Okay – we all love the AB’s. Most blokes will admit to wanting to be one, and we tend to move heaven and earth to ensure we are near the TV (or, better still, at the ground) when a test is on (well I do anyway). I would, however, like to share a story that shows what true heroes they are – to the younger generation…
Last Sunday at 10.00am my children and I attended a function in Wgtn, hosted by Westpac, for the children of the bank’s clients. Charlie, my 5 yr old son, loves his rugby and the All Blacks, and in his eyes Ritchie McCaw is as close to a god as a mortal man can be. Well, we turned up to a programme that included Ritchie McCaw, Mils Muliaina, Ma’a Nonu, Cory Jane and Victor Vito not only signing autographs on anything and everything, but running skills training sessions on tackling (Victor), kicking (Mils), stepping (Cory) and passing (Ma’a) with Ritchie going between all stations.
Remember, this was only 12 hours after they had played 80 minutes of hard out test match rugby against the Springboks. They all looked a little sore, but they were brilliant with the kids.
Fantastic ambassadors for the All Blacks, rugby and New Zealand in general. And Charlie hasn’t stopped talking about it. True heroes.
I watched them play at Eden Park two weekends ago. At the end of that amazing game, when they must have been knackered, they went along the crowd on the sideline shaking hands and signing autographs.
They’re not heroes. They’re professional sports players, doing a professional job very well.
They will be heroes when they have the guts to donate their ‘Man of the Match’ prizes to Women’s Refuge, or Rape Crisis.
Wow, bitter much Deborah?
Did your mother not teach you that if you can’t say anything nice say nothing at all?
Deborah is right. Professional sports players doing their jobs does not a hero make. What about the real heroes out in the community who are running underfunded voluntary programmes that are helping the least well off in society. These rugby guys have it easy, and then get our adoration… makes me sick.
Deborah, Gregory – ease up. Not saying that these guys are the only heroes in our society, but when young professional sportsmen take precious time out of their day to overwhelmingly exceed the expectations of the general public – and their young fan base – I think that’s pretty cool. Kim McGregor, Susan St John are two examples of community heroes.
“Last Sunday at 10.00am my children and I attended a function in Wgtn, hosted by Westpac, for the children of the bank’s clients”.
Not to mention elitist. Clearly only “rich prick’s” children got to attend this special event.
Cactus kate – bit prickly. Had you considered that Westpac’s clients may also include those that hold mortgages, and work bloody hard. Besides, what have you got against those who have worked bloody hard for their success Kate.?
I seldom concur with everything the Red Alert bloggers write in their initial posts and subsequent responses, but this is an exception. Well said Stuart.
Many (but not all, it has to be said) of the ABs are superb role models for our young boys and do a huge amount to show that you can be physical and tough (like many boys’ instincts tell them they should be), but also decent people. They needn’t. That makes them heros to most people.
The efforts of the Crusaders over the years have also been first class in this area, including helping to get the message over to kids that reading is cool.
These guys have done far more to set examples for our kids than many trendies who know all the theory and the phrases to chant at demos.
I agree that was great but let’s not call them heroes…
Heroes are people who run into burning cars and houses, with no thought to their own safety just of getting others to safety
Heroes are extraordinary, not as part of their job, and usually do something we have a sneaking dobut we would do.
By all means commend then Stuart, but please dont perpetuate the idea they are “heroes”. They were there as part of their contracts, no one makes them smile, agreed.
We need more perspective not less.
A hero is someone who speaks out when they know they will bring down the force of public opinion, vitriol, condemnation, or commit a heroic deed.
Couldn’t disagree with you more George about those who speak out against injustice not being role models
Tracey : “Couldn’t disagree with you more George about those who speak out against injustice not being role models”
Sorry. I can’t find where I wrote that…
“I agree that was great but let’s not call them heroes…”
You’re right, of course, but this just matches the standard devaluation of many terms in our language. How many times are you told that your choice of paying by Mastercard is ‘awesome’?!
This sort of hyperbole is widely used in this place. Some often describe the Nats as ‘evil’ for example. If JK is evil then Richie is a genuine hero…
I’ll be a lot more impressed when things like being arrested for domestic violence automatically mean a player cannot be an AB
So George you believe if others are degrading, devaluing something then you’ll just join them?
You wrote it George, you just used different words
“many trendies who know all the theory and the phrases to chant at demos”
“Westpac’s clients may also include those that hold mortgages, and work bloody hard”
So if you have a $50k mortgage and someone else has a $500k mortgage which client do you think Westpac would invite? I think Cactus is making the point that you are benefiting from some of the same type of privileges that John Key does and has been targeted for by some posters on this blog.
Fair observation by C Kate and indiana… how many were there Stuart? Was your invite to Stuart Nash MP or Mr and Mrs Stuart Nash, as shown on your bank account details?
Tracey – not all rugby players (AB or otherwise) are suitable role models (I won’t use the ‘h’ word) for our young males.
