Accidentally Offside wrote:
“I find the sanctimony of some people when it comes to athletes very surprising.
There isn't a human being on earth that is above reproach 24/7, everyone makes mistakes and this notion that because people come to cheer them in a rugby game then they should never be forgiven is baffling to me.
Connacht rugby making a public announcement saying: "we think domestic abuse is awesome and we encourage our players to batter their partners at every available opportunity" is them sending a message condoning domestic abuse, hiring a player who has admitted to drunkenly had an altercation with their partner, is repentant and has demonstrably made steps to improve their behaviour is a totally different thing.
If that players shows a history of abuse that is an entirely different matter but writing someone off forever for one incident seems very un-Christian to me”

I’d agree that it’s a heavy burden, but it’s been the norm and expected of players in the public eye for many years. This ain’t the 1980’s.
I’m not setting out a new agenda here it’s been in the public domain along time.
By the way you believe people are being un-Christian, but Isn’t that a little sanctimonious . .

sparking wrote: Employing somebody who has behaved poorly can be seen as condoning that behaviour. Christianity has nothing at all to do with it.

It could be, if Connacht weren't upfront about addressing it publicly, and just try to slip him in the back door.
I would hope that as part of the development of all our young players that working with them on personal issues is a part of the program.

I see comments about players being role models, they're human being first and foremost and they are dealing with stresses the average person has no clue about without the day to day issue we all face.

In his first week in Galway I'd partner Reece with a local domestic abuse & alcohol abuse charitY, if there was one (Cope / Cuan Mhuire or Simon Community maybe) willing to take him under their wing as a volunteer in his spare time. And I don't mean it in a cynical or exploitative way, I mean in an educational / reformative one. I'd tie him to both for both seasons of his contract too....

Connacht could simply state that they are affording Reece an opportunity to address the issues in a supportive and neutral environment.


Me, I'd be very surprised if there weren't 50+% of male supporters who have done something illegal / prosecutable but got away with it. Drink Driving/Fighting/Petty Theft anyone..?
And I also fail to see why Connacht should punish themselves for something the player did, if he is willing to take responsibility for this actions and the support mechanisms are in place to help him....

Employing somebody who has behaved poorly can be seen as condoning that behaviour. Christianity has nothing at all to do with it.

Newname wrote: These guys are role models for kids and teenagers, and are looked up to and revered them. They have to be above reproach. With their many advantages comes a heavy burden of responsibility.
Physical assault on a partner is unacceptable and that message has to go out to all our kids and especially our teenagers.
Connacht Rugby has a responsibility to convey that message to the Rugby public.

I find the sanctimony of some people when it comes to athletes very surprising.
There isn't a human being on earth that is above reproach 24/7, everyone makes mistakes and this notion that because people come to cheer them in a rugby game then they should never be forgiven is baffling to me.
Connacht rugby making a public announcement saying: "we think domestic abuse is awesome and we encourage our players to batter their partners at every available opportunity" is them sending a message condoning domestic abuse, hiring a player who has admitted to drunkenly had an altercation with their partner, is repentant and has demonstrably made steps to improve their behaviour is a totally different thing.
If that players shows a history of abuse that is an entirely different matter but writing someone off forever for one incident seems very un-Christian to me.

Our rugby players are role models for kids and teenagers, and are looked up to by many of them.
They have to be above reproach. With their many advantages comes a heavy burden of responsibility.
Physical assault on a partner is unacceptable and that message has to go out to all our kids and especially our teenagers.
Connacht Rugby has a responsibility to convey that message to the Rugby public.

I believe the issues mentioned are a red line.

While we all (I assume) have done things in our lives we are not proud of, some things are more a no no than others.

Thornley had Reece's move as unlikely last night and this morning John Fallon is saying it straight out isn't happening:
www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/irela...pearance-872855.html

Connacht have issued a statement to the media.

'Connacht Rugby and the IRFU are aware of media reports concerning Sevu Reece and his recent court appearance.

We are currently seeking to clarify information around the situation prior to commenting further on the matter'

They said that the contract would be cancelled in the event of conviction, not charge. But that is a simple confirmation of fact. Obviously a conviction would have terminated the contract.
They didn't say that a lack of conviction would preclude the cancellation of the contract. I would assume there will be a review anyway and it's unlikely he'll be coming here.

