First offenders will never learn from there mistakes if you just sack them. What do you think they will turn to when there 100k contract (whatever he is on would be decent as he is a good talent) is torn up? You have to have a degree of leniency on these kids and if they offend again sack them because it helps nothing and no one to just cast people away after one mistake.
Jake Friend Arrested For Drink Driving
- Thread starter Ari Gold
- Start date
That was 3 top players who could be considered leaders going on a 12 hour bender during the finals, I never said they should be sacked but was bitterly disappointed in what they did and when they did it. Friend is a 19 year old kid with a handful of games under his belt he made a mistake and like the Broncos players is being hit financially for it, sure it was the wrong thing to do but he will pay for it both legally and financially $10k would be a huge sum of money for the guy. No point throwing the kid to the curb, clubs have a duty of care particularly for the kids and sacking him would do far more harm than good. As for Seymour he has had his chance and he deserves the sack he should know far better.
1. Friend is only on around $50,000, so a $10,000 fine is going to bite for him. He has also been ordered to undergo alcohol counselling. Not to mention what the courts will punish him with.
2. In the Stewart case he was suspended by the NRL for breaking a direct contract clause about behaviour at official NRL or Club Functions - Friend had actually caught a taxi home from the Roosters team thing and then decided to go out again to go visit his girlfriend and that driving would be a good idea. So I guess technically he was no longer at an official function when the incident happened. I also believe that if Manly had taken ANY action against Stewart (ie stand him down for 1 game, massive fine - comparative to his salary) then I think the NRL would not have come in over the top.
3. Stewart is a much bigger name and the face of the game therefore his being drunk and disorderly causes more damage to the game than any incident involving Friend, who is only really starting out in his career
4. This season the Roosters sacked the former police officer who wrote and enforced their player code of conduct and chaired their displinary committee, due to economic reasons - in hindsight, not Nick Politis' best decision
5. Brett Seymour is a repeat offender - suspension is really the logical next step where he is concerned.
2. In the Stewart case he was suspended by the NRL for breaking a direct contract clause about behaviour at official NRL or Club Functions - Friend had actually caught a taxi home from the Roosters team thing and then decided to go out again to go visit his girlfriend and that driving would be a good idea. So I guess technically he was no longer at an official function when the incident happened. I also believe that if Manly had taken ANY action against Stewart (ie stand him down for 1 game, massive fine - comparative to his salary) then I think the NRL would not have come in over the top.
3. Stewart is a much bigger name and the face of the game therefore his being drunk and disorderly causes more damage to the game than any incident involving Friend, who is only really starting out in his career
4. This season the Roosters sacked the former police officer who wrote and enforced their player code of conduct and chaired their displinary committee, due to economic reasons - in hindsight, not Nick Politis' best decision
5. Brett Seymour is a repeat offender - suspension is really the logical next step where he is concerned.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
I have'nt posted for a while but ...nothings changed around here...high and mightys squealing indignantly with outrage...but not a murmur about the other 49 people charged in the last 3 days !!!!...and just like usual 'fans' and 'experts' taking potshots at Mrs Long for voicing an opinion ( an opinion shared by the pragmatic amongst us ) they are at odds with.
WHEN WHEN WHEN are you people going to realize that the capacity to play good footy does not have a concommitant effect on the players mind or his capacity to reason any differently than any other person.....
So what if he did break the law ???.....get over it !!!....People, judge by the same standard for all...a footy player is no greater individual than others..it could be argued that they're less qualified to make wise decisions (head-knocks? )...
Think about this.....since 1980 over one thousand sportspeople have been charged with various level drink-driving offences including some 80+ footballers....do you really think Rugby League has suffered for it ???..............not one iota.
DD is wrong.immoral and unacceptable......and oh so human.....get over it
WHEN WHEN WHEN are you people going to realize that the capacity to play good footy does not have a concommitant effect on the players mind or his capacity to reason any differently than any other person.....
So what if he did break the law ???.....get over it !!!....People, judge by the same standard for all...a footy player is no greater individual than others..it could be argued that they're less qualified to make wise decisions (head-knocks? )...
Think about this.....since 1980 over one thousand sportspeople have been charged with various level drink-driving offences including some 80+ footballers....do you really think Rugby League has suffered for it ???..............not one iota.
DD is wrong.immoral and unacceptable......and oh so human.....get over it
lynx000
State of Origin Rep
- Jul 28, 2008
- 6,592
- 8,816
Hammo said:
To be fair, my reading of it was that Mrs Long was definitely not condoning his actions of drink driving, she was merely saying that surely some responsibility also rests with the club, and being sacked for a first offence may be a bit harsh.
I found it somewhat ironic watching the interview with Brad Fittler where he was saying yes Jake did the wrong thing etc etc, in light of his history of being found legless in the gutter by the police and barely able to talk. It seems obvious that there is an alcohol culture in this game, and perhaps the clubs and the league might have to face some harsh decisions to deal with it.
