Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Jack de Belin court case

sean john

Manly Til I Die
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
3,311
Reaction score
4,790
In this digital age I dont think the police have to "tap" mobile phones they can simply request the records from whichever service provider their subject's phone service is with.

Everything is recorded now.
Heaps legal
 

Shoe1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
12,114
Reaction score
15,975
In this digital age I dont think the police have to "tap" mobile phones they can simply request the records from whichever service provider their subject's phone service is with.

Everything is recorded now.
There’s probably a record of everything you’ve ever posted on this site.
 

yokahontas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
5,341
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.

I’ll give you one.

That kind of entirely confected case is very, very unlikely to happen. In the rare event that it does, there are some avenues for financial compensation (some of which Stewart took), and there should be more. There should also be much, much bigger consequences for anyone involved in making that kind of false allegation - but that is an area where the legal system needs reform, not the NRL’s (or any other employer’s) policy.

Suspension on full pay is not the impost people are making it out to be; in fact it also shelters the player (or employee) from public ridicule and backlash, and allows them time to focus on their legal issues.

One outlying case is not a reason to give a get out of jail free card to every douchebag who behaves like an absolute twat and finds themselves at odds with the legal system as a result.

And FWIW, I also don’t think there should be players running around who have serious criminal convictions - or domestic violence history, either - behind them. These guys are in an incredibly privileged position, that potentially allows them to set themselves up for life if they play their cards right. They get more than enough education about how to behave, and if they can’t appreciate that position of privilege and great fortune and toe the line then that opportunity should be given to someone who can.
 

Ranga

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
1,342
Reaction score
2,995
@mave, I feel like I am leading with my chin here with you as for most it is a black and white issue, but here it goes...

While the effect of the stand down policy is the same as a suspension in terms of a player not being able to play footy, the stand down policy is different to a situation where the NRL finds a player 'guilty' of conduct and suspends them (e.g., Snake). For JDB, Hayne and Manase, it's the severity of the charges that triggered the policy (I'll get to the NRL discretionary component shortly) and not the NRL's assessment of what is alleged to have happened. There is no suspension in the sense that the NRL has found them guilty of conduct relating to the incident and applied a penalty in judgement, like they did with Snake. And again in contrast to Snake, the trigger for the policy to be invoked was the severity of the charges (11+ years jail as a maximum term or whatever it is), which is (a) objective, (b) targeted only at allegations of a serious crime being committed and therefore charges more likely to tarnish the image of the game and (c) capable of being consistently applied.

The policy is not without flaws, which is not surprising given how rushed it was. As others have said, there is an issue with how long it takes for matters to get to trial. There is also an issue in my mind relating to how the policy had retrospective application. And without doubt there is an issue where the NRL CEO can exercise discretion to apply the policy to a player charged with a crime that doesn't satisfy the mandatory (i.e., objective) stand down criteria - that I cannot support.

But the NRL says that the stand down policy is necessary to protect its legitimate interests, and the NRL's interests are on this point aligned with the players as a whole - i.e., to make $$. I don't think it can be denied that the NRL came under severe pressure from its stakeholders following these laying of serious charges against at least 2 players during the Summer from Hell and revenue loss was a real possibility without it taking action. The court said it was reasonable and not unlawful. The clubs agree with it (including Manly) and the RLPA is hardly jumping up and down about it (I honestly expected more from them).

I have worked in and around a number of boards of large companies for a few years now and I can assure you that these types of policy decisions are only ever made where the board feels backed into a corner as they try to balance all of the competing priorities. I bet there were members of the Commission that felt uneasy about it but thought that it was the only way forward and, if a challenge was successful in court, they would have been fine with that outcome. But as I said, the court said it was not unlawful so here it is.

So, provided they remove the discretionary component, I can get my head around why the policy is in place. There is always the risk of someone fabricating allegations, but all players are now clear and agree when signing their playing contract as to what will happen if they are charged with a serious offence.

Many will disagree with what I have written above, so be it. I don't see these types of issues in black and white - just a mass of grey.
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
19,614
Reaction score
20,940
I would love the no-fault stand-down rule to be scrapped, but if I'm honest, the main reason I want it scrapped is because I want Manly to win and we seem to lose key players to this rule.

