Manase Fainu

[malroon]

I always thought it was "Innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around..

 

[Bearfax]

I always thought it was "Innocent until proven guilty", not the other way around..

Not in Rugby League circles it seems

 

[NFN2IT]

If Finau is due back Rd 23 assuming he wins his court case I'd be giving him the rest of the year off, he hasn't played in that long I think he would do more harm than good, he is still so green it's a unrealistic expectation that he will come in and make any kind of significant difference, not knocking the bloke he has the potential to be an amazing player but almost 2 years out of the game when so much has changed in how the game is played now and he is still a rookie. Give him the rest of year off and a full pre season and come next year he can reset and go again

 

[Stewbojevic]

If Finau is due back Rd 23 assuming he wins his court case I'd be giving him the rest of the year off, he hasn't played in that long I think he would do more harm than good, he is still so green it's a unrealistic expectation that he will come in and make any kind of significant difference, not knocking the bloke he has the potential to be an amazing player but almost 2 years out of the game when so much has changed in how the game is played now and he is still a rookie. Give him the rest of year off and a full pre season and come next year he can reset and go again

I agree. Maybe let him play NSW Cup

 

[Waz13]

Gee that sounds on the optimistic side but certainly like your positivity . Might be a worthwhile exercise to try a Croker - Lawton starting 9 and bench combination and either or . Lawton seems to have plenty of nip and defends well .

Lawton is a player. One of the first picked in each team but on the bench. Just a footy player who could cover every position on the field if needed - maybe not prop - but he’d put his hand up for that too!

 

[wombatgc]

Lawton is a player. One of the first picked in each team but on the bench. Just a footy player who could cover every position on the field if needed - maybe not prop - but he’d put his hand up for that too!

My mates son had a video of him in hospital on the green whistle when he did a serious knee injury. It dates back to when he was playing QCup for Burleigh, it was at least five to six years ago. The stuff he was saying were hilarious. His family were there trying not to laugh, but in the end his mum is doubled over laughing at the noises he was putting with his fairy tale story he was trying to tell. He was off his dial.
When I first heard we’d signed him, but he had the Achilles injury, my first thought was him and the green whistle video.
Hopefully he stays injury free, and dodges the whistle.

Back on topic. If Fainu is cleared to play, I agree with @Stewbojevic . Bring him back at Blacktown. There‘d be no pressure on him, as we‘re still last on the ladder.
My apologies, just checked the table (should’ve done that first diick head). Blacktown have moved up to 8th.

 

[Mataiforever]

If Fainu gets off I would give him the 14 jumper for rest of season.

Either stick with Croker and have Lawton as a backrow option off the bench, or put Lawton into the 9 full time. Time will tell

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I'm waiting to see if De Bellin sues the NRL

Not in Rugby League circles it seems

So do you think the presumption of innocence means that there can be no consequences for being charged with a criminal offence?
You are well aware there are people who are refused bail and spend a couple of years in custody awaiting their trial! At their eventual trial they are still presumed innocent and its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

 

[globaleagle]

So do you think the presumption of innocence means that there can be no consequences for being charged with a criminal offence?
You are well aware there are people who are refused bail and spend a couple of years in custody awaiting their trial! At their eventual trial they are still presumed innocent and its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

I thought when this issue came up was that the nrl said with out presuming innocence or guilt of the crime....

If a player is charged with a serious offence of an offence against women (etc)... then they are guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and hence are stood down.

I dunno, it's always seemed clear cut to me.

 

[manly al]

Main associated problem is still the long delay and drawn out process with any trial and not sure that this can be rectified any time soon . N R L just like other major sporting organizations are unavoidably in the dilemma , Dammed if they do , Dammed if they don't with stand downs and the nature of their severity with the present drawn out legal proceedings . Not much different from Fainu 's situation really in terms of delay but the nature of the alleged offence a little different of course . No doubt erring on the side of caution with the N R L "s current policy , whether it is fair or justified [ no pun intention ] is another matter altogether .

 

[Disco]

If Finau is due back Rd 23 assuming he wins his court case I'd be giving him the rest of the year off, he hasn't played in that long I think he would do more harm than good, he is still so green it's a unrealistic expectation that he will come in and make any kind of significant difference, not knocking the bloke he has the potential to be an amazing player but almost 2 years out of the game when so much has changed in how the game is played now and he is still a rookie. Give him the rest of year off and a full pre season and come next year he can reset and go again

You can't make definitive statements like that imo you need to play it by ear.

No doubt he will return with Blacktown, but say he does back to back motm performances you'd be silly to hold him back.

Alternatively we may cop injuries and need to call him up.

And finally he may come back and struggle to adjust and need more time.

Basically if he returns the first game will be with Blacktown then you judge him on his merits like everyone else.

 

[Bearfax]

So do you think the presumption of innocence means that there can be no consequences for being charged with a criminal offence?
You are well aware there are people who are refused bail and spend a couple of years in custody awaiting their trial! At their eventual trial they are still presumed innocent and its up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Determination of bail is a complex process and primarily involves the question of whether the offender will do a runner. Someone well established, employed, with visible significant assets and reasons for staying, and with a clean record, will get bail for almost every charge. If someone has a criminal history, especially involving similar offences to that of which they are being charged, they are often not given bail. The question of bail has nothing to do with presumption of guilt. It is primarily to ensure the accused attends court and a judgement is therefore made regarding that risk status.

