Walker cleared to play.

[manly al]

At least the Three Strikes and you are out adage and policy on less serious alleged offences has long ceased to be be used as a yardstick , if it was ever practiced at all on a regular basis . With even more emphasis on sporting success in contemporary times ,[ and obviously for Rugby League ] , don't think it matters what background a player or athlete comes from , if they are good enough or do not have too much baggage , sporting clubs will not deny them the opportunity. The fact that Rugby League went professional over 100 years ago certainly gave them the jump on other comparable sporting codes ., particularly Rugby Union at least until recent decades . . Rugby League is just really reflective of the general society and just from observation , think that some forms of misconduct or worse has been prevalent for quite some time and over many decades. No doubt more common in the modern era with more player leisure time or whatever and more noticeable now with the regular use with mobile phones . Think it is also a case of ' when will they ever learn ' . Maybe some harsher penalties will soon make the difference if they are administered properly and with this present mob , a big ask .

 

[47MVEagle]

Personally I think anyone who has been charged or served time for acts of violence or drug dealing should never be allowed back in the game.

That would mean the likes of Russell Packer, Danny Wicks & Matthew Lodge would have never been allowed to play after doing their time or plea-bargaining their way out of doing time.

I kept hearing "oh but he's paid his debt to society so why shouldn't he be allowed to play?" when Packer & Wicks returned but IMO they should have to make do with the jobs other ex-cons have to do.

Might sound harsh but most (if not all) employers these days conduct police checks on people applying for a job & if you've got a record of violence or drug dealing they're likely to offer the job to someone without such a history.

Why can't the NRL exercise the same caution?

 

[Woodsie]

Apologies if I read too much into your post. I may have been somewhat pissed of about a quote from Malcolm Knox article you posted a couple of days ago. And I can't stand the idea that today's issues are being caused by a "PC obsessed" middle class dictating what the game should be. Many things have been lost and in danger of disappearing in our game and for me (and like the rest of society) it comes down to one thing a loss of community and respect in favour of $$$s. The money that players earn continues to grow exponentially and for the guys entering the game from disadvantaged backgrounds this must be an enormous change to deal with, while for those from privileged backgrounds it can support their misconception that they are better than most and above the law (there are plenty of examples here).
The opportunities and second chances that rugby league used to offer weren't just about money (not too long ago 1st grade RL was a second job for many) it was about becoming part of a community and becoming something more in society. Through the involvement of bigger money, generational change and potentially the loss of culture at clubs and misadministration at the top I do fear the culture of the game is being eroded. but I can't stand the suggestion that this is a class problem.

My one and only point was in response to somebody saying Rugby League gave knob jockies 2nd and 3rd chances .... and my point was that it has ever been thus .... and Rugby League has taken a certain pride in playing a part in the rehabilitation of many young men over the years ..

... and I maintain that if we move away from that .... then we will have lost something that has been an intrinsic part of the Rugby League culture ....

PSS ( and my comments are not about Walker, DeBelin, May or any other person in particular but are general comments in relation to 2nd chances),

 

[Bearfax]

There is nothing stopping the NRL from cancelling contracts, banning players from the game etc if the player has been convicted of an offence. That hasn't changed. The issue is about prejudging a matter and taking an action against someone who in law is deemed innocent until his day in court. Nothing has changed and the NRL still has the same power and can take more severe action against someone who has been convicted if they consider it appropriate. The problem has been this media campaign and public pressure groups who seem to think vigilante action is the way to go before someone has been found guilty. That is no different from the old witch hunts, persecution of minority groups considered responsible for things unproven, persecuting based on belief rather than fact. The NRL is reacting to this sabre rattling, but the real issue is not about penalising players yet to face the courts, its about their policy of action against those convicted and whether its sufficiently punitive. The trouble is this issue has become distorted, through ignorance of the law, and the pressure to now extend such punitive action against the accused, whether guilty or innocent, which in the public arena has been stirred into a feeding frenzy by a media whose only intent is to stimulate the story and sell their interpretations of the news, and pressure groups who would prefer their own form of justice.

