Eventually, all organisations will be dragged kicking and screaming into the reality that in today’s hyper-connected world, the one guiding policy that must be pursued is transparency.
Ruling authorities, still stuck in the pre-Internet era, often attempt to justify their attempts at censorship or secrecy by saying there is a need that their authority and reputation be protected “for the greater good”.
Such is the case, whereby the NRL threatens clubs with large penalties if they dare question the standard of refereeing or other aspects of the game’s officialdom. Of course, right now the Parramatta club is staring down the barrell of a $10,000 fine for comments that Ricky Stuart made at the post-match press conference following the Titans match.
In that press conference, Stuart makes the point that he and his players are under the glare of microscopic scrutiny and they have to cop it when they underperform. In a society where most everyone has the ability to blog, tweet, facebook their opinion into an every-expanding tapestry of views and beliefs, that is to be expected. The reality is if you put your head up in a public position, you have to accept that you will cop not only criticism but, more than likely, a good dollop of irrational and unfair abuse as well.
Clearly, the NRL is a very, very public forum, and everyone from the coaches and players, the referees and officials, as well as the code’s administrators and directors all must realise that when you make the decision to be a part of the sport in that kind of high-profile fashion, you have to take the bad with the good. All sport is performance-based, and when you underperform, it’s going to get pointed out - emphatically and repeatedly.
Ruling bodies will use the excuse when imparting censorship that it’s important that the public’s trust in their authority is not undermined. However, it’s fair to say that we live in a society that not only understands that the emperor may not be wearing any clothes, but will take any opportunity to tear away pretences of royal garb. You don’t win trust by hiding behind censorship, secrecy or veiled notions of confidentiality.
You win trust by providing, at every opportunity, transparency and then performing. You win trust and respect by manning up to your mistakes or past failures, taking criticism on the chin with humility, and then backing up and proving the naysayers wrong.
We, the public don’t need Ricky Stuart to tell us that the referees got it wrong against the Titans. Well before the game ended, this website had lit up with complaints about the penalty count. You don’t patronise the public by thinking that you can stop them thinking ill of you by censoring criticising. Because the public know and they will talk, share and debate, online and off, regardless.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that I’m right behind Ricky standing up for what he believed was right, and his passionate call for transparency and fairness. I long for the day when it’s a core philosophy of both our club and code from the top to the bottom because with transparency comes accountability, then higher-performance and ultimately that's how you positively achieve outcomes for the greater good.
Replies
I also believe in transparency when it comes to the cheer girls uniforms!
Jamsey, are you trying to get Phil summoned by the cheer girls?
agree
Quote Of The Year Winner is
.......Jamsey
If he was I think he'd thank me for that one!
I completely agree with everything Phil has said. By these referees being backed by their employer, the NRL is saying that they can do no wrong. Given they are human I highly doubt that is the case. Wherever you work, if you under-perform you are held accountable, the referees aren't.
The other thing that I hate is when a captain comes to the referee looking for an explanation. Instead they get the referees blurting out lines from a textbook. The players don't want the textbook definition because they can't understand it. I refereed soccer for five years and I always tried to provide the players with an explanation. My senior referees didn't like it but I did it anyway. Why? Because avoiding confusion avoids bad tempers. If a captain came up to my and asked why I made a certain call I'd explain it in plain English. I was also a player and captain so I could empathise with the player. I knew what he was asking about and I gave him a straight answer. This meant the players were informed on the rules and it also meant they had my respect and I had theirs. In those five years I refereed several hundred games and never had a problem with a captain not understanding a decision because I was transparent and spoke English. If only those elite referees could understand that being consistent and explaining your decisions simply would take so much pressure off them.
Whilst many will applaud your values and intentions Mr 1 Eyed Eel you fail to recognise that the current generation of business leaders and politicians are the Power Generation.
Power and Control are their ideals and mantra, so they will do everything they can to maintain their Power and Control regardless of the damage they do to others, and indeed their own companies or political party.
The 1970s was labelled the ME generation - these people are the result of that upbringing.
A show of support.
I'll kivk it off with a fiver.
Crow you wanna collect it ??
You call for transparency, while acknowledging that fans did not need Sticky to tell them the refs may have got calls wrong. Too true. We can all watch the game on TV. A televised sport is about as transparent as you can get. The evidence is there for all of us to watch. We can even record a game and dissect it in slow motion, as the media did with the Daily Telegraph article showing still-images of Titans being off-side. Commentators also call it as they see it, noting whether they think a ref got it right or wrong. Social media sites enable free and open discussion too.
The one word absent from your blog is the only word that matters. Integrity. Can a coach hop in front of the media and bring into doubt the integrity of the referee? The NRL says no. Sticky was fined for bringing into doubt the integrity of the referees, as Sticky questioned their impartiality, and did so in a style the NRL forbids, which is ridicule.
This blog mentions transparency, fairness, freedom of expansion, and authority. And the blog implies that Sticky was "right" and should not have been fined, because if transparency, fairness, freedom of expression and legitimate authority were observed, he would not be getting fined. All of this confuses those four things with integrity. Sticky was not fined because he criticized the referee. The NRL says coaches are allowed to do so. The NRL just says when a coach does criticize the referee, they observe some boundaries, such as not ridiculing the referee and not suggesting the referee lacks impartiality or has no integrity. Sticky was fined, not for his criticism per se, but for not observing the two boundaries. Can one criticize and observe those boundaries? Well just go listen to Bennett. He is a master at getting his point across while observing the boundaries. Hasler usually does a good job too.
So the blog is conceptually muddled by confusing a point about integrity with points about things like fairness. And it is also conceptually muddled in the suggestion transparency is at stake, when it is not, because a referees performance is openly telecast and open to scrutiny.
Of course did Sticky have reason to blow up at the refs? Sure, both because he was upset with his team and is smart enough to distract everyone from our ill discipline, and also because it did seem we were over-policed. But the latter can be in error without lacking integrity, and for not observing that obvious boundary, Sticky got fined.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next