According to a sports news Ireland article

New Connacht signing Sevu Reece has been discharged without conviction after Connacht Rugby sent a letter to a New Zealand court saying if he was charged his contract would be withdrawn.

www.sportsnewsireland.com/rugby/rugby_ir...tter_impression=true

What actions did Connacht have in this?

His actions are not ok.
"A report in Otago daily times this morning states that on July 1st while out drinking Reece grabbed his girlfriend to the ground after they had been having an argument and she suffered injuries to her upper face, bruising to the left side of her waist and left knee. Reece was stopped by a nearby doorman who intervened."

Assault is assault and I am disappointed with the apparent actions Connacht had in this.

That is my opinion which I an entitled too,m.

A shame to see so many here so quick to judge based of their own opinions and not the very small amount of facts available in the NZ media. Says nothing about a punch in anything I've read, but it does however say the judge took into account that this was his first time before a court, that the two were getting councelling and he had acknowledged his alcohol problems and has been sober 3 months. This 'blacklist' we know no details of so I don't feel its fair for us to be judging based on alot of opinion and should respect the views of the court in NZ. If there was/is more to it I'm sure Connacht will deal with it accordingly.

sea_point wrote:

connemara man wrote: I really don't like the attitude of the judge that if he wasn't a rugby player he'd be getting in trouble.

Seeing that this seems to be one of a string of times the police have been called about him and are are aware of his actions, and it won't be the last over domestic violence for me he can stay in NZ TBH.

I don't know if I could support connacht if he was playing

I think you need to have the context of Reece's living environment to see where the Judge is coming from. Leaving your homeland (purley for rugby reason) at 17 does leaves you very vulnerable to the wrong influences/influencers.
Pretty sure the judge is basing the determination on a lot of experience of the area, and having dealt with young adults who grow up in same environment...

Everyone deserves a second chance, and if I remember correctly Bundee's own story has some very similar background before he found his feet as an adult ....

Completely agree. No condoning what he did but it's completely wrong to write him off and cast him aside. It's been shown in studies in many countries worldwide, that a persons environment and social situation has a massive bearing on their future prospects for getting into trouble and ending up in prison. More often than not, prison, instead of rehabilitating these people serves only to reinforce the issues that lead to them getting in trouble in the first place. It's a viscous circle and a prison record means they're completely up against the 8 ball when it comes to forging a career and a new life as full members of society. Some manage to buck the tend and put it behind them but the vast majority end up sliding further and further down the path of self destruction. Early intervention and education are proven to be far more effective methods of rehabilitation. I find it incredible that some people are prepared to send this guy to the firing squad without knowing anything about him, or his life and instead prefer to read between the lines of a newspaper article. He F***ed up, but how many of us can truthfully look back on our lives without at least a little shame over some mistakes we made. It's what makes us human. Get off the pulpit and wait to get to know this guy before making up your minds.

connemara man wrote: I really don't like the attitude of the judge that if he wasn't a rugby player he'd be getting in trouble.

Seeing that this seems to be one of a string of times the police have been called about him and are are aware of his actions, and it won't be the last over domestic violence for me he can stay in NZ TBH.

I don't know if I could support connacht if he was playing

I think you need to have the context of Reece's living environment to see where the Judge is coming from. Leaving your homeland (purley for rugby reason) at 17 does leaves you very vulnerable to the wrong influences/influencers.
Pretty sure the judge is basing the determination on a lot of experience of the area, and having dealt with young adults who grow up in same environment...

Everyone deserves a second chance, and if I remember correctly Bundee's own story has some very similar background before he found his feet as an adult ....

Some people very quick to judge on the basis of a newspaper article.

We dont know what he was blacklisted for or what blacklisting entails yet we are assuming that that its for similar to the court case.

Theres mention a few times of him hitting his partner, it doesnt say anywhere that he hit her, it reads to me that he chased her and prob rugby tackled her to the ground, still a pretty stupid thing to do and still unacceptable.

Im not condoning violence against anyone, far from it, but based on a few instances where I was in full procession of the facts and read articles in newspapers about an incident youd wonder if I was reading about the same incident at all.

I would be very slow to make a judgement on someone based on a newspaper article.

Judges even in this country are loathe to put anyone behind bars if they are showing willing to to sort themselves out so its prob the same in NZ and not because hes a rugby player.