It's been spelled out multiple times here that its not only the NRL, but also many many businesses and institutions that suspend people charged with serious offences. It's not really controversial. It is clear there is damage to the game's image with each player atrocity, and that damage comes at a dollar cost.

Yes the automatic stand-down rule has an arbitrary trigger point, and the discretionary stand-down has no principled guidelines around it. But at the time, the sheer number of incidents coming to HQ's notice pretty much forced the NRL to do something. The serious criminal cases that made the papers were merely the tip of the iceberg. A lot of the complaints were about various misogynist behaviours. A small minority of players were tarnishing the rest, and the game.

As for the Brett Stewart case, that is an exception in many ways and doesn't carry much weight as a reason to scrap the no-fault stand-down. If something like that happened now, then there would be a very unlucky player missing a lot of games. But its still worth remembering that it was only Brett's serious injuries that spared him (and the game) from the awkward scenario of him getting booed and abused each week as he played on while under ongoing prosecution for sexual assault.
 

Kevinward777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
7,451
Reaction score
12,490
What about this bloke?


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.
And if he is innocent? What, doesn't that count? Being accused of something is not the same as being caught doing something. Neither is it the same as having prior convictions or past form. If de Bellin is innocent-which may very well be the case, then he has been made to pay a heavy price for being accused of something.

Brett Stewart is one example but there are many others where sportsmen have been falsely accused by a jaded woman or a gold digging tart. I'm not saying that is the case here, however the jury failed to reach a guilty verdict. Then there's the fact he's inadvertently been labelled as guilty by being stood down. The "no fault" rubbish is just that, rubbish.

Ive known several NRL players over the course of my life and there are some crazy women who pursue these guys. There's no room for rapists in society or in sports... but peoples rights need not be trampled underfoot in deciding whether a crime has been committed either. No other code uses a no fault stand down... I wonder why?
 

Kevinward777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
7,451
Reaction score
12,490
I’ll give you one.

That kind of entirely confected case is very, very unlikely to happen. In the rare event that it does, there are some avenues for financial compensation (some of which Stewart took), and there should be more. There should also be much, much bigger consequences for anyone involved in making that kind of false allegation - but that is an area where the legal system needs reform, not the NRL’s (or any other employer’s) policy.

Suspension on full pay is not the impost people are making it out to be; in fact it also shelters the player (or employee) from public ridicule and backlash, and allows them time to focus on their legal issues.

One outlying case is not a reason to give a get out of jail free card to every douchebag who behaves like an absolute twat and finds themselves at odds with the legal system as a result.

And FWIW, I also don’t think there should be players running around who have serious criminal convictions - or domestic violence history, either - behind them. These guys are in an incredibly privileged position, that potentially allows them to set themselves up for life if they play their cards right. They get more than enough education about how to behave, and if they can’t appreciate that position of privilege and great fortune and toe the line then that opportunity should be given to someone who can.
If a player is found to be guilty of a serious offence they should be convicted like any other citizen. No doubt about it. If a player is charged and denied bail because the evidence against them is overwhelming... then so be it.
 

Kevinward777

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
7,451
Reaction score
12,490
Whatever happened to the lowlife conman who stitched up Brett Stewart? Did he go to jail for his offence?
 

yokahontas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
5,341
And if he is innocent? What, doesn't that count? Being accused of something is not the same as being caught doing something. Neither is it the same as having prior convictions or past form. If de Bellin is innocent-which may very well be the case, then he has been made to pay a heavy price for being accused of something.

Brett Stewart is one example but there are many others where sportsmen have been falsely accused by a jaded woman or a gold digging tart. I'm not saying that is the case here, however the jury failed to reach a guilty verdict. Then there's the fact he's inadvertently been labelled as guilty by being stood down. The "no fault" rubbish is just that, rubbish.

Ive known several NRL players over the course of my life and there are some crazy women who pursue these guys. There's no room for rapists in society or in sports... but peoples rights need not be trampled underfoot in deciding whether a crime has been committed either. No other code uses a no fault stand down... I wonder why?

He may well be innocent - or found to be not guilty. Which isn’t always the same thing, and which is why I don’t see any swim school wanting to take the risk of employing him in future if that is indeed the outcome.