 

[bazeagle]

There is nothing stopping the NRL from cancelling contracts, banning players from the game etc if the player has been convicted of an offence. That hasn't changed. The issue is about prejudging a matter and taking an action against someone who in law is deemed innocent until his day in court. Nothing has changed and the NRL still has the same power and can take more severe action against someone who has been convicted if they consider it appropriate. The problem has been this media campaign and public pressure groups who seem to think vigilante action is the way to go before someone has been found guilty. That is no different from the old witch hunts, persecution of minority groups considered responsible for things unproven, persecuting based on belief rather than fact. The NRL is reacting to this sabre rattling, but the real issue is not about penalising players yet to face the courts, its about their policy of action against those convicted and whether its sufficiently punitive. The trouble is this issue has become distorted, through ignorance of the law, and the pressure to now extend such punitive action against the accused, whether guilty or innocent, which in the public arena has been stirred into a feeding frenzy by a media whose only intent is to stimulate the story and sell their interpretations of the news, and pressure groups who would prefer their own form of justice.

All pretty correct Bearfax. The one area you're passing over is: "bringing the game into disrepute". This grey as hell area either has to go or be better defined. i.e.: if you fall over drunk and pass out on a cop car then it could be said you've brought the game into disrepute. Ok. Simple. A fine and adequate suspension follows.

BUT if a player is charged with a criminal offence that's when it moves beyond the disrepute zone and the NRL should leave that player to play, unless they're on remand without bail for a very serious alleged crime, until they're tried in a court of law.

 

[Bearfax]

All pretty correct Bearfax. The one area you're passing over is: "bringing the game into disrepute". This grey as hell area either has to go or be better defined. i.e.: if you fall over drunk and pass out on a cop car then it could be said you've brought the game into disrepute. Ok. Simple. A fine and adequate suspension follows.

BUT if a player is charged with a criminal offence that's when it moves beyond the disrepute zone and the NRL should leave that player to play, unless they're on remand without bail for a very serious alleged crime, until they're tried in a court of law.

Bringing the game into disrepute requires proof of action. If a person is pleading not guilty and is deemed innocent until his day in court, then his action which constitutes the charge is in dispute. Same issue. Can you claim he's bringing the game into disrepute if he is denying the action and is deemed innocent. Even the example you gave has holes because we don't know if he was drunk, or mildly affected and suffering a medical condition. Certainly if the police breath and blood test him you've got your almost incontestable evidence

 

[bazeagle]

Bringing the game into disrepute requires proof of action. If a person is pleading not guilty and is deemed innocent until his day in court, then his action which constitutes the charge is in dispute. Same issue. Can you claim he's bringing the game into disrepute if he is denying the action and is deemed innocent. Even the example you gave has holes because we don't know if he was drunk, or mildly affected and suffering a medical condition. Certainly if the police breath and blood test him you've got your almost incontestable evidence

I'll stay out of legal interpretations because it seems the NRL, many posters on this forum and the media are all falling over themselves in getting this entire debacle 100% wrong.

 

[Bearfax]

I'll stay out of legal interpretations because it seems the NRL, many posters on this forum and the media are all falling over themselves in getting this entire debacle 100% wrong.

The thing is Bazz, many accept without question the reports presented by the media. This is the same media that gives Manly such a hard time, that is so parochial politically, that makes allegations without sufficient substance, that time and again is sued for defamation. But they don't care. It meets their agenda because the money lost is easily recovered in the next story.

I was thinking about your drunk man and the police car. Initial beliefs based on what is observed is that he is drunk and fell onto the car. But as I pointed out he could be mildly affected with medical issues, he could have had a heart attack, he could have tripped over something unseen, he could have been assaulted and fell on the police car for help, he could have been pushed by someone unseen, he could have run into an unseen at night tow bar and fallen forward (I've done that), he could have vision problems...it goes on and on.

This is why all the evidence available needs to be considered by the court, and for sure the media (as shown with the Stewart case) grab at the controversial elements that stir emotive reactions, in order to sell a paper without considering that there are almost always more issues yet to be revealed. Unfortunately the majority of the public are swayed by media reports, the reason Goebbel's propaganda machine was so effective. You're right. We are all standing on a footpath turning after an accident has occurred and determining what happened from one perspective, and often a perspective that has viewpoints often coloured by pre-set biases. Even a court appearance can get it wrong through insufficient or distorted evidence. But its far more likely to get it right than the media or public watching from without.

