Super Rugby 2019

Well, colour me surprised

"Rugby Australia are set to sack Israel Folau following his social media posts on Wednesday night, leaving the Wallabies’ preparations ahead of the World Cup in chaos.

The governing body failed to make contact with Folau over the past 24 hours leaving Rugby Australia with no choice but to sack their super star fullback.

“Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Rugby Union have made repeated attempts to contact Israel both directly and via his representatives since 6.30pm on Wednesday, and at this point he has failed to communicate directly with either organisation,” the statement read.

“Whilst Israel is entitled to his religious beliefs, the way in which he has expressed these beliefs is inconsistent with the values of the sport. We want to make it clear that he does not speak for the game with his recent social media posts.

“Israel has failed to understand that the expectation of him as a Rugby Australia and NSW Waratahs employee is that he cannot share material on social media that condemns, vilifies or discriminates against people on the basis of their sexuality."

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

For his sake, I hope this was a planned move.

Well he's as thick as two short planks like most leagues, but rat cunning when it comes to money. And there's a few NRL teams out there with a bit of it spare. But would the NRL register him?

If his plan was to move to Leeeg (perhaps the Cows) and the NRL refuses to register him due to his "serial offender" social media pest status, then he has truly farked himself.

Then again, French Rugby & Leeg is usually happy to pay an arm and a leg for troublemakers with a blind eye being turned to indiscretions e.g. Bonny Sill, Ben Barba and Codd Tarney.

There's probably an EU reg against employing rabid homophobes or even mildly offensive types.

Looks like the NRL won't be giving Izzy a lifeline.

NFL perhaps?

Not at age 30.

skully wrote:Not at age 30.

QB or kicker, he’s got 15 years in him

beamer wrote:

skully wrote:Not at age 30.

QB or kicker, he’s got 15 years in him

Ironically he can't pass or kick!

Word is he is going to take Rugby Aus on to try to retain his contract. What a dill.

skully wrote:Word is he is going to take Rugby Aus on to try to retain his contract. What a dill.

He might have a legal case. His post wasn't homophobic - he takes aim at everyone (including drunks, atheists and fornicators which pretty much covers most of his team mates).

The “I’m not bigoted/discriminatory, I hate everyone equally” defence?

beamer wrote:The “I’m not bigoted/discriminatory, I hate everyone equally” defence?

Yep.

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:Word is he is going to take Rugby Aus on to try to retain his contract. What a dill.

He might have a legal case.  His post wasn't homophobic - he takes aim at everyone (including drunks, atheists and fornicators which pretty much covers most of his team mates).

And a chunk of the fan base.

JGK wrote:

skully wrote:Word is he is going to take Rugby Aus on to try to retain his contract. What a dill.

He might have a legal case.  His post wasn't homophobic - he takes aim at everyone (including drunks, atheists and fornicators which pretty much covers most of his team mates).

This is Union, not League.

Well the drunks bit might, union being three good drinking sessions interrupted by two sessions of incomprehensible rulings.

God-bothering looks like it will cost him dearly.

He'll become a preacher like Margaret Court and make more money than 20 years of Rugby Australia contracts

Hope he's got a better line than youse are all gonna burn in hell. Maybe something from the gospels.

Rugby Australia persecuting a bloke in the week after Palm Sunday for having alternate religious views

Actually I think they're terminating him for breach of his contract.

Bradman wrote:Actually I think they're terminating him for breach of his contract.

I’m not convinced that that term of the contract is legal in this case.

Actually a judgement handed down today in another matter might see that opinion validated. Then there could always be a smart lawyer out there who might be able to convince a court that there are some freedom of religion implications. But that might be a stretch on a black letter reading of the section.

Without seeing the term it is hard to judge. However as he knew the term was in the contract he was a dickhead to be in breach. If he didn’t agree with the condition, he shouldn’t have signed.

Bradman wrote:Actually a judgement handed down today in another matter might see that opinion validated.  Then there could always be a smart lawyer out there who might be able to convince a court that there are some freedom of religion implications.  But that might be a stretch on a black letter reading of the section.

I guess my starting point is that the guy is referring to a quote from Christian canon, if not the bible itself.  We aren't talking about a fringe religion here but the religion on which this nation was founded.