Is it time for the NRL to stand down (with pay) players charged with a violent crime?

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

In all seriousness though could you make your self look more inconsistent/incompetent than putting an specific number on the potential sentence then turning around literally the next day and suspending someone whos crimes don't meet that limit?

 

[Pommy]

In all seriousness though could you make your self look more inconsistent/incompetent than putting an specific number on the potential sentence then turning around literally the next day and suspending someone whos crimes don't meet that limit?

Let’s just wait and see what tomorrow brings before we answer that question.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The flaws in the system, putting aside the "what if a false claim/charge is made" ones that I can see:

1. The club pays the stood down player or players (who says we won't wind up with there being more than one at the same club). Where do they magically find the money to employ the replacement players from? When you consider many NRL clubs run at the ragged edge financially, this is worth thinking about;

2. Why should the club have to apply for salary cap dispensation if it is the NRL who stood the player down? This is just stupid, and even then the dispensation provision say "up to the value of" so they could win up with getting less salary cap dispensation than the salary of the stood down player.

Final thoughts, I laughed when I heard Peter Beattie and co call it a "No Fault" stand own policy and then say "we will not tolerate violence in our game". This guy has done more harm to the game by constantly talking about the De Bellin situation in public than anyone.

On a side note, fi a NSW Public servant is charged with a serious offence, they may be stood down. It is not mandatory at all, it is discretionary (see sections 69 and 70 of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013).

 

[Timmah]

The NRL appear to have taken "no conviction recorded" as "not guilty".

Sorry?

He got suspended. For two Test matches. And stripped of the captaincy. The NRL don't 'appear' to have done that at all.

 

[Timmah]

In all seriousness though could you make your self look more inconsistent/incompetent than putting an specific number on the potential sentence then turning around literally the next day and suspending someone whos crimes don't meet that limit?

Even a rudimentary read of what was confirmed yesterday, or a quick watch of yesterday's press conference, would tell you that the 11 year limit is there, but they have discretion on crimes below that limit:

Under the game’s new policy towards players charged with serious offences, Greenberg has the discretion to indefinitely stand down any player accused of violent acts, particularly in cases involving women or children, until their court hearings have concluded.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28...est-case-for-discretionary-stand-down-policy/

 

[Timmah]

Has anyone discussed the implication of this for guilty verdicts?
The NRL is prepared to say that some players cannot play while awaiting trial which would make them pretty hypocritical if they then welcomed back a player that had been convicted of that crime. To me, the logical progression of this is to ban for life any player found guilty of a crime that would see you stood down in the first place.

I think that comes down to world view. So far, for instance, Russell Packer I think has been relatively well behaved since he returned from his jail time?

Society will be split on this no doubt but it ultimately is down to whether you believe that someone who's served their time deserves the opportunity to get on with life and/or if their return to playing could be seen as part of their rehabilitation / reintegration into society.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

Even a rudimentary read of what was confirmed yesterday, or a quick watch of yesterday's press conference, would tell you that the 11 year limit is there, but they have discretion on crimes below that limit:

Under the game’s new policy towards players charged with serious offences, Greenberg has the discretion to indefinitely stand down any player accused of violent acts, particularly in cases involving women or children, until their court hearings have concluded.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28...est-case-for-discretionary-stand-down-policy/

Yeah i understand that, i'm talking about the optics of it. Which also begs the question why have an arbitrary number at all?

 

[firechild]

I think that comes down to world view. So far, for instance, Russell Packer I think has been relatively well behaved since he returned from his jail time?

Society will be split on this no doubt but it ultimately is down to whether you believe that someone who's served their time deserves the opportunity to get on with life and/or if their return to playing could be seen as part of their rehabilitation / reintegration into society.

I'm talking about the fact that a player who may not have done anything wrong cannot play but someone who has been convicted can. We're no talking about 10 years later, this is a few years after a serious crime.
Fudge hasn't killed anyone so let's give him a medal. IMO, Fudge and Lodge shouldn't be anywhere near the NRL.

 

[Eion]

if JDB thinks he’ll be found guilty, it’s in his financial interest to the drag the trial out as long as possible

 

[Captain Apollo]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-01/club-respect-aims-to-tackle-sexist-culture-in-nrl/10806758

 

[Tiger5150]

To further point out the absurdity of Greenbergs discretionary powers, Musgrove & Chee Kam are both awaiting trial for assault but not stood down by the NRL. Why? Because it wasnt on a woman? Because it wasnt on nine news?

 

[Captain Apollo]

To further point out the absurdity of Greenbergs discretionary powers, Musgrove & Chee Kam are both awaiting trial for assault but not stood down by the NRL. Why? Because it wasnt on a woman? Because it wasnt on nine news?

