Walker cleared to play.

[BOZO]

Did we sign Tony Williams?

Yes we did sign the Big Bird .

 

[Ryan]

Did we sign Tony Williams?

Blacktown mate.

 

[NYEagle]

Unfortunately Greenburg is a protected specie at NRL head quarters .
The only way to get rid of him is to expose him in one of his sex tapes .

Greenburg has sex?

NYEagle

 

[Jigzkiller]

I’m no legal expert but I can’t help thinking on a legal sense the standing down of these two players BEFORE found guilty has to contravene Australian law!!

Carney,Barba can I go on? or are we all up in arms because he is a manly player? You have no "right" to be a rugby league player. Also they are on full pay.

 

[Bearfax]

Carney,Barba can I go on? or are we all up in arms because he is a manly player? You have no "right" to be a rugby league player. Also they are on full pay.

Carney I have always disagreed with the penalty this kid had to tolerate. Barba on the other hand had a far worse history than Walker. Walker's history involves overdosing on prescription drugs and the latest charge. Barba was in trouble for a drunken fight in a car park in 2009, a suspected cover up by, would you believe Greenberg, that was dismissed for allegedly punching a woman in the face. He left Canterbury for several unspecified incidents outside of the game in 2013, he was found guilty of using cocaine at Cronulla in 2016 and he was then charged with assaulting his partner in 2018. Somewhat more serious don't you think.

 

[Eagles2nv]

Not if you own your brand properly. The NRL are horrible brand managers and only make it worse with this sort of rubbish

They sure are. My dogs have better strategic direction than the current administration.

Even other codes across the world have issues. Its the nature of a very public organisation.

Look at CR7 and his issues to Serie A and Juve. Some just manage it better than others.

NRL is made worse with the fact that a big portion of players are cashed up bogans which lack the brain cells to comprehend consequence. This is then exacerbated by the current NRL admins reactive rather than proper planning and proactive procedures.

It's like the toddler goes - Screw it, I'll wait till it's a problem, then I'll apply some poorly implemented rule to fix it.

 

[SirPigman]

So if Scott Bolton gets 6 weeks and let’s assume Dylanis found guilty of pulling his girlfriends hair. What punishment should he get - 8 weeks ? He already has 12 weeks no matter what. Is this too logical ?

 

[The better Robbo]

So if Scott Bolton gets 6 weeks and let’s assume Dylanis found guilty of pulling his girlfriends hair. What punishment should he get - 8 weeks ? He already has 12 weeks no matter what. Is this too logical ?

Agreed. Even if guilty then his 3 month suspension should be suffice. Although manly may choose to sack him

 

[Scorpio]

So if Scott Bolton gets 6 weeks and let’s assume Dylanis found guilty of pulling his girlfriends hair. What punishment should he get - 8 weeks ? He already has 12 weeks no matter what. Is this too logical ?

Probably he will be deregistered if guilty.

The NRL called it a "no fault stand down", i.e. it is not a suspension by their definition. So it will have no bearing on whatever punishment he is handed... IF he is found guilty.

 

[Ranga]

Probably he will be deregistered if guilty.

The NRL called it a "no fault stand down", i.e. it is not a suspension by their definition. So it will have no bearing on whatever punishment he is handed... IF he is found guilty.

I think you are right. If found guilty, he will sit out at least the rest of the year given the DV nature of it and will have to jump through a number of hoops to get a shot at an NRL gig again. But even if he is found not guilty in court, it is still possible that there could be additional penalties from Manly or the NRL for the good ol’ “bringing the club/game into disrepute”. I know I am probably on my own here, but I wouldn’t assume that a not guilty verdict sees him playing on the following weekend ...

 

[KOMORI]

I think you are right. If found guilty, he will sit out at least the rest of the year given the DV nature of it and will have to jump through a number of hoops to get a shot at an NRL gig again...

And it’s this part here that makes me chuckle: because at this point in time Dylan’s career rests in the hands of a single person, and that person is proven to be biased in his application of wether he deems a player to be worthy or not.

And this worthiness is not judged on the man, the crime, or the famous “eyeballing”...

It is judged by which goddamn club said player is applying to play for. If Dylan (eventually) tries to get a run for Manly, his chances would have to be below 50%.... if the Broncos wish to register him, his chances would certainly be 100%..

Fair?? Nope... consistent?? A strange yes for the NRL..

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I think you are right. If found guilty, he will sit out at least the rest of the year given the DV nature of it and will have to jump through a number of hoops to get a shot at an NRL gig again. But even if he is found not guilty in court, it is still possible that there could be additional penalties from Manly or the NRL for the good ol’ “bringing the club/game into disrepute”. I know I am probably on my own here, but I wouldn’t assume that a not guilty verdict sees him playing on the following weekend ...

If found not guilty you don’t think what is a 3 month penalty wouldn’t be enough??

 

[Ranga]

And it’s this part here that makes me chuckle: because at this point in time Dylan’s career rests in the hands of a single person, and that person is proven to be biased in his application of wether he deems a player to be worthy or not.