But you entirely missed the point - whether Daniels is guilty or not has also yet to be determined. Nonetheless, he is not working in his chosen field due to the charges he’s facing either - and I don’t see anyone suggesting there’s a problem with standing down someone facing child sexual assault charges from his job. He’s entitled to the presumption of innocence too, and it’s the kids’ words against his - but would you risk having him teach children in the meantime?

Same as Defence members facing charges involving violence - they may well be innocent too, but do you want them having access to firearms in the meantime? (Part of the reason that is restricted, BTW, is the members’ own welfare - they don’t want people under extreme stress having access to lethal weapons to harm themselves with either).

Have you considered the scenario where de Belin is hypothetically allowed to play until he is re-tried, happens to be found guilty, and is then imprisoned? Would you seriously be ok with having a guy playing in the NRL one week, and a convicted rapist the next? You seriously cannot see the PR disaster that would be?!
 

40 years an eagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,402
Reaction score
5,638
Whatever happened to the lowlife conman who stitched up Brett Stewart? Did he go to jail for his offence?
The "accusers" names were suppressed through the whole debacle and there is zero information that they suffered any punishment.

This is a HUGE problem in such cases that there is no deterrent for making false claims against someone. Ok you didn't make a ****load of money, bad luck, carry on.

I am in no way endorsing De Bellend's behavior or judging his guilt but "proven" bulldust claims such as Brett's should carry a penalty. How much did it cost Brett to defend himself...both financially and emotionally? The law is an ass.
 

Shane4500

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
544
Reaction score
1,183
The "accusers" names were suppressed through the whole debacle and there is zero information that they suffered any punishment.

This is a HUGE problem in such cases that there is no deterrent for making false claims against someone. Ok you didn't make a ****load of money, bad luck, carry on.

I am in no way endorsing De Bellend's behavior or judging his guilt but "proven" bulldust claims such as Brett's should carry a penalty. How much did it cost Brett to defend himself...both financially and emotionally? The law is an ass.
I agree JDB's behaviour was abhorrent BUT gee there is a lot of moralistic garbage on this post. I am sure something was said once by someone that goes something like this.... Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.... Many of those claiming the moral high ground maybe should look in their closet.... just saying. We all - all of us have skeletons of some description that others on here would be "outraged" at. Obviously not disgusting behaviour like JDB but we all have skeltons. Then for people to flippantly say that the Brett Stewart case is an anomaly and so it really doesn't matter/count - what a load of crap. Those same people probably would say in the US with the death penalty that if the odd innocent person is executed... it is just an anomaly and nothing to worry about lol lol. Tell Brett Stewart that gee it really didn't matter mate - your case was just an anomaly - get over it! Give me a break. For people to be saying oh but in these other industries/workplaces people get suspended from their workplace.... yes they do but their careers in that workplace don't have a finite timeline... they can probably return to that career based on their skills/experience in two three five years time if they are found not guilty. In Rugby League there is a sunset - called getting on in age and retiring. Also in those other industries/workplaces the person is suspended generally because the allegations directly impact on the workplace as in someone is alleged to have misappropriated money or has done something else that means their position in the company/organisation is untenable until they are cleared. Now just on that - what happens if a player is accused of some white collar fraud or maybe tax evasion with possible 10 year jail sentences - that is ok that we stand those players away as well? And yes what happens if a player is wrongly accused of something - he is stood aside.... the court case isn't for two maybe even three years.... his contract ran out just after the allegations were made. No club wants to touch them because of the allegations and because this policy precludes them from playing so they have no contract - no income. They struggle to get a job because of the allegations so still no income..... Then in three years they are found not guilty. This is still fair - especially if that player was a lower profile player not on big bucks but his contract was enough to have a roof over the head - food on the table etc? That is still ok? If the behaviour/allegation directly impacts on the club/players ability to perform that is very different. The fact that JDB/Fainu etc are allowed to train etc just not play shows this is for "show" because if the NRL were seriously worried about the negative impacts on the game etc - the policy would also have a no train clause - no association with the club at all clause because that then could be seen as protecting the interests of the game in a serious way and keeping these players away from the game. However the only reason - and I say the only reason we have this policy in place is to appease sponsors etc. This policy has nothing to do with fairness - not one bit. But yes - some people need to check their closets! Now.... moving on!
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
19,614
Reaction score
20,940
However the only reason - and I say the only reason we have this policy in place is to appease sponsors etc. This policy has nothing to do with fairness -
Sponsors were definitely a consideration in the no-fault rule, but that is quite significant because without tv broadcast deals the game as we know it would cease.
As for fairness, you may be right. Its a judgment call. Although you seem to be coming only from the standpoint of fairness to accused players, there is also the issue of being fair to those who are victims of crimes, or of boorish or brutish behaviour. If a national sport is seen to condone that behaviour, does that enable and help to perpetuate it?

