Will no fault stand down survive ?

[The Who]

I've always railed against this rule, which is potentially career-ending knowing how slow the Australian justice system works.
The only concession I'd consider is if the rule carried an automatic stand-down of, say, four matches after which the player was allowed to return to the sport until such time as a court ruled him guilty of a charge.
Banishing a player charged with a serious offence for a limited amount of matches seems to me to initially satisfy the punishment for "bringing the game into disrepute". It's a terrible look being charged with a serious offence; but it is not proven.
It is the role of our legal system to decide the punishment (or not) of a person, regardless of their occupation. If an NRL player is found guilty of a serious offence then the NRL could consider imposing its own secondary punishment if it felt necessary.

 

[Woodsie]

“But I’m not guilty,” said K. “there’s been a mistake. How is it even possible for someone to be guilty? We’re all human beings here, one like the other.” “That is true” said the priest “but that is how the guilty speak”
― Franz Kafka, The Trial

I was giving that passge some intellectual credibility ... until you mentioned there was a priest involved ....

 

[Captain Moondog]

I was giving that passge some intellectual credibility ... until you mentioned there was a priest involved ....

Kafka hated them, Nietzsche loathed them and I'm pretty unimpressed.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

The only thing you need to understand is that even if the Police investigate and even think they can't win a case, they are obliged to follow through with court proceeding's if the complainant wish the case to proceed.

No that's not right.
The views of an alleged victim must be obtained, but the decision to prosecute or not is a matter for prosecutors, in accordance with published prosecution guidelines. The dominant consideration has always been whether "the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a nature that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest". And that deliberation always involves being satisfied that the admissible evidence is capable of proving each element of the offence, or whether there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

 

[Supreme Leader]

No that's not right.
The views of an alleged victim must be obtained, but the decision to prosecute or not is a matter for prosecutors, in accordance with published prosecution guidelines. The dominant consideration has always been whether "the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a nature that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest". And that deliberation always involves being satisfied that the admissible evidence is capable of proving each element of the offence, or whether there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Hi SeaEagleRock 8, unfortunately I have a very good friend who is before the courts at the moment, so obviously I can't go into details other to say I have 3 witnesses (including me) to a discussion with my friends lawyer and the DPP that differs with your summary. You might well be right, but my friend has been afforded the comment that the "complainant wishes to pursue the charges" even after being advised that there is no actual evidence and the case is reliant on witnesses who were not present at the alleged incident and each of their statements differ.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Interesting, definitely some cases do proceed which never should because the evidence is flimsy or inadequate. Those tend to become subject of strong judicial criticism of prosecutors (and can even be subject to orders for costs in some cases) Sounds like your friend might not have too much to worry about, although of course the problem is you can't predict what a jury is going to do! Good luck.

 

[The better Robbo]

Hopefully the Stand down policy will follow Greenturd out the door.

 

[Captain Moondog]

Hopefully the Stand down policy will follow Greenturd out the door.

I'd like to see him wear it internally.

 

[HoldenV8]

I've always railed against this rule, which is potentially career-ending knowing how slow the Australian justice system works.
The only concession I'd consider is if the rule carried an automatic stand-down of, say, four matches after which the player was allowed to return to the sport until such time as a court ruled him guilty of a charge.
Banishing a player charged with a serious offence for a limited amount of matches seems to me to initially satisfy the punishment for "bringing the game into disrepute". It's a terrible look being charged with a serious offence; but it is not proven.
It is the role of our legal system to decide the punishment (or not) of a person, regardless of their occupation. If an NRL player is found guilty of a serious offence then the NRL could consider imposing its own secondary punishment if it felt necessary.

So what you're saying is that the way Gallop and the NRL handled Snake's case, standing him down for 4 games and then letting him return while his court case was ongoing, was better than the way Greenturd and co. have done it by effectively stopping someone's career in its tracks ah la Jack De Belin.

I tend to agree. Although we all bitched and moaned when they stood Snake down, when it comes down to it I do agree it was a better way than the current stand down policy employed by the NRL. By standing a player down like they have with JDB, his career is really in tatters. Now if he is found guilty then his career would be over anyway. But if by chance he is actually proven innocent (like Snake was) or just found not guilty, what then? His reputation is down the toilet and he'll pretty much have missed two years worth of football which could have included bonuses for representative selection (he was an Origin player when stood down).

