Jack de Belin court case

[Nordburg]

The NRL are discretionally standing players down under their made-up stand down "no fault" policy.
If you think that this has no effect on the players reputation, then I disagree....see Brett Stewart as example 1....and his subsequent reaction to David Gallop suspending him for 4 games.

And in other examples, like Matt Lodge, the game closes ranks around him, and he is free to play, despite his arguably more despicable actions, also involving a female, as well as her child.
Russell Packer being another.

JDB tarnished his own reputation by cheating on his partner.Different administration running the game when Stewart has wrongly accused.Whilst I disagree with Lodge and Packer’s return to play,they spent considerable time out of the game.The stand down policy was brought in because the game had had enough of the moronic behaviour of some players that were unfairly tarnishing the game and the players that do behave.A line in the sand had to be drawn,if they don’t like the rule,don’t put themselves in a position to activate the clause,not hard

 

[mave]

JDB tarnished his own reputation by cheating on his partner.Different administration running the game when Stewart has wrongly accused.Whilst I disagree with Lodge and Packer’s return to play,they spent considerable time out of the game.The stand down policy was brought in because the game had had enough of the moronic behaviour of some players that were unfairly tarnishing the game and the players that do behave.A line in the sand had to be drawn,if they don’t like the rule,don’t put themselves in a position to activate the clause,not hard

How could DeBelin not put himself in a position to activate the NRL stand down clause?
He was the guinea pig wasnt he ?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

No JDB fan here , he’s a wife cheating prick BUT I just can’t get past the “ innocent until proven guilty “ rule of law in this country.

If the accused pleads guilty first you and is just waiting sentencing then yes must be stood down BUT if the accused is defending the charge then the presumption of innocence clause should be the go to.

I disagree totally with the stand down policy and have since Brett Stewart days where he was given a month suspension before this policy was introduced.

 

[Leader of the Flock]

IMHO, the law surrounding sexual assault is wrong.

At present, only the victims are protected by having they names forever suppressed, this I generally agree with(not if the allegations are false or vindictive, which could/would be hard to determine, or for personal gain, which may be debatable), the accused are named immediately and that can’t ever be erased from the Public record.

The names of the accused should be withheld until they are convicted, there would IMHO, not generally be a huge risk in them continuing to live their lives as normal until the charges were proven. If they are found not guilty, then there’s no need for them to ever be named. If the law was framed this way, then JdB and Sinclair could have played on until, or if, they were convicted.

The “No fault stand down“ rule (but with the perception of guilt in the public’s mind) was introduced, and unsuccessfully challenged in Court, to protect the game’s image and buisness, which is understandable.

However, it really throws the players under the bus in regard to their image and reputation.

The NRL wouldn’t have suffered reputational damage as the names of players wouldn’t be out there in the media until a conviction was recorded, then it would be the same as every other business who has a person convicted of an offence.

Just my opinion and I guess there’s other who believe the current system is best or possibly others who believe that all parties should be named.

 

[StuBoot]

No JDB fan here , he’s a wife cheating prick BUT I just can’t get past the “ innocent until proven guilty “ rule of law in this country.

If the accused pleads guilty first you and is just waiting sentencing then yes must be stood down BUT if the accused is defending the charge then the presumption of innocence clause should be the go to.

I disagree totally with the stand down policy and have since Brett Stewart days where he was given a month suspension before this policy was introduced.

It's a tough one.
A one size fits all approach is unfair on some and fair on most, it's the way of the world mostly.

The Tigers chairman was on the radio this morning and said that whilst the NRL's policy may seem unfair it is not unlawful.

Most governing bodies, boards or employers would stand down an employee if it felt that certain allegations could tarnish/damage their brand or be bad for business regardless - and they'd probably do it without pay.
Whether they are named or not, word would get out and it's up to each organisation to determine their reputational damage.

I get the "innocent until proven guilty" rule of law BUT look at the flip side.
What if (and it's a big what if) the NRL let him play on, mingle with fans/sponsors etc - would Joe Public want his kids looking up to him, get an autograph etc ?
Can you imagine the opposition crowds? We saw it - and still see it with Snake.
What if similar allegations were levelled again?
Or worse?
What about the poor girl that sees him earning his $$$ and living like nothing has happened?

Not saying he's innocent or guilty but once it was challenged in court and deemed lawful then the NRL has no other option, they don't determine how long before something goes to court unfortunately.
Yep, one mistake has cost him so much already but it can certainly be a lot more.