Personally I think it is reasonable to have 'bringing the game into disrepute' clauses in player contracts. And if someone is charged with a serious offence do you really want them front and centre as the face of the game? "Accused rapist Jack Debelin wins the wally Lewis medal!' I agree it's a judgment call.
 

Mark from Brisbane

“ Triggered Boomer”
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
32,810
Reaction score
43,511
Sponsors were definitely a consideration in the no-fault rule, but that is quite significant because without tv broadcast deals the game as we know it would cease.
As for fairness, you may be right. Its a judgment call. Although you seem to be coming only from the standpoint of fairness to accused players, there is also the issue of being fair to those who are victims of crimes, or of boorish or brutish behaviour. If a national sport is seen to condone that behaviour, does that enable and help to perpetuate it?

Personally I think it is reasonable to have 'bringing the game into disrepute' clauses in player contracts. And if someone is charged with a serious offence do you really want them front and centre as the face of the game? "Accused rapist Jack Debelin wins the wally Lewis medal!' I agree it's a judgment call.
It’s a hard one isn’t it , and such a fine line, I can see both sides of the story.
 

yokahontas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,929
Reaction score
5,341
I agree JDB's behaviour was abhorrent BUT gee there is a lot of moralistic garbage on this post. I am sure something was said once by someone that goes something like this.... Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.... Many of those claiming the moral high ground maybe should look in their closet.... just saying. We all - all of us have skeletons of some description that others on here would be "outraged" at. Obviously not disgusting behaviour like JDB but we all have skeltons. Then for people to flippantly say that the Brett Stewart case is an anomaly and so it really doesn't matter/count - what a load of crap. Those same people probably would say in the US with the death penalty that if the odd innocent person is executed... it is just an anomaly and nothing to worry about lol lol. Tell Brett Stewart that gee it really didn't matter mate - your case was just an anomaly - get over it! Give me a break. For people to be saying oh but in these other industries/workplaces people get suspended from their workplace.... yes they do but their careers in that workplace don't have a finite timeline... they can probably return to that career based on their skills/experience in two three five years time if they are found not guilty. In Rugby League there is a sunset - called getting on in age and retiring. Also in those other industries/workplaces the person is suspended generally because the allegations directly impact on the workplace as in someone is alleged to have misappropriated money or has done something else that means their position in the company/organisation is untenable until they are cleared. Now just on that - what happens if a player is accused of some white collar fraud or maybe tax evasion with possible 10 year jail sentences - that is ok that we stand those players away as well? And yes what happens if a player is wrongly accused of something - he is stood aside.... the court case isn't for two maybe even three years.... his contract ran out just after the allegations were made. No club wants to touch them because of the allegations and because this policy precludes them from playing so they have no contract - no income. They struggle to get a job because of the allegations so still no income..... Then in three years they are found not guilty. This is still fair - especially if that player was a lower profile player not on big bucks but his contract was enough to have a roof over the head - food on the table etc? That is still ok? If the behaviour/allegation directly impacts on the club/players ability to perform that is very different. The fact that JDB/Fainu etc are allowed to train etc just not play shows this is for "show" because if the NRL were seriously worried about the negative impacts on the game etc - the policy would also have a no train clause - no association with the club at all clause because that then could be seen as protecting the interests of the game in a serious way and keeping these players away from the game. However the only reason - and I say the only reason we have this policy in place is to appease sponsors etc. This policy has nothing to do with fairness - not one bit. But yes - some people need to check their closets! Now.... moving on!