For mine the current stand down policy leaves the NRL wide open to law suits from disgruntled players.

 

[Will on the hill]

The biggest problem as I see it is discretionary application of the rule. If there must be a stand down rule it should be applied to anyone facing charges. If that is unfair, the whole thing must be scrapped.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

Yes, I think Greenburg will survive by claiming everything wrong with the NRL is not his fault. And that he's working hard to make everything better. Wait, are we talking about something else?

 

[The Wheel]

Yes, I think Greenburg will survive by claiming everything wrong with the NRL is not his fault. And that he's working hard to make everything better. Wait, are we talking about something else?

I reckon Toddy will be throwing Beattie under the bus big time

 

[Woodsie]

As usual ... our Silvertails posters are ahead of the curve ... Buzzit'syourshout .. reports in the tele today that the RLPA still has an ongoing challenge to the stand down policy awaiting arbitration ..

Apparently challenge rests on the fact that in the players collective bargaining agreeent ,, the NRL was supposed to consult with the RLPA on any rule changes ...

Perhaps the talented and "special" @globaleagle could find a way to post the story ??

PSSS ... can somebody please let @HappilyManly know that self isolation does not mean staying 6 feet away from her computer ....

 

[globaleagle]

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

We're for Sydney

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Jack de Belin wants to meet NRL boss Todd Greenberg face-to-face for the first time in more than 12 months as the St George Illawarra star braces for the possibility of his court case dragging into a third year.

In another development, the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) will use their stronger-than-ever position within the halls of League Central to reignite a legal challenge of the NRL’s controversial no-fault stand-down policy. The players union want it scrapped.

The disruption to the justice system caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been widespread, with new jury trials suspended as a measure by the courts to kerb the spread of infection.

However, conscious of the impact that COVID-19 is having on the justice system and the fear his case could be pushed beyond November 2 and possibly into 2021, de Belin and RLPA executives are pushing to meet with Greenberg to demonstrate the personal toll of the policy.

It’s understood the RLPA also want to show how the rule doesn’t account for a delayed judicial system that is out of the former NSW Origin forward’s control.

The meeting request is separate to a wider challenge by the RLPA of the NRL’s no-fault stand-down policy that is being overseen by an independent arbitrator.

The RLPA’s dispute with the NRL is directed at the governing body and how it has used its powers to change rules, specifically related to players, without the union’s consultation – as is required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

An arbitrator has been appointed to determine if the NRL should have consulted the RLPA in greater detail before implementing the polarising policy in February last year.

Interestingly, after working closer than ever before last week to help save the game financially, the contentious rule was mentioned in-part by delegates of the RLPA during their intense discussions with the NRL.

The RLPA is hoping the arbitrator rules that policy can be overturned — or at least considered for major review by the NRL — by the end of this month.

If the NRL are found to be in breach of the CBA, the players’ association will seek to have the no-fault stand-down rule deemed invalid, paving the way for de Belin to return to playing — when the competition resumes — as he waits for his trial.

 

[Highflier]

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph

We're for Sydney

www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Jack de Belin wants to meet NRL boss Todd Greenberg face-to-face for the first time in more than 12 months as the St George Illawarra star braces for the possibility of his court case dragging into a third year.

In another development, the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) will use their stronger-than-ever position within the halls of League Central to reignite a legal challenge of the NRL’s controversial no-fault stand-down policy. The players union want it scrapped.

The disruption to the justice system caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been widespread, with new jury trials suspended as a measure by the courts to kerb the spread of infection.

However, conscious of the impact that COVID-19 is having on the justice system and the fear his case could be pushed beyond November 2 and possibly into 2021, de Belin and RLPA executives are pushing to meet with Greenberg to demonstrate the personal toll of the policy.

It’s understood the RLPA also want to show how the rule doesn’t account for a delayed judicial system that is out of the former NSW Origin forward’s control.

The meeting request is separate to a wider challenge by the RLPA of the NRL’s no-fault stand-down policy that is being overseen by an independent arbitrator.

