1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

An important perspective on player incidents - this is what should be the rules

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by cf2 is back, Mar 5, 2011.

  1. cf2 is back

    cf2 is back Active Member

    207
    48
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0
    This is how I see it in relation to player incidents and the rules that should apply.

    Category 1. Proven guilty of a law breaking incident:
    - NRL to decide on fine and/or suspension for bringing game into disrepute
    - Club to take whatever action it chooses
    - Police to take whatever action appropriate

    Category 2. Proven guilty of a non law breaking incident:
    - NRL to decide on fine and/or suspension for bringing game into disrepute
    - Club to take whatever action it chooses
    - Police to take whatever action appropriate

    Category 3. Not proven guilty of a law breaking incident:
    - NRL automatically directs matter to club
    - Club to take whatever action it chooses
    - Police to take whatever action appropriate

    Category 4. Not proven guilty of a non law breaking incident:
    - NRL automatically directs matter to club
    - Club to take whatever action it chooses
    - Police to take whatever action appropriate

    PLAYER RESULTS:

    Brett Stewart:
    On the charge of sexual assault Category 3 applies as he was not proven guilty (at the time of being charged or of course 2 years later in court).
    - NRL action: should have been none due to inability to prove anything (and therefore can't possibly say brought game into disrepute given no proof)
    - Club action: should have been none due to inability to prove anything
    - Police action: obv they chose to press charges which were of course proven not guilty in court

    On the charge of drunken behaviour Category 4 applies as he was not proven guilty of drunken behaviour or any wrong doing.
    - NRL action: again should have been none due to inability to prove anything
    - Club action: should have been none due to inability to prove anything
    - Police action: was not accused or proven to break any alcohol law

    Final result should have been no penalty at any time and free to play at all times. (With a few apologies too thanks).

    Todd Carney:
    On the charge of being drunk in public (back in Canberra days) Category 2 applies as whilst he didn't break the law he was proven to be intoxicated and adversely affect others (pissing on head etc).
    - NRL action: should have been a fine and suspension due to bringing game into disrepute (and it was heavily so given they tore up his NRL contract)
    - Club action: should have been severe due to repeat offences (also heavy given they terminated his club contract)
    - Police action: should have been none as didn't break any law

    On the charge of driving at .05 alcohol level (on zero alcohol P plates) Category 1 applies as proven guilty of breaking the law.
    - NRL action: should have considered fine and/or suspension for bringing the game into disrepute but chose to take no action and refer to club. I believe this was the RIGHT decision. Being over the limit on a Sat morning on the way to a meeting did not bring the game into disrepute. It was simply an error of judgement. If any of us were guilty of this exact same thing we would be GOBSMACKED if our employer fined or sacked us.
    - Club action: They fined him and fair enough given his past and no doubt club rules in place
    - Police action: He has to go to court to defend licence

    Ryan Tandy:
    If he is charged with gaining financial advantage through deception Category 3 would apply of being not proven guilty of a law breaking incident. Like Brett nothing is proven and the only action should be from his club or the police as they deem appropriate.

    Anthony Watmough:
    On the charge of driving 50km over the speed limit Category 1 applies as proven guilty of breaking the law.
    - NRL action: was none due to the fact it did not bring the game into disrepute. It was simply an error of judgement (albeit a very bad one) Again could happen to any of us. But the NRL was right to do nothing.
    - Club action: up to the club but I'd agree no action as it's simply a personal matter with the appropriate police action. If however the club has a player rule that incidents such as this are breaking player behaviour rules they could then take action (I'd personally recommend 5000 hours learning to catch and hold a pass).
    - Police action: he has to pay fine and face legal charges/penalty for potential loss of licence

    The absolute bottom line here on NRL and Gallop:

    Brett sexual assault and/or drunkeness: totally wrong decision by Gallop - was not proven guilty at any time - should not have been suspended on suspicion. Should have been apologised too as well.

    Carney .05: totally correct decision by Gallop - it was a minor traffic offence which did not bring the game into disrepute. Sorry Des but you are confused here mate. It's not a matter that if Brett was suspended by Gallop so should Carney have been, it's simply that NEITHER of them should be suspended at all. Brett due to not quilty, Carney due to minor traffic offence. And as stated when the same player Carney made a more major offence of being drunk in Canberra (despite it not breaking any law) he was massively suspended. So Gallop got it right on both occasions.

