What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Should a player charged with a violent crime be stood down from NRL until the matter is resolved?

  • yes

  • no


Results are only viewable after voting.

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Some clarifications first

1. To suspend with full pay is neither terminating employment prematurely nor is it an assumption of guilt.
There is precedent in our society - This would be fairly similar to what would happen to most people in public facing or high responsibility roles.

2. This would apply to players charged by the police with a violent crime. So not random accusations that go nowhere, and let's not include things like drink driving, as bad as that is. As we saw with Brett Stewart as the obvious example, players can and have been charged on fake accusations.
 

Cactus

Juniors
Messages
677
Stand down with pay?
You seriously think this would reduce these incidents.
Wow.

Do you seriously think that the players themselves would NOT prefer to keep playing and NOT be subjected to being stood down, removed from the player group, removed from all the club structures, removed from training with your mates, removed from competing and advancing their careers ?
 

firechild

First Grade
Messages
7,704
Stand down with pay?
You seriously think this would reduce these incidents.
Wow.
Who said anything about reducing incidents? The point of this would be to protect the image of the game.

I say no. All players deserve the presumption of innocence. The moment they enter a guilty plea or are found guilty, judgement can be passed. As we saw with Brett Stewart, these cases can drag on for years. Who pays their wage if they're on the final year of their contract when charged? What if they're found not guilty after 2 years but their asking price has plummeted because they haven't played a game in 2 years?

I know it's a bad look for the game having some players play while facing serious charges but if the NRL had taken a strong and consistent approach from the start and allowed all cases to be determined before taking any action, it really wouldn't be a bad look for the game, especially if they took strong action whenever players were found guilty.
 

SBD82

Coach
Messages
16,931
Some clarifications first

1. To suspend with full pay is neither terminating employment prematurely nor is it an assumption of guilt.
There is precedent in our society - This would be fairly similar to what would happen to most people in public facing or high responsibility roles.

2. This would apply to players charged by the police with a violent crime. So not random accusations that go nowhere, and let's not include things like drink driving, as bad as that is. As we saw with Brett Stewart as the obvious example, players can and have been charged on fake accusations.
Change the words "violent crime" to "serious indictable offence" and I'd agree. there are low level violent charges that aren't considered particularly serious by the courts. I see no reason why the NRL should treat them otherwise.
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,546
Remember the process needs to work month out from finals or the week before the grand final or pre a rep game, when extortion process could be initiated
 
Last edited:

Valheru

Coach
Messages
17,513
No.

I don't see how this is feasible.

It is not perfect but i can't see a better system then waiting for judicial process unless they are not granted bail and/or they plead guilty.
 

typicalfan

Coach
Messages
15,430
Some clarifications first

1. To suspend with full pay is neither terminating employment prematurely nor is it an assumption of guilt.
There is precedent in our society - This would be fairly similar to what would happen to most people in public facing or high responsibility roles.

2. This would apply to players charged by the police with a violent crime. So not random accusations that go nowhere, and let's not include things like drink driving, as bad as that is. As we saw with Brett Stewart as the obvious example, players can and have been charged on fake accusations.
Stand down a player from a grand final or origin for allegations that end up proving to be false? Let's say a player who's presence could affect the result.

What if the case drags on for a year? A player misses out due to potentially false allegations?

Is there another sport where this occurs?
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
108,132
Some clarifications first

1. To suspend with full pay is neither terminating employment prematurely nor is it an assumption of guilt.
There is precedent in our society - This would be fairly similar to what would happen to most people in public facing or high responsibility roles.

2. This would apply to players charged by the police with a violent crime. So not random accusations that go nowhere, and let's not include things like drink driving, as bad as that is. As we saw with Brett Stewart as the obvious example, players can and have been charged on fake accusations.
At a matter of principal I don't think anyone should be sacked until a court determines guilt. If we have a blanket 'rule' then who decides this? If left to the much lauded 'court of public opinion' then it's akin to mob rules and the mob always like a good old tar and feathering.

