Should Accused Players be Suspended?

[Foordy]

Twitter says delayed to 1pm - so 3 mins time barring another delay.

got a link?

 

[broncos4life]

got a link?

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...erence/video/ba3d18ce622359a111b41c90cdf4c27b

 

[mitch222]

Pretty slippery slope to suspend someone when they haven't been convicted. Plenty of cases have gone to trial and been thrown out straight away by the judge. For those saying he is still getting paid its not really the point. If the player is off contract at the end of the year, they are normally busting their ass to earn another one. You sit them for 3 months of the NRL season and they have a long road back to playing first grade again let alone getting a new contract. But I am in favour of a one strike policy. If guilty, then gone. No ifs, no buts, just gone immediately and never allowed back.

 

[Foordy]

Twitter says delayed to 1pm - so 3 mins time barring another delay.

i guess Greenburg had something better to do

 

[tommy]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/break...n/news-story/6e633b188f54f0a5e4296fc6ca57cd7c

 

[Battler]

Inb4 the NSW media campaign for Lodge to be stood down (again) without understanding his prior punishment or the purpose of this rule.

 

[Unbreakable]

I think this is the correct decision.

 

[holdzy]

Pretty slippery slope to suspend someone when they haven't been convicted. Plenty of cases have gone to trial and been thrown out straight away by the judge. For those saying he is still getting paid its not really the point. If the player is off contract at the end of the year, they are normally busting their ass to earn another one. You sit them for 3 months of the NRL season and they have a long road back to playing first grade again let alone getting a new contract. But I am in favour of a one strike policy. If guilty, then gone. No ifs, no buts, just gone immediately and never allowed back.

It’s a difficult one, but I’d rather suspended with pay than allowed to play and then found guilty. Bellend isn’t facing a Scott Bolton charge, he is facing years in prison.

Sort your off field shit out, then sort the on field stuff imo. Particularly as it relates to a charge of this severity. Like I said, it’s difficult but I would go the aforementioned way.

 

[Clintos]

Pretty happy with that TBH.

'No fault policy' is obviously their way of sugar coating it a bit, but I think it's the most fair decision moving forward.
It's obviously polarizing, and most tough decisions are, but I've come away from the press conference happy with the decisions and explanations.

I like that the players can still train with the club and spend time with the rest of the team, and more importantly get the full benefit of the clubs' player welfare systems etc, rather than just putting them out to pasture. Their mental health needs to be acknowledged in what's obviously difficult circumstances.

Regardless, let's hope the media also choose to focus on some of the good things happening in the game moving forward, rather than hunting down the negatives.

 

[Sproj]

It is a very tough decision but credit where it is due, the NRL have actually made it.

It is a slippery slope but one that needs to happen. This serves as a pretty big deterrent for players who up until now have had no real problem unless legally found culpable, even years later.

 

[Morkel]

It makes me think of the Brett Stewart case. I can't remember if he was actually charged, but whatever it was, the NRL stood him down for a few weeks even though he maintained his innocence. When it became clear that he didn't do it and the accuser was a nutcase, the NRL doubled-down and said he still deserved to be suspended for "putting himself in the situation". Then later again, the NRL went full 180 and said they shouldn't have suspended him in the first place.

 

[tommy]

It makes me think of the Brett Stewart case. I can't remember if he was actually charged, but whatever it was, the NRL stood him down for a few weeks even though he maintained his innocence. When it became clear that he didn't do it and the accuser was a nutcase, the NRL doubled-down and said he still deserved to be suspended for "putting himself in the situation". Then later again, the NRL went full 180 and said they shouldn't have suspended him in the first place.

From memory the NRL suspended him for "being too intoxicated" at a club function.

 

[Nashy]

It makes me think of the Brett Stewart case. I can't remember if he was actually charged, but whatever it was, the NRL stood him down for a few weeks even though he maintained his innocence. When it became clear that he didn't do it and the accuser was a nutcase, the NRL doubled-down and said he still deserved to be suspended for "putting himself in the situation". Then later again, the NRL went full 180 and said they shouldn't have suspended him in the first place.

Don't believe he was charged, so it is different. But they were right, these fuckwits put themselves in a stupid situation, that's on them.

One day they might have some science that says alcohol and dumb ***** are usually not a good mix.

 

[Morkel]

From memory the NRL suspended him for "being too intoxicated" at a club function.

I think you are right.

 

[Big Pete]

Stewart was charged for sexually assaulting a 17-year old, but he was banned for breaching the NRL's Code of Conduct and the Sea Eagles were fined $100,000 for their player's behaviour.

I don't recall the NRL ever offering Stewart an apology. If they did, it was under a different regime.

 

[Super Freak]

It is a very tough decision but credit where it is due, the NRL have actually made it.

It is a slippery slope but one that needs to happen. This serves as a pretty big deterrent for players who up until now have had no real problem unless legally found culpable, even years later.

How exactly does this serve as a deterrent?

99% of the incidents the players have been getting in trouble for wouldn't result in an automatic ban and the decision to stand them down would be at the club CEO's discretion.

Unless I've been living under a rock my whole life, players being accused of rape hasn't exactly been an ongoing issue in the Rugby League community and if the possibility of over 10+ years in jail and living the rest of their life as a registered sex offender isn't enough deterrent then this sure as shit isn't going to be.

 

[Porthoz]

How exactly does this serve as a deterrent?

99% of the incidents the players have been getting in trouble for wouldn't result in an automatic ban and the decision to stand them down would be at the club CEO's discretion.

Unless I've been living under a rock my whole life, players being accused of rape hasn't exactly been an ongoing issue in the Rugby League community and if the possibility of over 10+ years in jail and living the rest of their life as a registered sex offender isn't enough deterrent then this sure as shit isn't going to be.

Exactly right. If the prospect of a long jail term is not a deterrent, why would suspension from playing NRL even rate a concern?

I understand where people are coming from in regards to the NRL finally drawing the line, but this creates prejudice and no matter how much you call it a "No Fault" policy, it does presume guilt rather than innocence.
I prefer to ensure an innocent player is not caught in the net and see his future ruined, and live with the guilty one playing a few extra games before a more permanent arrangement in a 2x3 cell...

A much better policy would be to permanently barr players from the game once they have been proven guilty of a serious enough offense (any jail time conviction is serious enough imo), repeat offenders in behaviour that brings the game into disrepute, and enforce a sacking for disciplinary reasons at one club in the whole competition.

Allowing clubs with zero scruples to pick-up players sacked by clubs who take those matters more seriously, is why the NRL is such an absolute joke in the first place. Now, we place the decision on "lighter offenses" at the discretion of Greenturd... seriously?

 

[Manlyman]

It makes me think of the Brett Stewart case. I can't remember if he was actually charged, but whatever it was, the NRL stood him down for a few weeks even though he maintained his innocence. When it became clear that he didn't do it and the accuser was a nutcase, the NRL doubled-down and said he still deserved to be suspended for "putting himself in the situation". Then later again, the NRL went full 180 and said they shouldn't have suspended him in the first place.

Two years from first charges to being unanimously acquitted. Not to mention all the innuendo and slander that he had to put up with during that period..