 

[yokahontas]

No JDB fan here , he’s a wife cheating prick BUT I just can’t get past the “ innocent until proven guilty “ rule of law in this country.

If the accused pleads guilty first you and is just waiting sentencing then yes must be stood down BUT if the accused is defending the charge then the presumption of innocence clause should be the go to.

I disagree totally with the stand down policy and have since Brett Stewart days where he was given a month suspension before this policy was introduced.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty under the law - but there are plenty of other employers who would, and do, stand down employees until there’s a verdict on charges like this (and lots of other types of charges that make potential interaction with the public, kids, even colleagues, a tricky area). He’s been on full pay the whole time, lots of others aren’t so lucky. And being able to continue training with his teammates makes it more of a ‘restricted duties’ situation than a proper stand-down anyway - much like ADF members, cops etc shuffling paper in an office if they’re facing AVOs or similar that restrict their access to firearms until found not guilty.

 

[Kevinward777]

Sure, innocent until proven guilty under the law - but there are plenty of other employers who would, and do, stand down employees until there’s a verdict on charges like this (and lots of other types of charges that make potential interaction with the public, kids, even colleagues, a tricky area). He’s been on full pay the whole time, lots of others aren’t so lucky. And being able to continue training with his teammates makes it more of a ‘restricted duties’ situation than a proper stand-down anyway - much like ADF members, cops etc shuffling paper in an office if they’re facing AVOs or similar that restrict their access to firearms until found not guilty.

Three years is a quarter of his entire playing career in football taken away. There needs to be consideration given to both parties here. If he is found guilty then he will be punished accordingly by the law. If he is found to be innocent then he has in fact become the victim. The expense of legal fees and damage to potential future earnings can never be recouped. His reputation will be forever tarnished.

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

 

[mave]

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

Haha...B Stewart keeps getting brought up, and no-one who is advocating for the stand down rule wants to touch it.

I wonder why?

 

[wombatgc]

They will learn from their mistakes .... there will be no girl invited to spoil the celebration next time ..

Sphincter increase by 2cm.

 

[Nordburg]

Three years is a quarter of his entire playing career in football taken away. There needs to be consideration given to both parties here. If he is found guilty then he will be punished accordingly by the law. If he is found to be innocent then he has in fact become the victim. The expense of legal fees and damage to potential future earnings can never be recouped. His reputation will be forever tarnished.

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

Would Stewart’s charge seen him get a 10+ year sentence if found guilty?

 

[mave]

Would Stewart’s charge seen him get a 10+ year sentence if found guilty?

Does that matter ?

The bull**** policy was also able to be enacted at Greenburgs discretion....which is my main gripe against it.

How can the NRL be discretionary on matters that have not been tested in court.

When was the CEO of the day decreed to be judge, jury and executioner?

 

[Kevinward777]

Would Stewart’s charge seen him get a 10+ year sentence if found guilty?

Brett was falsely charged with sexual misconduct against a young woman. The rule applies to ten year sentences and crimes against women. I present you with Dylan WALKER... so yes, he would have been stood down. The rule needs to go.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Can both parties now choose to have a retrial heard by a judge only?
I think that a judge has greater chance of sorting out the fact from the fiction, particularly in such cases of he-said, she-said.
There is every chance another jury would be unlikely to come up with a finding, whereas a judge* would deliver a verdict, one way or the other. There also would be enormous cost savings to the taxpayer.
* In fact, why couldn't the judge in a case be empowered to give a verdict when there is a hung jury? Isn't it time to modernise the legal system?

Maybe you know more judges, for me I'd take my chances with a jury, thank you!
Hey who's to say you wouldn't get a judge like Greenberg? 'Look into my eyes'

 

[Batty]

Maybe you know more judges, for me I'd take my chances with a jury, thank you!
Hey who's to say you wouldn't get a judge like Greenberg? 'Look into my eyes'

Is it possible to get Greenberg’s daughters touch footy team to review?...

 

[yokahontas]

Three years is a quarter of his entire playing career in football taken away. There needs to be consideration given to both parties here. If he is found guilty then he will be punished accordingly by the law. If he is found to be innocent then he has in fact become the victim. The expense of legal fees and damage to potential future earnings can never be recouped. His reputation will be forever tarnished.