What surprised was the High Court decision which was actually contrary to decisions having been made at district and local court level in the past for other matters. In fact I put one of those on this forum a few years back in which a company was ordered to pay compensation for denying an employee his right to work and informed that they had been incorrect in their ruling. That is not to say that such practices don't occur, whereby those accused of an offence are denied employment. Happens all the time.

However up until that High Court matter (and I have concerns regarding that judge's decision) if such matters ended up in court, the employer was criticised. Of course if the nature of the charge places a person or company at serious risk, such as an accountant allegedly fiddling the figures, a child care worker allegedly interfering with children, a police office or similar responsible person being accused of a serious matter and continuing his/her job etc, then the question of risk has to come into such matters. In Fainu's case he offered no risk in playing football. The risk was the perceived potential of loss of business and in past cases I've seen, that argument has not been accepted.

 

[wombatgc]

You can't make definitive statements like that imo you need to play it by ear.

No doubt he will return with Blacktown, but say he does back to back motm performances you'd be silly to hold him back.

Alternatively we may cop injuries and need to call him up.

And finally he may come back and struggle to adjust and need more time.

Basically if he returns the first game will be with Blacktown then you judge him on his merits like everyone else.

I think that first game. (If found not guilty of course) will be all about psychology, and his mental state. I know he has been working with a sports psychologist for a while now. There are so many factors that would be in play for his first game, obviously physical. But just by putting on a jersey (wether it’s Manly or Blacktowns), the emotions, the enormity of the situation can’t be underestimated. Hopefully his head docs will give him two or three simplistic goals to prepare to take into the game.

 

[XV-1]

Doesn't he still have a bung shoulder?

He may never play again, guilty or not.

 

[ManlyTragic]

I thought when this issue came up was that the nrl said with out presuming innocence or guilt of the crime....

If a player is charged with a serious offence of an offence against women (etc)... then they are guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and hence are stood down.

I dunno, it's always seemed clear cut to me.

Yeah .... but if they are innocent how have they bought the game into disrepute?

 

[ShanghaiEagle]

If they are innocent, its actually their names that have been brought into disrepute, on top of the massive discretionary cost imposed on them by the NRL through this no fault standown approach. Innocent until proven guilty has always been the benchmark.

 

[The Who]

I learned yesterday that the vandals who jumped on and damaged the War Memorial statue for the sake of a selfie potentially face jail terms of 14 years.
To me that shows how arbitrary the NRL's 11-year for a serious crime is.
If these clowns were NRL players would you expect them to be banned until their matter came to court?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The question of bail ... is primarily to ensure the accused attends court

This is false.
To avoid any doubt, by false I mean incorrect, wrong, invalid, untrue (!)
And by the way, how does it benefit anyone, in considering a policy decision of the NRL (for example), to misrepresent the law???

 

[Bearfax]

This is false.
To avoid any doubt, by false I mean incorrect, wrong, invalid, untrue (!)
And by the way, how does it benefit anyone, in considering a policy decision of the NRL (for example), to misrepresent the law???

SER8 I was a parole officer who worked for 34 years in the Local, District and Supreme courts as well as goals, as well as a union head in my later years seconded to the Public Service Association and often required at the Industrial court.

Bail is about ensuring attendance at court. That's why people have to offer financial sureties that they will attend as a means of making it unpalatable to bolt. Sometimes people place the equivalent financial sureties that could lose them their home, and some people have. Other times the money has to be held by the court as surety. Its entirely to ensure their attendance, and to ensure they don't run, they are required to attend local police stations, often as regularly as daily.

Remand prisoners are there because of not only the seriousness of the charge and often strong police evidence given at committal hearings in the local courts, but primarily to ensure they are in attendance. Often courts refuse bail and remand people in custody only to have the Supreme Court overturn the decision (usually well within a month) because its considered there are not sufficient grounds to detain.

Usually if they are detained for a lengthy period, and are convicted, the period in custody is generally, but not always, included as part of the sentence. But courts are usually reluctant to hold someone in custody unless the evidence is quite compelling, because it is most embarrassing to the court if the person is exonerated. That person rarely is compensated, giving rise to serious concerns regarding wrongful detention.

Formerly in the Napoleonic legal code as I understand ( and I stand corrected if I have this wrong) what existed in many European courts was that the person could be detained because it was seen that the accused had to prove his/her innocence (in a sense guilty until proven innocent). My understanding is that most European courts have done away with that inequitable system

 

[Bearfax]

Now in relation to the no fault issue, I offer the following information. The area that is unclear relates to the impact on the business, which is the reason the High Court judge determined the decision she did. But this aspect is somewhat vague under the law. I suggest you read the following

Can I Terminate An Employee Who Has Been Charged For A Criminal Conviction | Employsure

Can you terminate an employee charged with a criminal offence? This depends on the crime and whether they are convicted. Here is the correct procedure.

employsure.com.au