Eddie Jones: Abuse, identity and the challenges of rugby fandom in the modern game
After being on the receiving end of alleged physical and verbal abuse whilst travelling back from England’s loss to Scotland in Edinburgh, head coach Eddie Jones has vowed never to use public transport again citing security fears.
Video footage has emerged of several people with Scottish accents first posing for selfies with Jones, before unleashing a torrent of abuse, even opening the door of Jones’ car in order to continue hurling insults at the Australian.
Scottish Rugby have condemned the incident, saying they are “appalled” at such “disgusting behaviour”.
It is unclear whether or not this video footage represents the entirety of the abuse Jones describes, but regardless there has been a great deal of outrage surrounding the incident.
Whilst Jones has earned something of a reputation for being somewhat antagonistic at times in his media duties, the general feeling in the rugby world is that such behaviour is completely unacceptable, regardless of how one feels about Jones himself.
Few, if any, commenters online are condoning the abuse, with the vast majority of rugby fans agreeing with Scottish Rugby’s statement that it “does not reflect the values of our sport or its fans”.
Probably the most common response to the incident is that it is somehow at odds with the spirit of rugby, that such behaviour should not be considered as representative of the sport and that those who behave in this way cannot truly be considered rugby fans.
Indeed, in the first paragraph of this article I referred to the perpetrators as “people with Scottish accents” as opposed to fans or supporters because, for many people, the idiots shouting abuse don’t qualify.
Regardless of their nationality, or who they were cheering for on Saturday (if indeed they were actually following the game), their behaviour exempts them from being classed as “real” rugby supporters.
This raises an interesting question around how we define fandom in the modern game.
Rugby, rightly or wrongly, claims a reputation as a sport with unique values; sportspersonship, camaraderie, friendliness and acceptance, where all the aggression takes place on the field of play and everyone comes together afterwards to share a beer in harmony.
Of course, it’s not as simple as all that.
Abuse from spectators towards players and officials rears its head with disappointing frequency (and is getting worse), and the supposed mutual respect between rival players disappears all too often.
That being said, the average rugby match elicits a far less hostile, more welcoming atmosphere than that of a comparable level football game.
Rugby is far less accepting of abuse of officials by fans or players, and even the most raucous of crowds often fall into respectful silence for opposition goal-kickers.
Rugby does, to a certain degree, do things differently.
It’s worth considering therefore just what rugby fandom means in the 21st Century.
Since professionalism came in, there has been a marked change in pretty much every aspect of the sport, from skill level to player welfare to facilities to media coverage – but revered “rugby values” have retained the air of gentlemanly etiquette of their amateur heyday.
We still have certain expectations about what is or isn’t acceptable in rugby, be that on the field of play, in the stands or in our discussions around the game.
This can lead to conflict.
We still hold players and supporters to the unwritten rules that seemingly defined the sport in its early years, even if those rules may find themselves bumping uncomfortably against the reality of professionalism.
It’s hard for a defeated player to want to share a beer with their opponent knowing that that loss might mean relegation, the loss of a paycheque, a threat to their livelihood.
It’s hard for a player faced with the opportunity to take a dive after a clumsy challenge to stay on their feet, knowing that winning a penalty might win them the game, secure some silverware, bring their team and its supporters a reward for all their investment.
This conflict between old attitudes and modern pressures is central to the discussion about the Jones incident.
Whether we like it or not, rugby is growing as a sport, reaching new and unfamiliar audiences as it does so.
Engaging with those outside of rugby’s existing inner circle is essential for its growth, and indeed its survival.
This is a double edged sword – more customers mean more money, but it also means less control over who engages with the product.
It’s like when you discover a new band and want to share their music with everyone, then get pissed off when they get big: rugby hasn’t quite sold out yet, but it’s certainly one Calvin Harris collaboration away from going mainstream.
The argument is that the people in the Jones video aren’t “real” supporters, but as the sport grows it’s inevitably going to start capturing audiences who aren’t au fait with rugby’s attitudes and values.
Does this automatically mean that those audiences aren’t “real” supporters?
How do we define who is a “real” supporter?
What do we do with those who don’t meet our criteria?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the people in the video are arseholes.
Their behaviour is unacceptable not just in rugby, but indeed anywhere.
There’s a psychological concept called ‘bracketed morality’, which posits that there are certain circumstances wherein normal moral rules don’t apply, so we feel free to behave in a more aggressive or dishonest manner. Sport is probably the best example of such a context.
This is most likely largely responsible for the incident – those people hopefully do not behave that way towards every single person they meet.
Unfortunately, what the morons in the video don’t know (or don’t care about) is that rugby’s moral bracket is much narrower than many other sports.
Rugby has a much lower tolerance for abusive behaviour, and a much shorter time frame during which that abuse is in any way acceptable – once the final whistle blows, everyone’s friends again. In theory.
So what do we do to combat this?
It is ridiculous to think that we might need to explain to people that you don’t get to abuse someone just because they’re involved with an opposing sports team.
But then, there are warning labels telling people not to drink bleach or stick their hand into lion enclosures, so common sense perhaps has to take a back seat on this one.
We need to create a way in which those new to the sport can become acclimatised to its unspoken norms and learn the appropriate way to behave.
This might not be easy, since not even “real” supporters seem to agree on everything – see the fury of the debate around whether it was okay for Bastareaud to call another player a “f****t”.
