Headline news or hidden away?

[BikingBud]

Should this be making it to headline news or should it be hidden away in sport specific pages?

Legal action taken from World Cup online abuse

World Rugby confirms legal action is being taken following match official abuse monitoring after the World Cup.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Those who abuse or threaten players, match officials or their families must realise there will be consequences for their actions," said Barnes.

"It is great to see World Rugby leading the way and seeing the first charges being made against those individuals who send such appalling messages.

"There is simply no place for that behaviour in rugby, in sport or in society."

If all, irrespective of backgrounds or beliefs, are concerned about the level of online abuse and cyber bullying that is occurring, should the stand being made to take legal action against trolls and abusers following the rugby world cup be front page news and used as a catalyst to really enforce change?

 

[smeagol]

Should this be making it to headline news or should it be hidden away in sport specific pages?

Legal action taken from World Cup online abuse

World Rugby confirms legal action is being taken following match official abuse monitoring after the World Cup.

www.bbc.co.uk

If all, irrespective of backgrounds or beliefs, are concerned about the level of online abuse and cyber bullying that is occurring, should the stand being made to take legal action against trolls and abusers following the rugby world cup be front page news and used as a catalyst to really enforce change?

IMO, doesn't mean a hill of beans unless there are actual consequences. If one of these jackwagons has to pay the piper or gets thrown in the slammer, then I'll consider it a positive.

 

[Dickie E]

In the same way some folk hit punching bags to let off steam, maybe there should be a space for the "jackwagons" to vent their spleen with no consequences

 

[Volun-selected]

In the same way some folk hit punching bags to let off steam, maybe there should be a space for the "jackwagons" to vent their spleen with no consequences

Maybe, but for the avoidance of doubt - I am not a verbal punch bag.

We all have different boundaries, for me swearing, etc. at my decision out of frustration is fundamentally different to swearing at me.

Venting is one thing, threats of physical violence against someone or their kids is not venting and people need to face consequences for that. (But that is also a much wider issue.)

 

[smeagol]

In the same way some folk hit punching bags to let off steam, maybe there should be a space for the "jackwagons" to vent their spleen with no consequences

Echoing Volun-selected, it's no longer venting once the source hits send/post.

 

[Dickie E]

Maybe, but for the avoidance of doubt - I am not a verbal punch bag.

We all have different boundaries, for me swearing, etc. at my decision out of frustration is fundamentally different to swearing at me.

Venting is one thing, threats of physical violence against someone or their kids is not venting and people need to face consequences for that. (But that is also a much wider issue.)

Yes, I agree abuse & threats are different things.
I have some concern when the PTB just tell angry people to bottle it up. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[SimonSmith]

Yes, I agree abuse & threats are different things.
I have some concern when the PTB just tell angry people to bottle it up. What could possibly go wrong?

You mean "exercise reasonable self control like a functioning adult would"?

You know what angry people do when they're told to let it out - they punch referees.

 

[Harry]

IMHO a lot of this is just a reflection of modern society. 20+ years ago most of these people would be sitting at home shouting their rage at the telly. If they went to a match the majority of fans and club officials would demonstrate traditional Rugby values. It takes courage to shout abuse at the ref when nobody else approves.

Nowadays the same people broadcast their abuse on line and get the approval of like minded thugs. This reinforces their self entitlement to abuse officials and players so we get escalation.

Our game needs to look at what it can do to combat these problems. I suggest we start by having a quiet word in the earholes of TV commentators. Too many openly disagree with decisions and seem to have little understanding of the Laws of the Game. This gives ammunition to the uninitiated.

An example from yesterdays six nations match where the ref gave a second yellow with crossed arms then showed a red. The commentator said this should be a straight red. But no the ref was right to follow the correct protocol. Although this example is unlikely to lead to on line abuse it just shows the knee jerk reaction is to disagree with the ref. Change this to asking another commentator "Why do it that way" this gives a chance to educate the fans.

 

[BikingBud]

IMO, doesn't mean a hill of beans unless there are actual consequences. If one of these jackwagons has to pay the piper or gets thrown in the slammer, then I'll consider it a positive.

Quite.

 

[BikingBud]

I feel the frequent comparison of social media as an on-line pub misses the exposure that some antagonists will deliberately seek out and frequently achieve by hiding away whilst launching a personal attack, often from position of complete ignorance or hostility.

Anything that presents a credible and likely punishment, including a criminal record, should be published far and wide ie front page news, to highlight how society deems it unacceptable and the very real consequences for the perpetrators.

Social media can support this, if not co-operating they need to be forced to do it!

 

[Dickie E]

You know what angry people do when they're told to let it out - they punch referees.