And this worthiness is not judged on the man, the crime, or the famous “eyeballing”...

It is judged by which goddamn club said player is applying to play for. If Dylan (eventually) tries to get a run for Manly, his chances would have to be below 50%.... if the Broncos wish to register him, his chances would certainly be 100%..

Fair?? Nope... consistent?? A strange yes for the NRL..

I don’t know whether there is actual or just perceived bias in favour of certain clubs. Only Todd knows that. But for the fans, the perception of bias is just as damaging as actual bias and the perception of bias is 100% there.

Just as big a problem as the perceived bias is the fact that the game is now being run by the external stakeholders - media, sponsors etc. I was on the fence last week as to whether a stand down policy was the right way to go (before it was announced) as I could see the both sides of the argument from the player’s and the NRL’s perspective. But now we see the ‘meat on the bone’ (or lack thereof) and it is clear that the policy was devised to appease the external stakeholders; once again Todd and the Chairman beat their chest about how ‘tough’ they are. Of course, external stakeholders are important but you can’t let them make decisions for you and that is what the NRL has done. It’s a slippery slope from here.

 

[Ranga]

If found not guilty you don’t think what is a 3 month penalty wouldn’t be enough??

I personally think it is enough. However, the magistrate will make certain findings of fact in determining whether he is guilty or not. The NRL is not bound by a guilty or not guilty verdict but they can determine that his behaviour (based on facts the magistrate finds) in totality, even if not sufficient to be found criminal, towards a women and a child was out step with what they expect and that warrants a suspension of more than the 12 weeks or whatever it is. It would be harsh - extremely harsh - but I can see it potentially happening given that they will want to be seen as tough in this area.

 

[Andyvb88]

I feel that if he is found guilty in court, he should be sacked and not allowed to sign with another club. Playing at the top level and getting paid well is a privilege. If a player can not toe the line, and assaults anyone they should be told to look for other employment

 

[Ranga]

I feel that if he is found guilty in court, he should be sacked and not allowed to sign with another club. Playing at the top level and getting paid well is a privilege. If a player can not toe the line, and assaults anyone they should be told to look for other employment

I agree and think that outcome is not in doubt if he is found guilty. If found guilty, the main thing for the NRL to determine is how long it will be until he is allowed to come back and play (for the Broncos).

 

[Highflier]

I personally think it is enough. However, the magistrate will make certain findings of fact in determining whether he is guilty or not. The NRL is not bound by a guilty or not guilty verdict but they can determine that his behaviour (based on facts the magistrate finds) in totality, even if not sufficient to be found criminal, towards a women and a child was out step with what they expect and that warrants a suspension of more than the 12 weeks or whatever it is. It would be harsh - extremely harsh - but I can see it potentially happening given that they will want to be seen as tough in this area.

If hes not guilty ,hes not guilty ,I think the NRL would have a hard time making that one stick.They have already stood him down prior to the case so if and once he is found not guilty he should be allowed back,otherwise he is being penalized 2x for a crime he actually didn't commit (if in fact that's what happens )
Like some one said with a very funny cartoon its a pandora s box ,a floodgate or a can of worms for the NRL with this one.
And as usual if there is a decision to be made you can bet they will always make the wrong one.

I had to vomit also when I read Rothtools column praising the "strong leadership" shown by Beatoff and the Turd. The snippet looked like it had come straight out of the NRL propaganda department ,authored by Heir Goebbels himself

 

[47MVEagle]

If found not guilty you don’t think what is a 3 month penalty wouldn’t be enough??

Unfortunately under this new "no fault stand down" policy, the time he has been stood down isn't deemed a penalty.

I'm willing to bet that it wont be considered "time served" if he (or any other player) is found guilty of a very minor indiscretion unless they play for one of Todd's favored clubs.

Yet another area of ambiguity in this law made up on the run.

 

[KOMORI]

I don’t know whether there is actual or just perceived bias in favour of certain clubs. Only Todd knows that. But for the fans, the perception of bias is just as damaging as actual bias and the perception of bias is 100% there.

Matthew Lodge would never have been allowed to play if it were Manly he was representing...

Jamil Hopoate wasn’t allowed to play when on our books... yet now that he’s a Broncos player all is forgiven..

The other percepual bias is there, and it’s very, very real...

 

[Ranga]

Matthew Lodge would never have been allowed to play if it were Manly he was representing...

Jamil Hopoate wasn’t allowed to play when on our books... yet now that he’s a Broncos player all is forgiven..

The other percepual bias is there, and it’s very, very real...

I don’t think Matthew Lodge would be playing if he sought to be registered in the current environment. If anything, the backlash caused by the NRL allowing him to play has contributed to this current storm.

Manly sought to register Jamil almost straight out of prison. It’s at least 2 years since that time and after him moving to Queensland, which I presume was for a fresh start. I consider Jamil being registered when at the Broncos a coincidence that adds weight to the perception of bias but not evidence of actual bias.