Henson Sacked!!

[Davet]

Mike - at risk of boring repetition, my response all along has been to the post that said that the players should not have been allowed to go for drink.

I simply suggest that tht was nt something that, after a game, they can been forbidden from doing.

Others seem to think that an employer owns their staff to the extent they can do that.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

And my repost is that 'not have been allowed' and 'can be forbidden' are pretty meaningless terms in the context of this thread. Nothing to debate.

 

[didds]

In his defence (which i am totally sure he is capable of himself but I beat him to it!) dave wasn't complaining that a "rugby club would try to sack a player who had only acted in a reasonable and responsible manner", but his comments were aimed at others' claims that employers could tell their employees - in the UK at least - what they can and can't do in their off duty, unpaid, time. And FTR I agree 100% with him on that.

My first boss clearly had no liking for the fact i played rugby and cricket - he called them "stupid games" to my face - but to his credit he never once suggested that I do NOT play them, let alone say that as an employee I couldn't, not even when the occasional injury impacted on my work a little. (Difficult to type with a swollen hand/dislocated finger - though you would all be excused if you thought i still had them generally!)


didds

 

[OB..]

his comments were aimed at others' claims that employers could tell their employees - in the UK at least - what they can and can't do in their off duty, unpaid, time. And FTR I agree 100% with him on that.

Under no circumstances whatsoever? What if you use your off duty, unpaid time to pass company secrets to a rival firm?

It makes sense to discuss whether or not a particular unpaid, off-duty activity can validly be used to justify sacking someone, but I see no case for adumbrating an inviolable principle that it is always improper.

 

[Rushforth]

adumbrating - you beat me!

 

[RobLev]

Mike - at risk of boring repetition, my response all along has been to the post that said that the players should not have been allowed to go for drink.

I simply suggest that tht was nt something that, after a game, they can been forbidden from doing.

Others seem to think that an employer owns their staff to the extent they can do that.

Own, no; but this employer does have a legitimate interest in its employees' alcohol intake. They are professional sportsmen, and (i) alcohol affects performance and (ii) drunkenness affects sponsorship. The taking of alcohol can also result in the employee turning up for work drunk, as appears to have happened here.

 

[Dixie]

I'd just point out that in the UK, there are several examples of an employer (or contracting party in some cases) laying down limitations for off-duty activity. An airline pilot may not drink 8-24 hours before a flight; Pro footballers are not permitted to indulge in skiing off-season. That's not to say that the employee/contractor can be physically restrained from undertaking these activities; merely that they cannot rely on having a job when they return.

 

[L'irlandais]

I thought this comment (on the Beeb) was relevant to the current discussion :

Henson's playing career has been overshadowed by off-field controversies. One of those came in 2007 when he was at the centre of some critical headlines following a train journey back to Wales from London after a match for the Ospreys, coached at the time by Jones.

And Thomas said: "I will give Lyn Jones food for thought... if he had reprimanded Gavin properly when he had that incident on a train five years ago, then maybe the guy would be a different person today. ...People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Source : BBC

Speaking of glasshouses, if the RFU had properly reprimanded Chris Ashton for his flamboyant/disrespectful* “swan dive” try celebrations, then (perhaps) some of the more junevile off-pitch antics might have been avoided.

*Depending on one's point of view.

 

[Mike Whittaker]

Those who played back in the 60's can well remember the embarrassment for a try scorer as team mates muttered their 'well done Tomkinson!' to the reluctant hero as he trotted nonchalantly back to the half way line. And of course the post match activities were totally appropriate at all times...

Then came the professional game and changed everything - and we all have our own preference.

 

[Taff]

... if the RFU had properly reprimanded Chris Ashton for his flamboyant/disrespectful* “swan dive” try celebrations, then (perhaps) some of ... the more junevile off-pitch antics[/url] might have been avoided.

I've never understood peoples dislike of flamboyant dives. If I was playing for Wales .. against England .. in the Millenium Stadium I'd be pretty happy with myself too. Although by nature I'm a very reserved kind of guy, trust me I'd probably try one too. :biggrin:

What's the harm in it? Let the boys have their fun.

 

[OB..]

I've never understood peoples dislike of flamboyant dives. If I was playing for Wales .. against England .. in the Millenium Stadium I'd be pretty happy with myself too. Although by nature I'm a very reserved kind of guy, trust me I'd probably try one too. :biggrin:

What's the harm in it? Let the boys have their fun.

There are some classic occasions when the player has dropped the ball. I don't see that personal pleasure justifies the risk.

 

[didds]

There are some classic occasions when the player has dropped the ball. I don't see that personal pleasure justifies the risk.

but I'd say that is a matter for the coach/manager rather than public opinion generally.

I was once told that in RL players were basically told to "bury" the ball... no lean over and dot-downs, no swan dives. Just hug the ball and hit the deck.


didds

 

[Adam]

but I'd say that is a matter for the coach/manager rather than public opinion generally.

I was once told that in RL players were basically told to "bury" the ball... no lean over and dot-downs, no swan dives. Just hug the ball and hit the deck.


didds

I think in RL they also use benefit of the doubt more. Doing it that way they can show that they're in control and even if the TMO can't see it then they give the try anyway.

 

[OB..]

but I'd say that is a matter for the coach/manager rather than public opinion generally.

As an England supporter I think I have a right to voice my opinion (while recognising that I cannot enforce it). It is my country he is representing.

 

[Davet]

And of course the post match activities were totally appropriate at all times...

I particularly enjoyed the one where you had to down a pint, run 10-15m pick up a broom handle, place forhead on one of it with the other end on the floor verticallyish below, spin round the handle 10 times then run back, and down another pint, winner first one to finish second pint - proving it by inverting the -ideally empty - glass on your own head.

Only the weak vomit.