But I accept that sometimes an employer has seen information or evidence and sought clarification, and this places them in an impossible position where they must sack the accused. In this case, I think decisions like this must be made on a case-by-case basis. That is, there can be no blanket rule.

Unfortunately your poll is too rigid and therefore, imo, flawed. As we used to say in more reasonable times, it needs a third option. So, with respect, I won't be voting.
 
Messages
13,797
Under Adam's idea, then Shaun Kenny-Dowall should never have played again once he was charged in 2015. Look how that turned out.

Sounds like someone who would fit in well with Buzz Rothfield and co. Trial by media.
 
Messages
366
I'd have to say no.

Imagine 3 star players from your club are accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a toilet cubicle.

They're stood down from a finals match, you lose, season over.

Then the claim is found to be false and they're cleared of all charges.
 

AJB1102

First Grade
Messages
6,339
Gotta leave it up to the player and club. If it's too much of an issue they'll sit out. Unfortunately that'll only ever go one way and that'll be media and social media pressuring them out.

It's one area I don't mind the NRL sitting back and waiting. I think the NRL standing him down for possibly years and effectively ending his career, only for him to be found not guilty, would do more and longer lasting damage than him playing while presumed innocent and no longer playing if proven guilty.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Under Adam's idea, then Shaun Kenny-Dowall should never have played again once he was charged in 2015. Look how that turned out.

Sounds like someone who would fit in well with Buzz Rothfield and co. Trial by media.

The point is to take the media out of the equation by removing the player from the spotlight. How is it trial by media? It's literally trial by the justice system.

I don't know how you got "never played again" for SKD. Under this proposal he wouldn't have played from July 2015 to Feb 2016.
Yes, he would have missed the finals, and yes he was found not guilty. As I said in the OP, this isn't about judgement. There is more to life than football. A player under a charge of this degree doesn't need to be in public view for months on end, for his own good and the NRL's.
There's a limited amount of airtime and column space and for the next few months it will be wasted on JDB, every time he steps onto the field or is considered for Origin selection.

Back to SKD - Maybe it would have been better for both him and the club if he missed the end of 2015. Was he in the right headspace? Did the club benefit from having him out there and the constant attacks from outsiders?

 
Messages
13,797
The point is to take the media out of the equation by removing the player from the spotlight. How is it trial by media? It's literally trial by the justice system.

I don't know how you got "never played again" for SKD. Under this proposal he wouldn't have played from July 2015 to Feb 2016.
Yes, he would have missed the finals, and yes he was found not guilty. As I said in the OP, this isn't about judgement. There is more to life than football. A player under a charge of this degree doesn't need to be in public view for months on end, for his own good and the NRL's.
There's a limited amount of airtime and column space and for the next few months it will be wasted on JDB, every time he steps onto the field or is considered for Origin selection.

Back to SKD - Maybe it would have been better for both him and the club if he missed the end of 2015. Was he in the right headspace? Did the club benefit from having him out there and the constant attacks from outsiders?


Thank you for the paid advertorial. I'm sure the cheque from News Ltd will be in the mail.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...-of-serious-crimes-lumby-20190213-p50xlu.html

NRL advisor Lumby believes ethically, high profile people should stand down when facing charges of this nature.

However, she also presents a strong argument for the NRLs current stance.

It's a complicated issue in which there aren't really any right answers imo.

Lay off the Buzz Rothfield comparisons, that's absolutely not where I'm coming from, never have and never will.
 

adamkungl

Immortal
Messages
42,955
Thank you for the paid advertorial. I'm sure the cheque from News Ltd will be in the mail.

You're acting like a dickhead tbh.

And not even making sense. If the NRL took this action News Ltd would lose half their anti-NRL content for the next few months. Actually, scratch that, they'd probably switch sides and start campaigning for players rights.
 

Latest posts

Top