By the same token not all trendies who know all the theory and the phrases to chant at demos are speaking out against injustice. A vocabulary, long hair, a wooly jumper and a cause do not necessarily a freedom fighter make.
Very prickly indeed. Nothing like a good bit of politics of envy to get the lefties blood flowing.
Because of the vagueness of your comments, George, I assumed you referred to those protesting the changes to employment this weekend. I do characterise them as speaking up for injustice. Of course not all of them do, but this pejorative catch-all stuff doesnt advance anything.
Tracy : “Of course not all of them do, but this pejorative catch-all stuff doesnt advance anything”
Are you referring to the actions of the protesters outside Sky City at the weekend?
It would be better if you clarify who you were referring to George.
that’s assuming anyone’s actually interested in what George is on about
dorothy : “I’ll be a lot more impressed when things like being arrested for domestic violence automatically mean a player cannot be an AB”
And if being convicted of making false allegations of rape or assult automatically means a person cannot be employed in any role associated with children, such as teacher, social worker, perhaps?
Just to be equitable, of course.
I wonder, what is the potential of AB’s who are charged, say in the last 5 years?
George I dont think i get your analogy.
The majority of sexual assault(ers) don’t get charged and I’m pretty sure a majority charged, are found not guilty…not the same as a false charge laid of course.
I’m prety sure dorothy means a current AB so charged, ought to no longer be an AB
Yeah, if an AB did something bad then he should be chucked!
“George I dont think i get your analogy.”
What Dot is saying is that a specific type of person (a rugby player) who is merely arrested for a specific offence (domestic violence), should suffer an additional punishment to any doled out by the court that is connected to his employment.
The thread was originally to do with the suitablilty of ABs as role models. In such circumstances an AB certainly wouldn’t be a suitable role model.
The analogy is that I asked whether another sort of person, found guilt of another sort of offence should also be punished twice – once by the court and then in terms of their employment prospects?
The specific employment I mentioned – teachers and social workers – are professions where we should reasonably expect practitioners to be role models to the young. Isn’t it the same sort of thing to suggest that (say) a young woman who makes a malicious and false allegation of rape against someone is held to be unsuitable as a role model and should therefore be ineligible for employment in these sectors?
No, really, we don’t. Some of us couldn’t care less about the All Blacks. It is, after all, just a pointless game.
@ George:
They wouldn’t be being punished twice though. They would be just taking the natural consequences of their actions same as a drink driver who loses their driving license that’s needed for his job. Justice needs to be seen to be effective and hiding the criminals behind anonymity just helps the criminals and not society. An All Black who is found guilty of assault or rape etc, shouldn’t stay as an All Black. A teacher found guilty of a similar crime shouldn’t stay a teacher.
Draco – I don’t think your example of a driver who loses his licence (and hence his job) through a DIC is quite the same. The penalty isn’t that he gets his driving ban and loses his job. It’s just that losing his license renders him unable to carry out his role and one becomes the consequence of the other.
If we’re going to support additional penalties for certain categories of offender for certain crimes then lets have a definitive list of all the offences that are affected, and of the additional penalites that apply.
This sort of ‘one sort of justice for some, another for others’ doesn’t seem to fit into the type of debate held here everytime a proper Law and Order discussion is held. In fact it’s very much the opposite.
Dot, perhaps enraged by the idea that anyone dare express admiration for toughie rugby players, was just getting onto a soapbox and engaging in a bit of verbal man-bashing. I only sought to suggest that there are other similar situations.
If we don’t think that the penalites imposed under the law for specific offences are sufficient then by all means let’s raise our voices to campaign for them to be increased. But it seems to me that whenever the topic of sentencing is considered the balance of opinion in this place is that only the ultra-right wing hangers and floggers think this is necessary or effective.
The only one notable difference seems to be when a certain type of left wing woman talks about a certain type of offence committed by a man on a woman. In that case nothing seems to be too great a penalty.
Indiana and Tracey – yes. If John Key had blogged about how he and Max had been at a rugby day put on by Westpac there would be 100’s of derogatory comments rendering him a rich prick.
Stuart – as you’ve defended your use of trusts for your family home, it’s possibly of interest to know if the invite was to Stuart Nash MP or the trustees of the Stuart Nash Family trust?
george your choice of analogy, in my opinionis wide of the mark. Why not offer instead…
a teacher found guilty of assault can no longer be a teacher, why make it into something as convoluted as someone who falsely accuses someone of rape, a rare occurance indeed, and not actually acrime per se, where being found guilty a few times of assualt is a crime.
I agree with DRaco, people need to differentiate between being punished twice and the consequeences of the original choice or lack of judgment.
Playing for or representing your country is a privilege not a right. An organsation can put any restrictions/limitations it wants to. A person prevented from playing for the All Blacks is not prevented from earning their living as a rugby player, they simply cannot achieve or continue to have the highest honour