Huge. said:
Who said anything about whether or not the behaviour stops them playing good footy? And who said that's even an issue?
I think the point is there are going to be some people (what percentage I don't know) that will think, among other things:
- footballers get paid a shit load of money to behave like dicks, while the rest of us work 40+ hours a week to pay a mortgage. Why would we contribute some of our money to these overpaid, idiotic, moronic, drunken ****-tards?
- if this is the culture in rugby league, I don't want my kid playing it
- I don't want my kids making heroes out of drink driving, woman bashing public menaces.
Like it or not, this shit impacts the popularity of the brand. The perception out there is that footballers are either training, playing a game of football, or drinking, or playing playstation/XBox and getting paid a fortune to do it. They're overhyped glory boys who wouldn't know hard work if it bit them on the arse.
The answer is simple. NRL contracts are contingent on having a job in the community at least 20 hours a week OR undertaking full time tertiary study. If you don't, you only get half of your contract fee.
Working will be good for them in that:
- it prepares them for life after football
- it gives them other priorities and responsibilities, which reduces idle time to get pissed and be a dick
- it helps them appreciate how privileged they are. They'll be working with people who only get 25% of what they earn, maybe a lot less
I know the argument against it. These lazy Gen Y arseholes will go to Union or some other sport because they don't force you to work.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
Coxy...what's your first line about ???...to whom are you responding ??...I know it's not my sentiment as nothing I wrote concerned that matter....puzzled.
Can you not see that an ability to play good football and the wisdom of a lifetime do not, repeat DO NOT , come in the same package.......although this argument has been done to death on this forum it's worth repeating, The amount paid to a player has absolutely nothing to do with that players responsibility to his club. True. The mere fact he plays for the club does have something to do with his responsibility but the amount paid is irrelevant . 1 dollar or 1 billion....makes no difference, what does make a difference is his commitment to that club, his undertaking to act responsibly. His word or bond with the club is what's important.
A player commits an offence and is triply penalized.....firstly by the States Courts then by the RLs corruptable kangaroo court system and then finally by the vicious Court of Public Opinion.....being lambasted by the media and public is bad enough, punishment enough but no, for a footballer that's not enough suffering !!
We go further and fine them for ( muffled laughter here ) ' bringing the game into disrepute' as if a single person really gives a flying f..k...alright a few might but the vastly overwhelming number do not care. We might express out distaste for DD offences in general but very few of us really think the game of RL suffers.
The actions of the admin (RLs ) have done more to harm the game than the actions of one unthinking footballer, not to mention the actions of the self-centred club CEOs...
Can you not see that an ability to play good football and the wisdom of a lifetime do not, repeat DO NOT , come in the same package.......although this argument has been done to death on this forum it's worth repeating, The amount paid to a player has absolutely nothing to do with that players responsibility to his club. True. The mere fact he plays for the club does have something to do with his responsibility but the amount paid is irrelevant . 1 dollar or 1 billion....makes no difference, what does make a difference is his commitment to that club, his undertaking to act responsibly. His word or bond with the club is what's important.
A player commits an offence and is triply penalized.....firstly by the States Courts then by the RLs corruptable kangaroo court system and then finally by the vicious Court of Public Opinion.....being lambasted by the media and public is bad enough, punishment enough but no, for a footballer that's not enough suffering !!
We go further and fine them for ( muffled laughter here ) ' bringing the game into disrepute' as if a single person really gives a flying f..k...alright a few might but the vastly overwhelming number do not care. We might express out distaste for DD offences in general but very few of us really think the game of RL suffers.
The actions of the admin (RLs ) have done more to harm the game than the actions of one unthinking footballer, not to mention the actions of the self-centred club CEOs...
Huge. said:
I'm responding to you! You said "WHEN WHEN WHEN are you people going to realize that the capacity to play good footy does not have a concommitant effect on the players mind or his capacity to reason any differently than any other person.....", which to me was saying "why do you care if they **** up, it doesn't affect their footy if they act like tards".
Huge. said:
If that were the case there would be no "court of public opinion" crucifying them, would there? There's plenty who care, and they (we) are all sick of this shit being reported.
Can we ever stop the media talking about it? No.
Can we get it into the thick heads of these dickhead players that they have to stop drinking (as much) publicly to avoid getting into these dramas? Probably not, but we can try.
The only way to do it is to hit them where it hurts. Where is that?
Is it money? Is it their wonderful free time that being an elite footballer gives them? Is it the honour of playing for an NRL club, a State of Origin team or even your country?
How about that for a threat. **** up and you will never play representative football. Ever. That'd stop a few of these idiots drinking.
The problem is, as Hammo has said numerous times, is that Australia's drinking culture is really to blame - across society. This is magnified for high profile people. Does that mean high profile people should be treated the same as low profile people? In the courts and justice system, yes. But publicly the clubs and the NRL have to do more to show it's not right to get yourself drunk off your tits so you act like an idiot.