No, the fact that they are allowed to continue to train makes it a ‘restricted duties’ situation rather than an actual suspension/stand down. And you are incorrect about other industries or organisations only applying that kind of rule if it directly impacts the workplace/ duties of the job. Serious charges of ANY kind will get you time off work in many, many workplaces - how about the chef in Newcastle who faced charges for that altercation where the burglar died? He was suspended by his employer for an extended period of time (and also remanded in custody before that) - I don’t think there was much risk of him punching on with burglars in the kitchen of the RSL, do you?

What exactly are you suggesting de Belin has missed out on, while he has continued to be paid ~$600K per year? The other point you’re missing about sport compared to other jobs is that people stood down in other industries miss out on promotion/career advancement or progression opportunities while they sort their charges out, and for a period of time after (they lose seniority/their place in the pecking order) - that doesn’t exist in rugby league. JDB was never getting promoted to Detective Chief Superintendent of lock forwards, no matter how many games he managed to string together.
 

Shane4500

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
544
Reaction score
1,183
No, the fact that they are allowed to continue to train makes it a ‘restricted duties’ situation rather than an actual suspension/stand down. And you are incorrect about other industries or organisations only applying that kind of rule if it directly impacts the workplace/ duties of the job. Serious charges of ANY kind will get you time off work in many, many workplaces - how about the chef in Newcastle who faced charges for that altercation where the burglar died? He was suspended by his employer for an extended period of time (and also remanded in custody before that) - I don’t think there was much risk of him punching on with burglars in the kitchen of the RSL, do you?

What exactly are you suggesting de Belin has missed out on, while he has continued to be paid ~$600K per year? The other point you’re missing about sport compared to other jobs is that people stood down in other industries miss out on promotion/career advancement or progression opportunities while they sort their charges out, and for a period of time after (they lose seniority/their place in the pecking order) - that doesn’t exist in rugby league. JDB was never getting promoted to Detective Chief Superintendent of lock forwards, no matter how many games he managed to string together.
ahhhh... moving on sorry. Not my thing to defend or explain. Just how I am.
 

The Wheel

https://membership.seaeagles.com.au/
Premium Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
16,096
Reaction score
15,139
New trial has been set down for April in Sydney
 

The Who

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
16,945
I'm sure when the NRL 'brains trust" conceived of this so-called 'No-fault standown rule" they never took into account the snails pace at which our judicial system works, nor the possibility that a court case could still end without a decision.
The rule is, in effect, a two-year ban on a player, and possibly even longer, with the potential that the player is innocent of the charges.
I'll re-iterate my suggestion of year's past: Yes, any serious charge does damage the reputation of the NRL so stand-down the player for four premiership matches automatically. Then let him resume playing and allow the legal system to work its way towards a finite decision on guilt or not.
IMO that is the fairest way to punish a player for being charged, yet it doesn't cripple his career before he ever gets his chance to defend the charge.
 

XV-1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
2,448
Reaction score
3,850
De Belin’s playing future is under a cloud after the jury in his sexual assault trial was unable to reach a verdict this week.

St George Illawarra CEO Ryan Webb says a clause in de Belin’s recent contract extension means the player will only be paid a percentage of his salary if his case continues beyond the 2020 season


Isn't this against the NRL rules of the no fault stand down?
A legal can of worms coming and law suits.
 

Latest posts

2020 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Panthers 20 18 1 1 299 37
2 Storm 20 16 0 4 258 32
3 Eels 20 15 0 5 104 30
4 Roosters 20 14 0 6 230 28
5 Raiders 20 14 0 6 128 28
6 Rabbitohs 20 12 0 8 169 24
7 Knights 20 11 1 8 47 23
8 Sharks 20 10 0 10 0 20
9 Titans 20 9 0 11 -117 18
10 Warriors 20 8 0 12 -115 16
11 Tigers 20 7 0 13 -65 14
12 Dragons 20 7 0 13 -74 14
13 Sea Eagles 20 7 0 13 -134 14
14 Cowboys 20 5 0 15 -152 10
15 Bulldogs 20 3 0 17 -222 6
16 Broncos 20 3 0 17 -356 6
Top Bottom