I wasn't there but I doubt that is what happened. The player knew he was doing wrong and would be subject to sanctions including possible legal action, but did it anyway. Why was that? To say he was just a "jackwagon" doesn't take us closer to a solution

 

[BikingBud]

IMHO a lot of this is just a reflection of modern society. 20+ years ago most of these people would be sitting at home shouting their rage at the telly. If they went to a match the majority of fans and club officials would demonstrate traditional Rugby values. It takes courage to shout abuse at the ref when nobody else approves.

Nowadays the same people broadcast their abuse on line and get the approval of like minded thugs. This reinforces their self entitlement to abuse officials and players so we get escalation.

Our game needs to look at what it can do to combat these problems. I suggest we start by having a quiet word in the earholes of TV commentators. Too many openly disagree with decisions and seem to have little understanding of the Laws of the Game. This gives ammunition to the uninitiated.

An example from yesterdays six nations match where the ref gave a second yellow with crossed arms then showed a red. The commentator said this should be a straight red. But no the ref was right to follow the correct protocol. Although this example is unlikely to lead to on line abuse it just shows the knee jerk reaction is to disagree with the ref. Change this to asking another commentator "Why do it that way" this gives a chance to educate the fans.

So often the case, lack of knowledge from pundits perpetuates the ignorant masses however not sure this really helps from Wayne Barnes:

Change two: Only penalise attack at breakdown if defence squeaky clean​

He wrote: “Nothing sucks the life out of a stadium more than a promising attack being stopped by a referee’s whistle for a technical side entry or, even worse, an attacker going off their feet even if the contest is already lost.​

This seems to pretty much allow a scatter gun ruck, flopping on, coming in to clear at acute angles and basically doing whatever you want as long as you get there first. See Ireland's performance last night for a very well developed game plan based on this strategy.

It removes the contest and we lose a key element of rugby union

 

[didds]

but does the referee just blow the whistle for in at the side or off feet halting a promising attack?

Or is the promising attack stymied because of the in at the side or off the feet and thus there is no advantage so the referee blows?
Its a rhetorical question clearly.

 

[SimonSmith]

I wasn't there but I doubt that is what happened. The player knew he was doing wrong and would be subject to sanctions including possible legal action, but did it anyway. Why was that? To say he was just a "jackwagon" doesn't take us closer to a solution

I was. He hit me. He was angry - and I'd just given his team a possible match winning penalty.
And it was because Bush Rugby out here asks us to have a higher tolerance for bullshit than some of the prettier competitions. Which is fine until idiots see that as permissive.

I was thinking today- the College Competition I used to referee in back in the States, a rugby backwater, was impeccably administe3red compared to the shitshows over here.

 

[BikingBud]

but does the referee just blow the whistle for in at the side or off feet halting a promising attack?

Or is the promising attack stymied because of the in at the side or off the feet and thus there is no advantage so the referee blows?
Its a rhetorical question clearly.

The "promising attack" only arises because cheating is occurring, has become habitual and nobody wants to spoil the fairy tale of showcase rugby.

 

[didds]

that was my sardonic lean, yes...

 

[Rich_NL]

In the same way some folk hit punching bags to let off steam, maybe there should be a space for the "jackwagons" to vent their spleen with no consequences

Telling a ref that their kids need to watch their backs, or messaging a ref's wife death threats, goes a little beyond "venting spleen". Don't play down criminal behaviour, please.

 

[BikingBud]

I am sure we all feel it is wholly acceptable but the point I was hoping to debate is that hiding this away on the rugby pages does not bring the wider attention to bear, it might be considered a rugby only issue when in fact it is a societal problem that needs to be challenged.

 

[Dickie E]

Telling a ref that their kids need to watch their backs, or messaging a ref's wife death threats, goes a little beyond "venting spleen". Don't play down criminal behaviour, please.

I agree that WHAT they've done is unacceptable, the bigger & fundamental question is WHY they have done it & what can be done to address that. Certainly prohibition is the easy solution, but that just drives it underground.
Its like the "war on drugs". Just make drugs illegal ... that'll fix the problem ... right?

 

[Rich_NL]

Except it's not comparable to buying and selling drugs, but to assault. There are emotional and social/cultural reasons that are beyond the scope of World Rugby to solve, but they can at least demonstrate a deterrence and give a signal that these people aren't as anonymous as they think (which, I believe, is a significant factor).

How about they scream at their televisions or punch a wall to vent their spleen? Rather than sticking up for their right to personally threaten people with assault or worse without consequences - which currently isn't protected by any free speech laws in any other domain, anyway - you can send the message that it's wrong and unacceptable.