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28...est-case-for-discretionary-stand-down-policy/

 

[Timmah]

To further point out the absurdity of Greenbergs discretionary powers, Musgrove & Chee Kam are both awaiting trial for assault but not stood down by the NRL. Why? Because it wasnt on a woman? Because it wasnt on nine news?

The facts presented in the Walker case yesterday appear far more troubling (IMO) than anything in either Zane's or Michael's cases thus far.

I don't know how that makes the decision not to stand down either of them (although I note Musgrove wasn't named this week) "absurd".

 

[Tiger5150]

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28...est-case-for-discretionary-stand-down-policy/

Actually to correct that article and my previous post, Musgrove;s contract has not yet been registered by the NRL so there is nothing to stand him down from, but Chee Kam is playing this weekend.

 

[Timmah]

Yeah i understand that, i'm talking about the optics of it. Which also begs the question why have an arbitrary number at all?

They'd probably be criticised if they didn't. Seems they're on a hiding to nothing no matter which position they take, tbh.

 

[Tiger5150]

The facts presented in the Walker case yesterday appear far more troubling (IMO) than anything in either Zane's or Michael's cases thus far.

I don't know how that makes the decision not to stand down either of them (although I note Musgrove wasn't named this week) "absurd".

I think your point clearly spells out why its absurd IMO. If that is the case it comes down to Greenburg deciding that for example someone allegedly grabbing a woman by the hair and pulling her down is worse than someone allegedly punching someone in the face.

Im not saying either is better or worse (or that either happened) but my point is it is absurd that the NRL have point in place a system where Greenburg sits in judgement that pulling a girls hair is worse than a punch in the face.

 

[Timmah]

I think your point clearly spells out why its absurd IMO. If that is the case it comes down to Greenburg deciding that for example someone allegedly grabbing a woman by the hair and pulling her down is worse than someone allegedly punching someone in the face.

Im not saying either is better or worse (or that either happened) but my point is it is absurd that the NRL have point in place a system where Greenburg sits in judgement that pulling a girls hair is worse than a punch in the face.

He wouldn't make that decision alone or without consultation. Can you have this debate reasonably without resorting to the default gReEnBeRg Is EvIl position every time?

 

[Tiger5150]

He wouldn't make that decision alone or without consultation. Can you have this debate reasonably without resorting to the default gReEnBeRg Is EvIl position every time?

I dont think Greenberg is evil, I think he is narcissistic and incompetent. It is hard to discuss his incompetent decisions without confronting the elephant in the room.

Seriously Timmah, you cant see the absurdity of setting into stone cold POLICY a situation where Greenberg (yes GREENBERG, Beattie stated it was at HIS discretion) decides the difference between Walker allegedly pulling his partner to the ground by her hair and another guy punching another in the face? You cant see a problem when the CEO decides that this guy will have his career threatened due to an allegation, but not this guy? You cant see a problem when by their own admission they already had sufficient policies and powers to stand players down, but I assume they didnt defer to the authority of the CEO.

Are you able to discuss this without blindly defending Greenberg? I am genuinely puzzled at your motives Timmah. Do you think he is doing a good job? Is it a hangover from his days at the Bulldogs?

 

[Timmah]

I dont think Greenberg is evil, I think he is narcissistic and incompetent. It is hard to discuss his incompetent decisions without confronting the elephant in the room.

Seriously Timmah, you cant see the absurdity of setting into stone cold POLICY a situation where Greenberg (yes GREENBERG, Beattie stated it was at HIS discretion) decides the difference between Walker allegedly pulling his partner to the ground by her hair and another guy punching another in the face? You cant see a problem when the CEO decides that this guy will have his career threatened due to an allegation, but not this guy? You cant see a problem when by their own admission they already had sufficient policies and powers to stand players down, but I assume they didnt defer to the authority of the CEO.

Are you able to discuss this without blindly defending Greenberg? I am genuinely puzzled at your motives Timmah. Do you think he is doing a good job? Is it a hangover from his days at the Bulldogs?

If you're naive enough to think that Greenberg will sit alone in a room and consult nobody at all about decisions around this discretionary policy then I can't help you.

 

[Tiger5150]

If you're naive enough to think that Greenberg will sit alone in a room and consult nobody at all about decisions around this discretionary policy then I can't help you.

Then why make it about him? Why have it written into policy that it is at HIS discretion? Particularly when Beattie said that there were already rules in place that allowed the NRL to stand down players.

You still havent answered my main question Timmah. You pointed out in your post that the circumstances between Walker & Chee Kams cases are different. Forget its Greenberg. Do you not think that writing a new policy to override previous policies that places this decision at one mans discretion is doomed to fail?