Jack de Belin court case

[BOZO]

As i stated

As I stated before,I’m pretty sure the NRL have been given the all clear as far as the legality of the No Fault Stand Down policy by a court.

So the court of law has one rule of the innocent before proved guilty and the NRL has its own ?
That does not make sense to me

 

[Budgie]

I understand your thinking but what image would the game have had if Hayne was allowed to continue to play?(not sure Hayne was actually stood down anyway,it was just that nobody wanted to sign him after his charge so the NRL didn’t have to make a decision)

I think the commercial reality is that the NRL can't afford to have these players representing the game.
How many club sponsors, tv sponsors, networks etc are going to be comfortable having these players run out, win MOM, be interviewed?
How many fans are going to feel a little uncomfortable cheering for a possible rapist/stabber type person?
Dollars rule. Bugger the innocent.

 

[Nordburg]

So the court of law has one rule of the innocent before proved guilty and the NRL has its own ?
That does not make sense to me

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[mave]

NRL being made to look like incompetent fools ?

I'm shocked.

 

[BOZO]

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

I cannot open this ?

All I can say is that it is a massive contradiction

Rules and the law are meant to be challenged

 

[Nordburg]

I think the commercial reality is that the NRL can't afford to have these players representing the game.
How many club sponsors, tv sponsors, networks etc are going to be comfortable having these players run out, win MOM, be interviewed?
How many fans are going to feel a little uncomfortable cheering for a possible rapist/stabber type person?
Dollars rule. Bugger the innocent.

The problem in this situation is at this stage or even ever,we won’t know if DeBelin is innocent or not.Fair chance he’ll be freed based purely on a he said she said basis.I wouldn’t like to see someone go to prison based on that but at no stage should anyone feel sorry for DeBelin if he’s released and free to play because at the very least,he’s an absolute grub for what he put his pregnant partner through at the time

 

[MissKate]

Surely you can’t keep having retrial after retrial until you get a decision. If you have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt wouldn’t that go out the window after a second trial. Or is the legal system channeling the nrl bunker who look at something a dozen times and still make the wrong decision

 

[Nordburg]

I cannot open this ?

All I can say is that it is a massive contradiction

Rules and the law are meant to be challenged

Yeah I couldn’t open it the second time either.It’s the story by Brent Read clearing the NFSD policy after the players association tried to have it thrown out after DeBelin’s first trial returned a hung jury

 

[MissKate]

The problem in this situation is at this stage or even ever,we won’t know if DeBelin is innocent or not.Fair chance he’ll be freed based purely on a he said she said basis.I would to see someone go to prison based on that but at no stage should anyone feel sorry for DeBelin if he’s released and free to play because at the very least,he’s an absolute grub for what he put his pregnant partner through at the time

I sort of agree but it’s not illegal to be a douchebag

 

[Dan]

A judge can determine that "no reasonable jury could reach a verdict" or "there is insufficient evidence for a verdict" and direct a verdict of Not Guilty, or dismiss the case (but judges try to stay out of this).

If the Court won't step in, there is no limit to the number of times they go to trial.

True but generally speaking in NSW, a hung Jury twice will only allow a 3rd attempt in very extreme circumstances. If the judge dismisses the jury then it is different

 

[BOZO]

Yeah I couldn’t open it the second time either.It’s the story by Brent Read clearing the NFSD policy after the players association tried to have it thrown out after DeBelin’s first trial returned a hung jury

It is still a massive contradiction to the court of law .

 

[mave]

The problem in this situation is at this stage or even ever,we won’t know if DeBelin is innocent or not.Fair chance he’ll be freed based purely on a he said she said basis.I wouldn’t to see someone go to prison based on that but at no stage should anyone feel sorry for DeBelin if he’s released and free to play because at the very least,he’s an absolute grub for what he put his pregnant partner through at the time

If we are indefinitely banning players for being grubs off the field, I hope you will enjoy watching the Turbo brothers play Jarrod Croker every week.

 

[Nordburg]

I sort of agree but it’s not illegal to be a doucebag

No it isn’t and I’m not suggesting he be incarcerated for that.It’s just I can envisage all the morons on social media saying he was harshly treated and the lady at the centre of this dealing with abuse,like last weeks events with Hayne.

 

[Dan]

I sort of agree but it’s not illegal to be a doucebag

True, I've been a douchebag for years

 

[Nordburg]

It is still a massive contradiction to the court of law .

It happens in so many industries.Police,School Teachers etc would all be told to stand down if in the same situation,some without pay

 

[Budgie]

If we are indefinitely banning players for being grubs off the field, I hope you will enjoy watching the Turbo brothers play Jarrod Croker every week.

We?

 

[BOZO]

It happens in so many industries.Police,School Teachers etc would all be told to stand down if in the same situation,some without pay

They stand down without pay and if they are proved to be innocent they pay the price twice ?

What a farce

 

[Shoe1]

If we are indefinitely banning players for being grubs off the field, I hope you will enjoy watching the Turbo brothers play Jarrod Croker every week.

Bring it on, our 9th premiership

 

[Bearfax]

It happens in so many industries.Police,School Teachers etc would all be told to stand down if in the same situation,some without pay

Generally that is the case if it is perceived that it somehow will impact on their duties in the role. Understandable in this case with schools and risk to children and with Police there is the question of acting as a legal officer with such a charge against him.

However there have been cases where the nature of the charge does not impact on the business directly and the business in dismissing or suspending the person has been found at fault and required to pay compensation.

The High Court decision from one judge is actually a confusing verdict given it wasn't based on risk of any thing other than public reaction and the risk of loss of sponsorship and loss of respect for the NRL. This was a most unusual verdict as it seems to fly against the principles of innocent until found guilty, given there was no direct risk to anyone actually playing on the field.

 

[mave]

We?

We....

The game as a whole, NRL, governing body, etc....