If the Brett Stewart incident occurred under this same ruling body he would have likely missed two entire seasons. Just because a girl and her criminal father saw an opportunity for a scam. How can that be defined as justice?

That's the reality of this rule.

What about this bloke?

Mum’s shocked text after swim arrest

A mother texted back “I think so. Oh f**k” when her ex-husband messaged to ask if a man just arrested on child sexual abuse charges was their daughter’s swim teacher, a court has heard.

www.google.com.au

Should he have been allowed to keep working, on the off chance that he’s found not guilty?

De Belin’s football career had a time cap regardless of any stand-down period, or any time out due to injury, suspensions, personal/family reasons or whatever. He has continued to receive his salary of (reportedly) close to $600K p.a., and apparently there is also a contract extension on the table if found not guilty. So he would have a pretty hard time arguing loss of earnings, future earnings etc just based on that. And you can’t count ‘potential’ rep bonuses etc because there’s no guarantee of selection, ever - and no guarantee you wouldn’t have been injured or suspended even if you were the most likely player to be selected in your position.

Old mate above? I doubt he will ever work as a swim teacher again, guilty or not - nobody is going to take the risk on him. And that’s a career that, had he wanted, he potentially could have pursued until retirement age.

These guys need to wake up to themselves and recognise how privileged they are to earn the money they do, for playing a game that other people (on far lower incomes!) actually pay to participate in. And like it or not, part of the reason they are excessively remunerated the way they are is because of the public profile and the money generated from selling a product to corporate stakeholders as well as fans. I have sympathy for the poor bastards who never put a foot wrong but have that golden opportunity taken away from them by circumstances beyond their control (usually injury); I have zero for those who take advantage of it, behave like total arseholes, and then want to cry foul when they are rightly punished for biting the hand that feeds them.

 

[XV-1]

Brett was falsely charged with sexual misconduct against a young woman. The rule applies to ten year sentences and crimes against women. I present you with Dylan WALKER... so yes, he would have been stood down. The rule needs to go.

Dylan Walker was stood down on the no fault BS policy.

 

[Shane4500]

Dylan Walker was stood down on the no fault BS policy.

Yes somehow I am wrongly or rightly firmly in the court of innocent until proven guilty. This "policy" is just a PR exercise by the NRL to appease sponsors and without being sexist the female supporters/Mums etc. Nothing more nothing less - that is the reality. I just simply cannot for the life of me understand how the proof of guilt, on issues which have nothing to do with playing football, is not the overriding principle. Anyone associated with Manly and the disgrace of what happened to Brett Stewart should have very long and clear memories. Both JDB and Fainu should be playing. This is not a position I take because I am a Manly supporter. This is about fairness and accepting the verdict of the day in court. That verdict alone again unless it is a breach of contract or something to do with playing football where a club/NRL can take their own action should decide if a player is stood away from the game and their career. The fact JDB was not found guilty ... yet ...and their is a hung jury certainly says to me that at least some of the peers on that jury didn't believe they could convict him of the charges. Just why then is a man who might well be found not guilty (which is very different to whether he actually did what was said ie he might in fact have committed the act but the evidence just doesn't support that) be deprived of playing rugby league until a court gets around to deciding? He might well be getting paid so that might lessen the impact. He might well be a grub in the court of high morals but .... It all just doesn't sit well with me. Sorry about that. Just my view and deride and attack away - I certainly wont entertain defending my position. Position stated - moving on!

 

[wombatgc]

Does that matter ?

The bull**** policy was also able to be enacted at Greenburgs discretion....which is my main gripe against it.

How can the NRL be discretionary on matters that have not been tested in court.

When was the CEO of the day decreed to be judge, jury and executioner?

That is exactly my beef with the policy. Some bald headed fuuckwit can still have a bullshiit rule in place long after he’s gone. Abdo needs to man up, and squash anything Greenturd came up with. Grow some balls you political hack.You’re starting to sound as bad as Annersley.

 

[mave]

So just to clarify with the bleeding hearts....

JDB stood down until the case is finalised either way. Yay NRL!!

Brett Stewart ????

I won't hold my breath for a response.

 

[Shoe1]

Maybe you know more judges, for me I'd take my chances with a jury, thank you!
Hey who's to say you wouldn't get a judge like Greenberg? 'Look into my eyes'

If I’m innocent I would opt for a judge. If I were guilty I’d select the jury option.