News: Inglis struggling with assault claims

[Berkeley_Eagle]

<p id="articleHeadline">Rugby league star Greg Inglis has been struggling since accusations broke that he assaulted his former girlfriend Sally Robinson.</p>

<a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/4199-inglis-struggling-with-assault-claims.html">Read the full article</a>

 

[Rex]

An article on nrl.com designed to draw public sympathy for Inglis.  The words "accusation" and "allegedly" used generously and an absence of "disgraced" and similar derogatory terms. The only accounts were in support of Inglis.  No inflammatory analyses of domestic violence.  No women's rights groups or people with violence against women agendas interviewed.  Gallop not quoted emotively rambling on about player misbehaviour and "face of the game" and "double demerits" and the like.

Not that the nrl shouldn't pour oil on troubled waters ... just the inconsistency is stark.  Are they willing to admit yet that they totally bungled their handling of the Stewie allegations?

 

[The Wheel]

If you are looking for any admissions from Gallop Rex you will be waiting a long time

 

[DSM5]

Surely he wouldn't play this weekend.  After their loss,  I'm sure he will.

 

[The Wheel]

He will play for sure, then Gallop will roll out all the excuses why the NRL couldnt act in time, presumption of innocence etc etc

 

[DSM5]

I meant after their loss to us.  I read somewhere he hasn't trained this week and is in a fragile psychological state.  Smokescreen?  Perhaps, but it would  be a massive humiliation for Gallop. 

 

[missing_something]

I meant after their loss to us.  I read somewhere he hasn't trained this week and is in a fragile psychological state.  Smokescreen?  Perhaps, but it would  be a massive humiliation for Gallop. 

They only need to name him an hour before kickoff and it he'd be on the field before gallop could act - that said it's Melbourne and he wouldn't act anyway,
in future I think we say where suspending a guy indefinitely and then just name him the next week an hour before kickoff as well.

 

[clontaago]

2 weeks (apart from Brett Stewarts bull**** Ban) seems to be about the acceptable club suspension by the NRL.

 

[reyam]

An article on nrl.com designed to draw public sympathy for Inglis.  The words \"accusation\" and \"allegedly\" used generously and an absence of \"disgraced\" and similar derogatory terms. The only accounts were in support of Inglis.  No inflammatory analyses of domestic violence.  No women's rights groups or people with violence against women agendas interviewed.  Gallop not quoted emotively rambling on about player misbehaviour and \"face of the game\" and \"double demerits\" and the like.

Not that the nrl shouldn't pour oil on troubled waters ... just the inconsistency is stark.  Are they willing to admit yet that they totally bungled their handling of the Stewie allegations?

To even compare what Inglis is acused of doing and what Stewart is acused of is like chalk and cheese.I'm not downgrading what Inglis is charged with but it is NOT in the same ballpark of Stewarts charges.Don't get me wrong violence against women of any level is NOT on but please don't try to downplay how serious the charges Stewart faces.If Inglis is found guilty of his charges he will most likely have a good behaviour order on him,were as If Stewart is found guilty he will be looking at gaol time.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

This whole suspension deal is bull****, and has been all year.

Brett Stewart...innocent until proven guilty
Greg Inglis...innocent until proven guilty
Greg Bird.....innocent until he WAS proven guilty

I ask you all this question (and I am an employer NOT an employee).

What right does your boss have to determine wether you as an employee can work or not work if you are on a criminal charge....I'll tell you...NONE.

If one of my staff was on a criminal charge I'd say this.

Mate in my eyes you are not guilty until proven otherwise, until then come to work as usual.

Whilt I too hope GI does not play this weekend, it's bull****, he should be able to play if he wants to and the NRL should be told to take a flying leap!!

 

[clontaago]

Bit different Mark. If they damaged the brand of your company in the process you might think differently? Especially if it was happening consistently.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Understand that BUT I wonder abouit the legal ramifications.

For example I wonder if Snake is found not guilty will he sue the NRL becuase he would have lost a lot of money this year ion endorsements

 

[ManlyBacker]

For example I wonder if Snake is found not guilty will he sue the NRL becuase he would have lost a lot of money this year ion endorsements

That is why the NRL lawyers distanced any action against him by statements saying that it had nothing to do with the police charges. The reality is that isn't the case but that is how they did it.

 

[missing_something]

Understand that BUT I wonder abouit the legal ramifications.

For example I wonder if Snake is found not guilty will he sue the NRL becuase he would have lost a lot of money this year ion endorsements

I think you'll find IF he was found not guilty both the club and the player will consider there positions on that.

 

[ManlyBacker]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/20/2661875.htm?site=sport&section=rugbyleague

Greg Inglis has returned to training with NRL club Melbourne Storm, but remains barred from playing.

Inglis was suspended by the club last week after being charged with assaulting his girlfriend. He faces a court hearing on August 26.

The Storm relented partially on Thursday, allowing the State of Origin and Test centre to return to training with his team-mates.

But Melbourne chief executive Brian Waldron said Inglis would not be allowed to play NRL matches at this stage.

"We just felt it was in his best interests, as the NRL do, to have him join in with team training," Waldron said.

"Nothing changes in relation to his playing - he still remains stood down from that.

"From a wellbeing point of view he needed to get active again, so the best way for him to do it is with his team-mates."

Waldron said he had informed NRL boss David Gallop of the Storm's decision, and that the league supported the club.

 

[Matabele]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/20/2661875.htm?site=sport&section=rugbyleague

\"Nothing changes in relation to his playing - he still remains stood down from that.

  The journalist cut him short so he didn;t say what's on his mind. 

"Nothing changes in relation to his playing - he still remains stood down from that but we will reconsider that position at around 1.30pm on Sunday"

 

[DSM5]

If he doesn't play this Sunday and they lose (which they will), he'll certainly be playing the following week.  Why would a club deliberately put the home game in the finals in jeopardy?  That just doesn't make any sense. 

 

[Canteen Worker]

So much of the action taken by NRL and individual clubs relates to appeasing sponsors and public image concerns (based on media reports) rather than a deep belief in what they are doing. Bottom line is that the NRL doesn't have any deep principles with each situation determining their action rather than a manner of approaching this in a reasoned and rational manner.

At the least there should be an independent panel of respected ex-Judges or something similar that can be called upon when a player supposedly brings the game into disrepute. The clubs also should be called upon to voluntarily develop (in the off-season) a set of principles in which players are stood down.

There must be presumption of innocense for legal charges but also protection to the game, which has taken a terrible battering this year.

 

[Rex]

Compare the AFL approach.  This year Nathan Bock, the Crows best player was alleged ejected from a hotel and assaulted his girlfriend.  Alcohol-fueled, apparently admitted and no question of innocence.  The Crows suspended Bock for one game which they said he could not have played in anyway because of his mental state.  The AFL approved the Crows actions.  The question is why aren't the AFL leadership reactionary puppets, whereas Gallop is?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Who runs AFL? Is it the clubs?