Manly v. NRL

[Je$ter]

I'd be pissed off too. A precedent has been set and Benji should get 4 games on the sideline.

 

[john1420]

Um, not spot on. Sure, they accepted the treatment then expecting other situations would be treated the same.

Carney drink drives despite being on an alcohol ban.
Marshall snots a bloke.
Neither get suspended. Neither club gets fined.

Ergo, manly a bit peeved.

Hey Coxy!

The treatment is not quite what I meant. My post speaks about the facts of the case; was Brett Stewar drunk or not, etc.

I have read articles where DH (Des Hasler, not D*** Head - although....never mind) is now trying to dispute the facts. The same facts that Manly accepted as truth at the time of the events.

Go the Broncos mate icon_thumbs_u

 

[Coxy]

Well fair enough. I think they'd actually have a case for some sympathy and explanation if they approached it simply on the fact that Stewart was suspended, Marshall not, but if they now want to dispute what they accepted as true at the time of the suspension then they're kidding themselves.

We know he was eventually acquitted of the charges, as well Benji might, but the story surfacing at all did put the game in disrepute so I think they deserved what they got.

My argument would be that the Tigers and Roosters have got off lightly.

 

[Porthoz]

Well fair enough. I think they'd actually have a case for some sympathy and explanation if they approached it simply on the fact that Stewart was suspended, Marshall not, but if they now want to dispute what they accepted as true at the time of the suspension then they're kidding themselves.

We know he was eventually acquitted of the charges, as well Benji might, but the story surfacing at all did put the game in disrepute so I think they deserved what they got.

My argument would be that the Tigers and Roosters have got off lightly.

Compared to Manly yes, but I think the NRL may wel have learned that they had a knee jerk reaction with Stewart and maybe should let the matter be addressed by the courts first... [icon_shru

 

[Flutterby]

In the Manly case, the NRL did not take action in regards to the pending charges - they let the courts deal with it, as they are in the Carney and Marshall cases. The action against Manly as a club and Stewart as a player was in regards to behaviour at the club's official season launch in his official capacity as NRL Face of the Game. Whereas the Carney and Marshall incidents didn't happen at or in relations to any official NRL or club activity but rather in their capacity as "private citizens". So if you want to get down to technicalities the NRL has been consistent.

 

[Coxy]

In the Manly case, the NRL did not take action in regards to the pending charges - they let the courts deal with it, as they are in the Carney and Marshall cases. The action against Manly as a club and Stewart as a player was in regards to behaviour at the club's official season launch in his official capacity as NRL Face of the Game. Whereas the Carney and Marshall incidents didn't happen at or in relations to any official NRL or club activity but rather in their capacity as "private citizens". So if you want to get down to technicalities the NRL has been consistent.

I'm aware of this and agree. I'm just saying I can see where Manly's coming from. They're just not good at persuasive arguments.