cf2 is back
Reserve Grader
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.
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.