The RLPA’s dispute with the NRL is directed at the governing body and how it has used its powers to change rules, specifically related to players, without the union’s consultation – as is required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

An arbitrator has been appointed to determine if the NRL should have consulted the RLPA in greater detail before implementing the polarising policy in February last year.

Interestingly, after working closer than ever before last week to help save the game financially, the contentious rule was mentioned in-part by delegates of the RLPA during their intense discussions with the NRL.

The RLPA is hoping the arbitrator rules that policy can be overturned — or at least considered for major review by the NRL — by the end of this month.

If the NRL are found to be in breach of the CBA, the players’ association will seek to have the no-fault stand-down rule deemed invalid, paving the way for de Belin to return to playing — when the competition resumes — as he waits for his trial.

and I guess that would include others in a similar boat like Fainu ?

 

[Woodsie]

and I guess that would include others in a similar boat like Fainu ?

I have a conflicted view about the Fainu case ... whilst I still don't agree with the no fault stand down .... I believe there are some cases where the seriousness of the charges warrant the player standing himself down to fight them ...

Fainu's case isn't a case of he said /she said .... it is a case of a serious stabbing in the back ... with dire consequences for him if found guilty ... I would be happy for him to concetrate on his defence and give footy a miss til it's over ...

 

[The Who]

So what you're saying is that the way Gallop and the NRL handled Snake's case, standing him down for 4 games and then letting him return while his court case was ongoing, was better than the way Greenturd and co. have done it by effectively stopping someone's career in its tracks ah la Jack De Belin.

I tend to agree. Although we all bitched and moaned when they stood Snake down, when it comes down to it I do agree it was a better way than the current stand down policy employed by the NRL. By standing a player down like they have with JDB, his career is really in tatters. Now if he is found guilty then his career would be over anyway. But if by chance he is actually proven innocent (like Snake was) or just found not guilty, what then? His reputation is down the toilet and he'll pretty much have missed two years worth of football which could have included bonuses for representative selection (he was an Origin player when stood down).

For mine the current stand down policy leaves the NRL wide open to law suits from disgruntled players.

YES. But when Snake was stood down there was no policy in place. Gallop just winged it. He was wrong to do so.
If, however, there is to be a 'no-fault' policy in the future I'm suggesting that it does provide an automatic (four?) game suspension for a player charged with a serious offence. There can be little argument with this as the player definitely has given rugby league a bad name by being charged.
After he serves his suspension he is then entitled to return playing until his fate is determined by a legal court.

 

[Woodsie]

From memory ... Snake was not stood down for the sexual assault allegations .... Gallop was a lawyer and smarter than that ..... he was suspended for 4 games for bringing the game into disrepute for being intoxicated at an NRL event, namely a Manly season launch .... and that is something the NRL does have a rightful say in .....

The fact that later it was shown he wasn't blotto is another matter ..

 

[47MVEagle]

From memory ... Snake was not stood down for the sexual assault allegations .... Gallop was a lawyer and smarter than that ..... he was suspended for 4 games for bringing the game into disrepute for being intoxicated at an NRL event, namely a Manly season launch .... and that is something the NRL does have a rightful say in .....

The fact that later it was shown he wasn't blotto is another matter ..

I seem to remember that it took a couple of weeks before the "bringing the game into disrepute" reason was actually mentioned though, almost as though Gallop made it up in hindsight after his initial kneejerk reaction in standing Snake down?

 

[Ranga]

I have a conflicted view about the Fainu case ... whilst I still don't agree with the no fault stand down .... I believe there are some cases where the seriousness of the charges warrant the player standing himself down to fight them ...

Fainu's case isn't a case of he said /she said .... it is a case of a serious stabbing in the back ... with dire consequences for him if found guilty ... I would be happy for him to concetrate on his defence and give footy a miss til it's over ...

I agree, Woodsie. Initially I was completely against the policy but in truth things are rarely black and white.

I am fairly comfortable with the standing down of players charged with a crime punishable by a minimum 11 years inside. It’s arbitrary, sure, but it’s a pretty high threshold and it doesn’t rely on any subjective view of the seriousness of the charges.

The NRL does have legitimate commercial interests to protect - we saw that with the Bulldogs losing a sponsor because of two dikhead players who did nothing illegal. Post COVID, sponsorship dollars are likely to be harder to come by so I think the mandatory stand down part of the policy will be here to stay.