Should Accused Players be Suspended?

Discussion in 'Rugby League Talk' started by Sirlee oldman, Feb 13, 2019.

  1. Morkel

    Morkel

    19,441
    15,562
    I think maybe because the 10+ years in jail thing is only "real" if they're convicted, and which NRL players have actually gone to jail for that long? It's almost a completely theoretical scenario.

    BUT, players have for sure had their contracts torn up, or been suspended, and even if they've been found not guilty, have been questioned and charged for pretty serious crimes. It's a "real" scenario, which will deter players from even putting themself in a position to be implicated in a situation.

    I think that's what the NRL's plan is, and they've said as much. Telling players to not do illegal stuff is useless. But getting through to them that using anything less than absolute caution in all situations can STILL result in serious penalties.
     
  2. As if it matters. They bought the game into disrepute. They put themselves into a position they should have never, ever been in. It was on them. They should have been sat on their ass.

    Thankfully, since it was the Broncos, they absolutely copped it in the media. I think they realised how **** lucky they got back then.
     
    soup likes this.
  3. FGfrom50

    FGfrom50 NYC Player

    134
    85
    Not sure how many players it would have affected over the last decade. I would think (and hope) not very many at all. But there's one now, which is why this discussion has to happen.

    Standing down a player charged with a criminal offense of sufficient severity to carry a 10 year sentence has nothing to do with being a deterrent for future would-be offenders. As you say; the jail time is there for that reason. It's got a lot more to do with the fact the NRL does not want to seen letting someone charged with a serious criminal offense just get on with being a football star. It's a bad look for the game. As a side bonus, it protects the player to a degree from the media wolf pack, by moving them out of the spotlight.

    This policy is to protect the game at large, not prevent criminal acts.
     
  4. soup

    soup State of Origin Rep

    6,078
    3,971
    I’d be really keen on @Big Pete’s analysis as a budding criminology expert.
     
  5. Now what would give you that idea? If you want an expert opinion, you're better off asking @Jason Simmons@Jason Simmons or @Browny@Browny.

    However since you did ask for my two cents...

    From an ethical stand-point, I believe Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker are entitled to their presumption of innocence. While the pending charge could be an unwelcome distraction, I don't believe the NRL are in the best position to judge whether they're fit enough to perform their duties as football players. That is up to the club and the players themselves.

    From a business perspective, the NRL have a right to protect their brand. At least, I would like to think so, it would be incredibly incompetent of the NRL that they didn't have the right terms in place to stand down players in these exact situations. However, the NRL is trying to promote a certain image of itself and that's impossible when you've got two players with pending court cases.

    I agree with @FGfrom50@FGfrom50 when he says that the punishments aren't designed merely to be deterrents. They're also denunciations which makes it clear to the populace where the NRL stands on these issues.

    Bottom line, the NRL was damned if they did, damned if they didn't. My 2c, as just a fan in the stands, I wouldn't have had any issue with Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker playing on.
     
    Locky's Left Boot, soup and Porthoz like this.
  6. Just saying, your posts are usually worth a lot more than 2 cents my man :)
     
    Locky's Left Boot and soup like this.
  7. soup

    soup State of Origin Rep

    6,078
    3,971
    Hah, I remember you studied criminology at one point, but maybe it was just a component, rather than a major focus. Thanks for your 2c by the way. Very insightful.
     
  8. They weren’t charged with any crime.
     
  9. If anyone knows me, they would know I am for the presumption of innocence trumping all, but, and isn't there always a but (particularly in law) given the following I believe that the NRL had to act in the manner they have:-

    1. They have marketed the game extensively in recent years towards the family market and women and as an organisation have promoted itself as a very strong supporter of an anti-violence message, particularly towards women;

    2. There seems to have been an ever increasing number of incidences of player misbehaviour over the last ten years which have reached a crescendo with this off-season;

    3. Whatever steps the NRL has taken to educate players about violence and respect for women has not appeared to have been taken seriously by a fair percentage of the playing groups;

    4. The media are much more willing to print damaging stories and indeed sensationalize them, if not actively going out seeking damaging evidence to create the story (Bulldog's Mad Monday);

    5. What is alleged to have occurred in some of the more recent incidents seem to have gone to another level in terms of the seriousness of the allegations.

    The impact of the above is that the positive messages that the NRL has been attempting to create to sell the game (particularly to mothers who might prefer their children to be playing soccer or AFL) has been largely undermined, and I honestly believe that the reputation of the game has taken a hit.

    In light of that, I think that the NRL had to act to bring a more stringent consequence for a player charged with an offence, particularly a serious offence.

    I do not accept JDB's lawyer's posturing that a stand down by the NRL will have adversely impact his ability to receive a fair trial. In fact, I believe it has probably enhanced it. If he had not of been stood down, every time he took the field there would have been media focus upon him, there would be insults and booing from the crowd that probably would be above what Lodge received last year. JDB playing each week would just continually perpetuate the issue and keep it at the forefront of the media's attention, and therefore the forefront of the potential jury pool. Sitting him down offers the opportunity for it to disappear somewhat as an issue to be replaced by the next sex tape or next player outrage.

    That is my 2 cents worth (probably 50 cents worth really, given I have gone on for so long).
     
    Kimlo, soup, Horseheadsup and 6 others like this.
  10. I believe the NRL are well within their rights to protect their brand and agree with you on that. However, speaking as a fan who just watches the footy, I wouldn't boycott a game involving players charged with a serious crime. As far as I'm concerned, they're still innocent until proven otherwise and I'm happy to leave the decision with the clubs. They're the ones who have to invest the time and money into players, if they think they're 'fit' enough to play then it's good enough for me.

    Again, I don't blame the NRL for coming to the decision that they have. I'm just pointing out that I'm not qualified to make that type of decision, since I'm not in their position and don't have all the points of consideration infront of me. If I was making a difficult decision like the NRL had to make, I wouldn't be doing it blindly.
     
    Dexter likes this.
  11. Foordy

    Foordy

    16,393
    7,254
    JDB is reportedly in Federal Court today challenging the NRL's new "No Fault" Stand-Down Policy
     
  12. Bite the hand that feeds. Drag it through the mud some more.

    Kinda hope he's guilty at this point.
     
    LGH likes this.
  13. Broncos Maestro

    Broncos Maestro QCup Player

    524
    269
    Can’t believe the stupidity of JDB and his lawyers on this.

    I bet bottom dollar that if any of us were under serious investigation of a crime that serious (and was publicly known), our employers would sack our asses (& without pay!!). At least the NRL are still paying your bloody salary!!
     
  14. That would be illegal unless it was in a contract. Most big companies would stand you down though until it's sorted. Especially a known name in the company.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2019
    LGH likes this.
  15. broncos4life

    broncos4life International Rep

    Yep, me too.
     
  16. Tom

    Tom NRL Captain

    4,766
    3,527
    Does his club have anything to do with the lawsuit or is it all him?
     
  17. I can't find a yes or no anywhere on that. I would be surprised if a football player had access to lawyers that quickly, who could get him into the federal court that quickly though.
     
    Tom likes this.
  18. broncos4life

    broncos4life International Rep

    The official line is they are not. The said on NRL360 last night that initially St George were involved in it with him but after legal advice and with the fear of pissing off the NRL they got cold feet and pulled out. So 'officially' he is doing it himself.
     
    Tom likes this.
  19. Morkel

    Morkel

    19,441
    15,562
    A player manager would.
     
    Spot on

    And it happened where I work

    A person of high authority was charged with a sexual offence, and he was stood down on full pay immediately
     

Share This Page

Loading...