The culture won't change until it's no longer condoned. Far too many people seem to think there's nothing wrong with getting drunk to the point of spewing, of passing out, of not remembering what you did. How is that possible?
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
Some of what you have written is correct but you seem to have drawn a very strange conclusion from the paragraph highlighted !!!...I'll re-arrange it into a simpler form....there is no connection between footballing ability and capacity to make wise decisions....in other words, stop expecting a footballer to have high standards simply because they possess more footballing ability than other players !!!
Because a player is talented and highly paid DOES NOT mean he is any better equipped to handle life and its temptations , he is no better qualified than a nuffy touch player or snooker champ !!
With regard to the court of public opinion let me say this...never wasbeen journos and commentators shape the direction of the outrage...their feigned indignation influences the weak-minded in much the same way as the defenders of your own good self...you know how they jump up and down whenever they feel you're being threatened or abused and they rush to your defence or when they are not capable of independent thought they simply wait to see how you respond and then fall in line with your view.
Weak-minded people are influenced by those people who are either paid to have an opinion or those who occupy a position respected by the fan.
There is nothing wrong with drinking until death if that's a persons desire...it's part of our rights to determine our own fate. I also note Coxy that you make no mention of the rest of the public ,guilty, on the same day,of the same offence and treated totally differently. You also do not seem to acknowledge the unfairness of a triple layer of punishment....strangely you expect newbies (and that is what anyone under 30 is ) to behave as a grown-up would !!!!! You expect standards of behaviour from a child that you don't expect of a high court judge !!!
Why??.........because the boys paid well and can play Rugby League !!
Because a player is talented and highly paid DOES NOT mean he is any better equipped to handle life and its temptations , he is no better qualified than a nuffy touch player or snooker champ !!
With regard to the court of public opinion let me say this...never wasbeen journos and commentators shape the direction of the outrage...their feigned indignation influences the weak-minded in much the same way as the defenders of your own good self...you know how they jump up and down whenever they feel you're being threatened or abused and they rush to your defence or when they are not capable of independent thought they simply wait to see how you respond and then fall in line with your view.
Weak-minded people are influenced by those people who are either paid to have an opinion or those who occupy a position respected by the fan.
There is nothing wrong with drinking until death if that's a persons desire...it's part of our rights to determine our own fate. I also note Coxy that you make no mention of the rest of the public ,guilty, on the same day,of the same offence and treated totally differently. You also do not seem to acknowledge the unfairness of a triple layer of punishment....strangely you expect newbies (and that is what anyone under 30 is ) to behave as a grown-up would !!!!! You expect standards of behaviour from a child that you don't expect of a high court judge !!!
Why??.........because the boys paid well and can play Rugby League !!
Why shouldn't he be sacked? I know if my husband was caught drink driving, particuarly in the high level range, he would lose his job, as would most people. I am not sure if a criminal record would be established because of it, but many companies certainly would not want to associate themselves with someone who is so reckless with their and other people's lives.
Quite simply, if you are old enough to drive, then you are old enough to know that drink driving is not on.
Quite simply, if you are old enough to drive, then you are old enough to know that drink driving is not on.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,035
- 41,884
Hamm.0
NRL Captain
- Mar 5, 2008
- 4,671
- 1
Huge. said:
Huge, not sure if you were here for Albrahma-gate, however I was one of the most vocal posters on the ideal that players are simply kids, who like all people can make poor life choices. However that said, in this particular circumstance, 80%+ of the civilian population would suffer a major setback with their employment, if not terminated outright, if they were caught with high-level drink driving.
Therefore to you, and FCB BB AKA MB, I say; players are simply people too....people lose their jobs (or suffer detrimental effects with their employment) when they do such reckless things, as should footballers.
- Mar 7, 2008
- 13,620
- 10,547
Fine Hammo..no argument that people be punished but the truth is not many ( very few actually ) lose their job simply because they were done for DD. Reason being that most consider the job of punishment to be the courts responsibility, a second layer of punishment would be going overboard. Naturally I exempt the employer of a person who requires a licence to actually perform his/her workduties. Losing your employment, although severe, is understandable in that case.
Some, not too bright ,think the punishment meted out by the court system is insufficient and want blood !! They want 3 levels of punishment and loss of job and income as well !!!
Hammo...........the albrahma-gate you spoke of...what happened there...it has cropped up before during other discussions but I genuinely have no clue as to what it concerned...I'm guessing it was animated and I think it must have been along the lines of someone unable to admit error or the like...love to hear about it though lol
Some, not too bright ,think the punishment meted out by the court system is insufficient and want blood !! They want 3 levels of punishment and loss of job and income as well !!!
Hammo...........the albrahma-gate you spoke of...what happened there...it has cropped up before during other discussions but I genuinely have no clue as to what it concerned...I'm guessing it was animated and I think it must have been along the lines of someone unable to admit error or the like...love to hear about it though lol