 

[bazeagle]

Repeat. Sack Walker. Bring in Gutherson.

 

[KNUCKLES]

Personally I think anyone who has been charged or served time for acts of violence or drug dealing should never be allowed back in the game.

That would mean the likes of Russell Packer, Danny Wicks & Matthew Lodge would have never been allowed to play after doing their time or plea-bargaining their way out of doing time.

I kept hearing "oh but he's paid his debt to society so why shouldn't he be allowed to play?" when Packer & Wicks returned but IMO they should have to make do with the jobs other ex-cons have to do.

Might sound harsh but most (if not all) employers these days conduct police checks on people applying for a job & if you've got a record of violence or drug dealing they're likely to offer the job to someone without such a history.

Why can't the NRL exercise the same caution?

Like more crime??

 

[Ryan]

Repeat. Sack Walker. Bring in Gutherson.

So if he's found not guilty , what then mate?
Don't be so hasty. Des still has him around the group.

Let this run its course. Not sure Des would be supporting someone so vehemently he is planning on white anting.

 

[madmax]

Ryan.........some people in here are just like broken records!!! Repeat the same rubbish day in day out.

 

[joeboy]

So if he's found not guilty , what then mate?
Don't be so hasty. Des still has him around the group.

Let this run its course. Not sure Des would be supporting someone so vehemently he is planning on white anting.

Des is supporting a contracted player who may still play a part in our season,
Des knows It’s an important thing to support players, both for that player and for the
rest of the team. But if des/manly decide
Not to resign him or his contract is terminated because of guilty verdict, well I hardly call that white anting. It’s not
Like Dylan has really held up his end
Of the deal to the best of
His ability while he has been contracted and
Deserves some percieved Loyalty or goodwill


It’s des and manly prerogative what happens beyond this year. Not white anting at all

 

[Ryan]

Des is supporting a contracted player who may still play a part in our season,
Des knows It’s an important thing to support players, both for that player and for the
rest of the team. But if des/manly decide
Not to resign him or his contract is terminated because of guilty verdict, well I hardly call that white anting. It’s not
Like Dylan has really held up his end
Of the deal to the best of
His ability while he has been contracted and
Deserves some percieved Loyalty or goodwill


It’s fed and manly prerogative what happens beyond this year. Not white anting at all

I'm saying Des ISN'T white anting. Jesus.

 

[manlyfan76]

I'd be happy (found guilty or not) for walker to be sacked.
I'm happy to go on his wife's initial complaint as enough evidence. If there are also neighbours witness as well then more so.

I would be also happy to sign walker for next year on the condition that he completed some sort of rehab over the rest of the year. As people know those offenders who escalate domestic incidences such as walker is claimed to have done (punching door then assault) usually get worse not better.

 

[Waz13]

His skill set aside, I’ve never felt Walker has been a great fit for our club and I’d be happy to move him on regardless of the outcome. If he didn’t play for manly he’d probably be one of my more hated players due to the way he conducts himself on the field.

 

[BOZO]

Walker when played in his rightful position for us at centre was rightly voted NRL centre of the year .

If he is proved not guilty I would have him in our team any day of the year as well

NRL>COM Hasler declared he would have no hesitation selecting Walker should he be available

I am with Des all the way

 

[Eagles2nv]

As we still dont have a answer from the JDB case, it's unlikely he will play this weekend now.

With his case being May 10, the JDB case is becoming less relevant should he be acquitted.

So we could see him back in the next 2 week's.

Ironically if JDB wins, but is guilty in his own case, he could be free to play next week then banned from the week after.

 

[Sheikheagle]

His skill set aside, I’ve never felt Walker has been a great fit for our club and I’d be happy to move him on regardless of the outcome. If he didn’t play for manly he’d probably be one of my more hated players due to the way he conducts himself on the field.

Agree, have never been comfortable with him in our colours and given how much he has been paid he has brought limited value to the team. So whether it is next week or end of the season I will be happy to see the back of him.

 

[joeboy]

I'm saying Des ISN'T white anting. Jesus.

Well my highly strung fellow, I must’ve missunderstood your post, I think I get what you mean upon re reading it