Jack de Belin court case

[Mark from Brisbane]

Not particularly a fan of JDB, even if it wasn’t rape what he did with a wife at home pregnant is a disgrace.

HOWEVER

To me it really outlines how bad this “ guilty before proven innocent “ NRL rule is.

Im no legal Eagle , but in a court of law it’s the other way around , they have to prove you guilty.

The NRL really needs to think about this , I know where they are coming from but legally it’s just not kosher!!

 

[47MVEagle]

Regardless of what we feel about the juries' decisions, and about the player, the fact is this guy has lost three years from his career and has never been found guilty in a court of law.
It's a disgrace.

It'll be interesting to see if JDB ends up taking any legal action against the NRL.

Peter Beetroot Head was pretty confident the no fault stand down rule was legally airtight at the time of introducing it.

 

[Highflier]

I don't really have much time for the guy but he has lost 3 years of his very short career because of this Greenturd rule ,and its ok for that moran with the dopey smile to say its water tight but surely now that the charges have been dropped Debellend and his advisors would want to test that theory at law.Its not like he was accused of being a pedophile whilst working at a childcare center ,he is a pro RL player so its purely an image thing for the NRL to have him stood down .But I think its a bit much to be stood down for 3 years while the legal process moves at molasses like speed and then to have the charges dropped.
Maybe there should be time limitation on this no fault stand down i.e 6 to 9 months .
On the other hand it should be a salutary lesson for those easily tempted and of weak mind putting them selves in that sort of position in the 1st place.
The old "nothing good ever happens after midnight" rule should be the guiding principal .
I wonder if any ramifications for our own lost soul Manase ? Maybe some of our learned legal friends SEA8, Urilon , The Who etc can ponder such a question.
anyway Go Manly

 

[KaZa]

Regardless of what we feel about the juries' decisions, and about the player, the fact is this guy has lost three years from his career and has never been found guilty in a court of law.
It's a disgrace.

You would think they have learnt their lesson from the Brett Stewart case.

 

[Ranga]

It'll be interesting to see if JDB ends up taking any legal action against the NRL.

Peter Beetroot Head was pretty confident the no fault stand down rule was legally airtight at the time of introducing it.

De Belin did challenge it and lost in the Federal Court. He could have appealed, but didn’t.

Tellingly, the Players Association hasn’t agitated for it to be abolished, and the Club’s are OK with it, so seems to be it is here to stay.

 

[OneEyedEagle]

Not particularly a fan of JDB, even if it wasn’t rape what he did with a wife at home pregnant is a disgrace.

HOWEVER

To me it really outlines how bad this “ guilty before proven innocent “ NRL rule is.

Im no legal Eagle , but in a court of law it’s the other way around , they have to prove you guilty.

The NRL really needs to think about this , I know where they are coming from but legally it’s just not kosher!!

At least he was still getting paid during the 3 years out. Although I don't like the rule I understand why the NRL has implemented the rule given the number of indiscretions they have had to deal with. This was purely done to protect the brand and not lose spooners and fans, i.e. mums not allowing their sons to play.

 

[The Who]

At least he was still getting paid during the 3 years out. Although I don't like the rule I understand why the NRL has implemented the rule given the number of indiscretions they have had to deal with. This was purely done to protect the brand and not lose spooners and fans, i.e. mums not allowing their sons to play.

I could almost understand this logic BUT with the pace of justice in this country you are condemning a person who is innocent (in the eyes of the law) to a three year penalty.
Despite the PR spin from Abdo the NRL never realised it took so long for a decision in a trial. The rule must change to a set ban from the sport. I've previously suggested four matches but it seems among Silvertails that this is a little lenient.

 

[eaglebuzz]

I could almost understand this logic BUT with the pace of justice in this country you are condemning a person who is innocent (in the eyes of the law) to a three year penalty.
Despite the PR spin from Abdo the NRL never realised it took so long for a decision in a trial. The rule must change to a set ban from the sport. I've previously suggested four matches but it seems among Silvertails that this is a little lenient.

Brett Stewart missed four matches over what amounted to false accusations and I was ropeable about how long that ban was. Three years is absolutely ridiculous. Heaven forbid Greenturd, Abdo or V'Landys ever get falsely accused of a criminal offence and have to stand themselves down for three years.

 

[OneEyedEagle]

I could almost understand this logic BUT with the pace of justice in this country you are condemning a person who is innocent (in the eyes of the law) to a three year penalty.
Despite the PR spin from Abdo the NRL never realised it took so long for a decision in a trial. The rule must change to a set ban from the sport. I've previously suggested four matches but it seems among Silvertails that this is a little lenient.

