Gee, sounds like a bit of a hot head reaction, better sack Mitch...
Printable View
Gee, sounds like a bit of a hot head reaction, better sack Mitch...
Well my observation would be that, disruptive or not, they won 4 from 5 after Henjak was removed. It went pear-shaped after that, but it seems a bit dubious/expedient/simplistic/glib/lazy (pick one) to link the two together.
Sack him again. Sack someone....sack the scrum machine
For what it is worth I have heard Sare is a hot head (and a very good fighter) and was equaly to blame for the incident - if not for Henjack getting in one good punch - its likely we would never have heard about it
With regard the squad for next year - imperative we get another halfback.
Longbottom looked the goods around the park - any comments on his scrummaging - seemed to hold his own - but being an old winger - i am no expert in that area
Henjak had the sent home from wallabies tour thing hanging over his head too. And your right burgs. sare is not any less than 50 % responsible for the incident. It was a bit confusing how hes 8 week suspension was run while he was injured. But the force was under pressure to act.
We did have a back-up and he injured his neck. And therefore more need and more pressure to not do something stupid that would put you out of action.
I don't know if anyone remembers or even read much of what was said in the post-hearing report but Henjak punched Sare while Sare was sitting on the ground. If you *have* to fight someone at least let them be in a position to defend themselves. Look noone here is claiming Sare is an angel but had the jaw not been broken neither of them would have seen much more than a weeks suspension or a fine. So we have a guy who hits another guy while he's down and the result is that it becomes 20 times more newsworthy.
Isn't this debate over Henjack's culpability all a bit pointless. What happened happened. It's in the past. Let it be. Stop looking for excuses which is all Henjack's influence on the Force's performance could ever be.
So we judge punishments by the incidents' news-worthiness nowdays :confused:
We didn't actually have a true "back up" either, he was an ok standard bench player to see out 5-10 minutes per match, not a S14 starter.
All of the Scrumhalves to have been at the Force, apart from the first choice Henjak, have been of basically the same second grade, benchwarmer standard.
Management took a rather large gamble on Henjak being injury (and trouble) free for 13-15 matches. It bit them on the bum when it backfired.
No we don't punish incidents on news-worthiness we punish them on how they have damaged our image and reputation. Unfortunately the more news-worthy something is the most it damages image and reputation. Relationships between the club and fans and sponsors were already damaged by the Rottnest incidents and the fight added a lot of fuel to that fire.
How exactly could management have done any different? Over a decade of George Gregan firmly rooted into the Wallabies 9 jersey has led to a lack of good quality scrum-halves in Australia. Who should the Force have signed to have covered for Henjak. The reality is there was next to no-one.
But Blackswan is right. We may as well just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Where is the fun in that? :iconrofl:
:cheers:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the scrum started to go backwards against the Brumbies after Longbottom came on, Jasper.
Footy players are on pedestal. Like it or not. Their behaviour is judged on a higher level, like it or not.
They are like poor little lambikins who lost their luggage at the airport, all sooky and squishy. Like it or not.
Force finished worse than last year.
Tahs didn't :) Like it or not.