But it’s worth thinking about what we want the future of rugby to look like.
Regardless of how we feel about it, more and more people are going to be drawn to rugby as it expands all over the globe.
What picture do we want them to have of the sport we love?
I’m genuinely asking.
How would you define rugby’s values?
How should someone new to rugby behave?
What makes rugby unique?
In essence, what makes a “real” rugby supporter?
Let us know in the comments.
Comments on RugbyPass
Omg… you are bruised And battered Benny. Stop crying … the scoreboard speaks. What a pathetic lover you are.. 🤣🤣🤣
127 Go to commentsPacific Lions, cry me a river
127 Go to commentsThis is the single worst piece of journalism I have ever seen since your last one. As a neutral, who really states that there should be an asterisk next to a win? You are an utter embarrassment to real AB fans, journalism and that joke of a house which pays you for this nonsense. Get a life, Ben.
127 Go to commentsGuys. Cancel the World Cup champions after this analysis. It changes everything. Ben knows. We’ll have to unengrave the Bokke off the trophy and hand it to the ABs, now that I’ve been enlightened about this illegitimate win. This needs to be done. Now!
127 Go to commentsBen is right here though, Springboks were woefully poor with the advantage they had throughout this game. The France match was heroic because that was an even contest this match had it taken place in Rugby Championship would have been an easy win for NZ. If anything this match should tell the Bok coaches that a lot of this team should be changed. They beat this same NZ team by record margin with the same circumstances but with a different core. They bring back the tried and tested guys and they nearly botch this game.
127 Go to commentsI knew who wrote this article from the first few words in the headline…lol. The red card actually did the ABs a favour. It galvanized them, only then did they step up a gear. Before that there was zero momentum.
127 Go to commentsFirstly the foul on Bongi was a planned move just like the NZ master plan with Bryce Lawrence you kiwis are filthy fux perhaps try to play a cleaner game next time I doubt that’s possible tho but don’t worry world rugby is on yr side they trying to take away all the BOKS strengths to help all you weakling as Jeremy Clarkson would say LA OO ZA ERR..🤣
127 Go to commentsAbsolutely spot on Ben. I certainly wouldn't gloat over a win like that. Frustrating as it is it's done and dusted and history will forever show the result.
127 Go to commentsHo hum.
127 Go to commentsNo question they were the better team. But that is the beauty of sport isn’t it!
127 Go to commentsEveryone is into Hurling in Ireland according to Porter, but only 11 of Ireland's 32 counties enter a team into the national competition. Same old blarney.
1 Go to commentsLet’s be honest. The draw and scheduling in the World Cup was a joke but South Africa found a way after having to go the hard (nearly impossible) way to the Cup Final via France and England. NZ had a hard game against France (lost) and had 5 weeks to prepare for the Quarter, 3 weeks knowing it was Ireland. NZ theerfore had to win one big game against an Irish team who played SA and then Scotland 7 days before. They won and it was de facto a semi final because they were playing a relatively weak Argentina team and it was a walk over. In the final a very rested NZ team was playing a very tired SA team and still lost. They couldn’t score more than 11 points. Put another way SA had to find a way to win while tired and they achieved that. NZ should thank their lucky stars that they fixed the scheduling in 2015 otherwise they would be dealing with a Bok treble.
127 Go to commentsPerhaps if Bongi wasn’t targeted and removed from the game in the first 3 minutes it would have been quite a different game. Maybe if NZ also faced the same competition the Boks faced to their win NZ would have looked quite different. The final score shows who outplayed who.
127 Go to commentsRubbish article! Abuladze played most of Exeters matches when fit. He got injured against Glasgow a while ago and is out for the rest of the season, thats why he hasnt played for Exeter and Georgia recently. Do some proper research next time!
1 Go to commentsGotta love it when kids throw their toys out the pram and can’t hack it with the grown ups debate. Here’s looking at you turlough! 😉🤣
148 Go to commentsThey lost the game period move on
127 Go to commentsSpringboks won! Stop winging. You can change the game however much you and your rugby colonizing IRB want to and the Springboks will win you at that too. Your mind is colonized my friend get a life
127 Go to commentsBen, nobody gets fooled anymore by selective and biased data to support an hypothesis. Games are decided on such small margins these days that you win some and lose some, and dominance is a thing of the rugby past. Look at the RWC circle of fortune…. Ireland beats SA who beat France who beat NZ who beat Ireland. And so it goes on. Match officials help to eliminate real indiscretions. If they had been with us years before, no doubt results would have been different. Remember Andy Haden’s dive from a lineout in 1978 for which a match-wining penalty was awarded? Wales should have beaten the ABs that day. They took the loss like the gentlemen they were.
127 Go to commentsWith all the analysis and how good the all blacks were.The fundamental mistake with the ABs is that this is a test match and not an exhibition.There is no better team(country) in world rugby than the Boks that knows how to win a test match(we are post masters at this).We know our rules, we have the discipline, we tackle like beasts, we take our points and we never give up.I now have educated the ABs supporters(at least say thank you).Please stop “bitching” , accept what the outcome is and move along swiftly.
127 Go to commentsAnd they came from behind to win two big games before the final. No one can say what would have happened. Had the boks gone behind the game plan changes and the result may changes. Ifs and ands are irrelevant. The boks won. Neutral critics enjoyed the games they played. Its not a popularity contest. Get over it and move on.
127 Go to comments