I'm not saying I agree with the rule, only understanding the logic and the reason for the decision. Does it need to be changed? Yes, I would agree with that. Everyone has the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

So JDB will play 3rd grade this weekend, didn’t take long did it !!

 

[Woodsie]

Not wishing to down play the significance of being stood down and not playing for 3 years to his career ... but remember, when considering the cost to him, he has been paid for that time. ...

 

[The Who]

Not wishing to down play the significance of being stood down and not playing for 3 years to his career ... but remember, when considering the cost to him, he has been paid for that time. ...

Yes but it's not just about wages, it's about self-worth. He is a football player, and I'm sure he plays because he loves the sport, not just to earn a crust. Anyone would find it distressing to be forced to stop doing something they love -- in our cases stop being able to post our dribble -- particularly as he has always maintained his innocence (consent wise, anyway).

 

[XV-1]

De Belin did challenge it and lost in the Federal Court. He could have appealed, but didn’t.

Tellingly, the Players Association hasn’t agitated for it to be abolished, and the Club’s are OK with it, so seems to be it is here to stay.

Why has the players association just sat on their hands for 2.5 years and done nothing about this no fault stand down?

 

[Stewbojevic]

Why has the players association just sat on their hands for 2.5 years and done nothing about this no fault stand down?

Love it or hate it there hasn’t been another case come up since the original stand downs for De Bellin and Fainu. So it’s working.

But it still seems unfair to me given the slowness of the legal system.

 

[XV-1]

Love it or hate it there hasn’t been another case come up since the original stand downs for De Bellin and Fainu. So it’s working.

But it still seems unfair to me given the slowness of the legal system.

But there will be, sooner than later.
We all know that.

If Players Association are happy with it, we can't complain and nor can the players.

 

[zedzded]

I do feel that it would be fair if the rule was modified to automatically stand down a player for four matches for 'bringing the game into disrepute', but then allow him to resume playing until the court has made its judgement.

I agree. He did what a lot of blokes do, go out, get drunk and look to get laid, but I feel his actions were quite predatory and perhaps NRL players, and other professional sportspeople should be held to a higher ethical standard. They are role models, whether they like it or not. They get fame and fortune, the trade off is that they need to behave themselves for 10 years. And behave I mean not getting smashed and doing lines with hookers whilst having sex with a dog.

Perhaps the NRL need to have harsher penalties, a zero tolerance policy. Public intoxication means a season ban. Perhaps it's harsh, but it will send a message to the man-children that they need to grow up.

If they really want to get drunk, high, cavort with working girls etc do it in your own home or better still go to South America where no-one knows you and no-one cares. Doing it in a busy Sydney nightclub is beyond dumb.

 

[The Who]

Love it or hate it there hasn’t been another case come up since the original stand downs for De Bellin and Fainu. So it’s working.

But it still seems unfair to me given the slowness of the legal system.

The rule only applies when the potential penalty for the charges reach a certain punishment level. It is a very arbitrary rule, and one of many made 'on the run' by the NRL.

 

[The Who]

I agree. He did what a lot of blokes do, go out, get drunk and look to get laid, but I feel his actions were quite predatory and perhaps NRL players, and other professional sportspeople should be held to a higher ethical standard. They are role models, whether they like it or not. They get fame and fortune, the trade off is that they need to behave themselves for 10 years. And behave I mean not getting smashed and doing lines with hookers whilst having sex with a dog.

Perhaps the NRL need to have harsher penalties, a zero tolerance policy. Public intoxication means a season ban. Perhaps it's harsh, but it will send a message to the man-children that they need to grow up.

If they really want to get drunk, high, cavort with working girls etc do it in your own home or better still go to South America where no-one knows you and no-one cares. Doing it in a busy Sydney nightclub is beyond dumb.

I can see your point of view. My basic objection is that any such rule assumes the guilt of a player before they have a chance to clear their name. And, as we know, this can take three years.
The Police don't always get charges correct, as we often see.
Should the NRL act as a kangaroo court, punishing a player without knowing the facts?

 

[The Who]

How niave is the Judge in the case?
“I want to know how it is that the decision taken (by the Director of Public Prosecutions) seems to have come to the attention of the press before the court,” Judge Dina Yehia said on Friday. “Court proceedings are not run in the media.”

Oh yes they are, Judge Dina.

 

[Ranga]

Why has the players association just sat on their hands for 2.5 years and done nothing about this no fault stand down?

My best guess is because they accept that the No Fault Stand Down Policy is legal, that it is designed to protect the image of the game and therefore the income of the players as a whole. And who knows, the majority of the players might actually agree with it.