    Now to all those still whinging and saying Gallop got Carney's non suspension wrong for breaking .05 law, do you therefore think Watmough should also be suspended for breaking (smashing) speeding law? You can't have one and not the other. And clearly neither should be suspended it's simply a club and police matter.
     
  2. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,810
    3,170
    Ratings:
    +6,282 / 44
    How does Gallop play favourites in that system ??

    And yes I do think that Watmough should have been supended if Carney was. They both show an equal inability to learn from their mistakes.
     
  3. bazeagle

    bazeagle Well-Known Member

    802
    166
    Ratings:
    +258 / 37
  4. bones

    bones Bones Knows Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    8,367
    5,100
    Ratings:
    +8,999 / 102
    Maybe you're using your teeth.
     
  5. bazeagle

    bazeagle Well-Known Member

    802
    166
    Ratings:
    +258 / 37
    What are you on about Bones?
     
  6. ERNIE FOR NO7

    ERNIE FOR NO7 Active Member

    770
    80
    Ratings:
    +80 / 1
    I still dont get it. How does a player acting badly bring the GAME into disrepute.

    If a Hollywood Actor breaks the law does anyone care. Do people boycott his/her next movie ?

    If the media reported what happened at the after parties of the Logies it would make footy players look like a mob of innocents.

    Some of Leagues Legends, Raper, Raudonikus etc would have been rubbed out of the game if they lived to todays standards. Let footy players be normal young men and judge them on the footy. 

    If they break the law, they get punished like everyone else does. Why should they be punished TWICE. No  one else gets punished twice.
     
  7. Jono

    Jono Well-Known Member

    1,419
    175
    Ratings:
    +176 / 5
    This is what I find funny about all of this: people are pissed and so am I, but it is all Gallop's fault and what he used as the reason is now biting him on the arse. I believe the Carney result was the right one, but what they did to Brett was the incorrect decision. At worst they should have deferred any major decision on Brett until after the court case.

    The decision that Gallop made, as we all said at the time, set a bad standard for the future and now its turned on him...badly. I wouldn't use him as my lawyer ever.
     
  8. Masked Eagle

    Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

    3,939
    919
    Ratings:
    +976 / 0
    Depends on what they do.  Ask Mel Gibson if his recent escapades have been good for his career.
     
  9. Pablo

    Pablo Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    1,249
    312
    Ratings:
    +1,342 / 15
    Mel gibson's career would be ok if he was just a fall down drunk that did stupid things. But because he insults jews his career is over.

    Gallop got it wrong with brett and he knows it. He went over board and now looks stupid everytime he doesn't act against other players stepping out of line. He needs to get it out into the open that he got it wrong with brett and then people with move on.
     
  10. The Eagle

    The Eagle Well-Known Member

    5,841
    480
    Ratings:
    +480 / 0
    Bad post,sorry but ive had very important people die from drink driving accidents and neither were driving a car at the time of it

    Deregistration of contract for putting lives at risk
     
  11. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    4,334
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,338 / 60
    1.  Bones assumes others can reach it too, and do. 

    2.  Gallop suspended Stewart on suspicion.  Love that term.
     
  12. eagles2win

    eagles2win Well-Known Member

    4,963
    494
    Ratings:
    +494 / 0
    CF2 is right IMO but a few things need to be added into his thing players with a past history should have it counted towards future punishments'
     
  13. cf2 is back

    cf2 is back Active Member

    207
    48
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0
    Thanks Ant80.

    I think your point on players with a past is in fact being followed. Carney didn't get kicked out of Canberra and the NRL a few years ago for one incident he was a repeat offender. What he did the other doesn't compare given it was just a dumb driving offence no different to Watmoughs dumb driving offence.

    The media are of course the blame for most of this inflated crap.

    The headline today is that Lowe has followed Dessie by "slamming" the NRL with a machine gun. In fact Lowe rather quietly said he agrees with others there needs to be more consistency. Hardly a scathing attack. But of course the Telegraph thrives on rubbish.
     

Share This Page