Because] the structure of the pool meant the second and third team always had the hardest run through and Australia would be in the toughest position? The NZRL always knew that was going to be the way.
"The fact the All Golds and the Kiwis could play before the tournament as part of their preparation and the Australians declined to play any warm-up games? Were you stitched up?"
It seems the answer was yes to all of the above.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4777683a1823.html

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Gould refers to 'Mr Stuart' 10 times in the article by my count. It has the same hollow/formal ring as the 'defendant' or 'the accused'.

 

[super_coach]

Gus would jump at any chance to turn the knife on Sticky, but on this matter he is 100% right. The damage is done and the lack of action from the ARL is applying. He should be rubbed out of the game for 12months

 

[myanonymoususername]

Well said, Phil Gould.

If the coach of the Como u/11's had done this he'd be turfed right out of the game for a lengthy period of time, and that is what needs to happen to Ricky Stuart. Not only sacked as Australian coach but suspended from any capacity at any level in the game for a season.

The RLIF/ARL/NRL need to make a totally unequivocal statement that his behaviour is completely and utterly unacceptable.

 

[ozbash]

lol, good onya killa


RUGBY LEAGUE has always struggled with the concept of neutral whistlers. In a 1957 test, Australian captain Keith Holman was surprised to learn Kiwi skipper Sel Belsham was the younger brother of match referee Vic Belsham.

And there are referees who recall being tapped on the shoulder before internationals and reminded, firmly, by officials of their nationality.
But for last weekend's Rugby League World Cup final, New Zealand, Australia and England agreed a neutral, Ashley Klein, was the best man for the job (neutral, if you ignore the fact the Yorkshire resident was Parramatta- born).
Losing coach Ricky "Sticky" Stuart, of course, contested Klein's neutrality, and is alleged to have confronted Klein the morning after the final with the words "you are the c*** that cost us the world cup final".
Stuart was probably stunned that an Australian NRL referee didn't get the final: they usually do. The Aussies were closed out because New Zealand referees boss Ian Mackintosh and his British counterpart Stuart Cummings forged an alliance four years ago after realising their men were being frozen out of test football.
Christchurch whistler Glen Black's test career was stymied in 2005 when Australia refused to have him control any of their matches. They made it clear New Zealand referees would progress only through overseas competitions.
But Mackintosh and Cummings' alliance, designed to end an Australian monopoly, meant Klein and the other English referee, Steve Ganson, got a fair run in the world cup. And Kiwi whistler Leon Williamson was appointed to two games.
Mackintosh, Cummings and Australian Mick Stone were the referee selection panel. "The first consideration is merit, second is neutrality," says Mackintosh. "Ashley stood out and the Australians were more than happy with him. Probably the only other one in consideration was [Aussie] Shayne Hayne; there wasn't a lot of difference between them."
Asked if the three-way system worked because he and Cummings shared similar views, Mackintosh said: "Correct."
World cup referees were told to adopt an "international" style somewhere between the English and Australian approaches. Aussie refs permit "wrestling" and are encouraged to call "dominant" tackles to allow the tackler to lie on the ball carrier longer in return for forcing him backwards. They are coached to a formula, calling "movement", "hold", "go", to control the ruck speed and keep penalty counts low.
The Poms want a faster ruck, with players rolling off quickly. That weakens defensive lines and opens up space for small players with footwork and acceleration.
England, given Australian referees for every cup game, didn't believe there was a middle ground and their game plan was emasculated by an NRL approach.
Mackintosh in praising Klein's performance as "excellent" noted: "There was always going to be problems with different interpretations [but] you'd have to say Klein refereed by international laws. Most New Zealanders play NRL, and they were able to adapt."
Stuart, I suspect, thought Klein was still refereeing to the pure English style. Yet the penalty count was 8-5, none were for holding down, and only one against the Aussies could be considered harsh.
Rather than confront Klein, Stuart would have been better served adapting his team to the "international" style Klein employed. And as far as stitch- ups go, he should have figured out how the Poms and Kiwis ended the old-school backroom deals that always used to deliver the Aussies the referee they wanted.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4777696a2201.html

 

[kia ora storm]

Gould refers to 'Mr Stuart' 10 times in the article by my count. It has the same hollow/formal ring as the 'defendant' or 'the accused'.

Just a formal way of laying the boot in...nothing wrong with his salutation of a spoilt grub.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Just a formal way of laying the boot in...nothing wrong with his salutation of a spoilt grub.

very formal and seems to demonstrate the frosty relationship.

 

[Sans Souci Sainter]

http://www.billharrigan.com.au/Chapter-pg2843.html

Where is Bill Harrigan in all this?

Isn't he some crusader against the culture of "Reff Bashing"?

If Australia has been identified as having anti-social behaviour towards Referees and Officials, how can Ricky Stuart behave like this, publicly, and then be allowed to apologise 5 days later, when he feels like it?

And to only have his position as Australian Rugby League, National Head Coach, questioned after external prompting is as equally baffling as his own bizarre behaviour.

He has embarressed himself, and if Australia as a public endorse him and this behaviour, Australia as a whole should be embarresed.

This bloke is not representative of Australia or how we deserve to be perceived.