Jack Debelin could be back in 17 as early as next week

[Old Timer]

You just have missed that time Jack took the NRL to the federal court to challenge the validity of the policy..

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-22/jack-de-belin-withdraws-legal-challenge-against-nrl/11437548


Although I could be wrong..

That may have been another Jack DeBelin who plays NRL..

FMD what planet are you on muzby you are going from dumb to dumber.

What part of "jack-de-belin-withdraws-legal-challenge-against-nrl" emphasis on "withdraw" do you not understand.

He had the opportunity to challenge and he "withdrew" so IMO he had the opportunity to challenge and he decided not to.

 

[muzby]

FMD what planet are you on muzby you are going from dumb to dumber.

What part of "jack-de-belin-withdraws-legal-challenge-against-nrl" emphasis on "withdraw" do you not understand.

He had the opportunity to challenge and he "withdrew" so IMO he had the opportunity to challenge and he decided not to.

Please tell me you’re joking here?

Seriously..

 

[Old Timer]

Please tell me you’re joking here?

Seriously..

OK genius spell it out for us all.

 

[muzby]

OK genius spell it out for us all.

1. You said Jack didn’t avail himself of the opportunity to challenge the NRL.

2. Jack challenged the NRL. In the federal court.

3. This means he availed himself of the opportunity.

4. His legal team withdrew the challenges during the court case when they felt they couldn’t win.

It was national news. It even made the news down here in Melbourne.

I’m not sure how you missed it, but hopefully that makes it clear for you.

Let me know if you need it broken down further.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

 

[muzby]

View attachment 40327

Shhhh....

I wanted to hear the reply from @Old Timer

 

[Old Timer]

1. You said Jack didn’t avail himself of the opportunity to challenge the NRL.

2. Jack challenged the NRL. In the federal court.

3. This means he availed himself of the opportunity.

4. His legal team withdrew the challenges during the court case when they felt they couldn’t win.

It was national news. It even made the news down here in Melbourne.

I’m not sure how you missed it, but hopefully that makes it clear for you.

Let me know if you need it broken down further.[/QUOTE

If he had of contested the matter then the court would have made a ruling either in his or the NRL's favour based on the legal arguments presented by both sides.

Is that what happened?

Or

Did he withdraw his case?

 

[muzby]

By taking it to court, he contested it.

Give up mate.. Your argument is becoming quite pathetic.

 

[RED73V]

Old Timer don’t buy into anything with muzby he is nothing but a troll & a wannabe comedian.....,Dumb Arse he is!!

 

[muzby]

Old Timer don’t buy into anything with muzby he is nothing but a troll & a wannabe comedian.....,Dumb Arse he is!!

Thanks for your input.

What part of my statement that JDB actually contested the NRL in the federal court about the stand down policy do you disagree with, or consider factually incorrect?

I’m happy to wait.

 

[Old Timer]

By taking it to court, he contested it.

Give up mate.. Your argument is becoming quite pathetic.

LOL I suppose you think t that the guy who pulled up with a torn hamstring in the final of the 100m at the Olympics finished last.

 

[Old Timer]

Thanks for your input.

What part of my statement that JDB actually contested the NRL in the federal court about the stand down policy do you disagree with, or consider factually incorrect?

I’m happy to wait.

Get back over to the other thread and accept the bet now's your chance to really get rid of me.

 

[muzby]

LOL I suppose you think t that the guy who pulled up with a torn hamstring in the final of the 100m at the Olympics finished last.

Get back over to the other thread and accept the bet now's your chance to really get rid of me.

Sorry OT.. You’re making a twat of yourself trying to argue against a documented outcome of a legal case.

Any further discussion on this is just wasting my time.

 

[Old Timer]

From the ABC website

St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin has withdrawn his legal challenge to the NRL's no-fault stand down policy.

Lawyers for the Dragon's player told the Federal Court in Sydney there was "no utility" in proceeding, as a decision would not be made before the end of the NRL season.

De Belin was appealing against a decision in June upholding the validity of the Australian Rugby League Commission's (ARLC) policy, which was introduced earlier this year.

Under the policy, players charged with a criminal offence which carries a maximum jail sentence of 11 years or more are able to be stood down until the matter has been dealt with by the courts.

The ARLC said they welcomed de Belin's decision and that they would continue to "monitor" his welfare.

"The Commission and the NRL take very seriously our responsibility to protect the reputation of the game and its stakeholders," it said in a statement.

"We have always held the view that the no-fault stand-down rule is in the best interests of the game and are pleased that the legal challenge to this rule has now been concluded."

The 28-year-old is accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman at a unit in Wollongong on the NSW south coast in December.

He was suspended in February after he was charged with five serious sexual assault offences.

 

[muzby]

From the ABC website

St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin has withdrawn his legal challenge to the NRL's no-fault stand down policy.

Lawyers for the Dragon's player told the Federal Court in Sydney there was "no utility" in proceeding, as a decision would not be made before the end of the NRL season.

De Belin was appealing against a decision in June upholding the validity of the Australian Rugby League Commission's (ARLC) policy, which was introduced earlier this year.

Under the policy, players charged with a criminal offence which carries a maximum jail sentence of 11 years or more are able to be stood down until the matter has been dealt with by the courts.

The ARLC said they welcomed de Belin's decision and that they would continue to "monitor" his welfare.

"The Commission and the NRL take very seriously our responsibility to protect the reputation of the game and its stakeholders," it said in a statement.

"We have always held the view that the no-fault stand-down rule is in the best interests of the game and are pleased that the legal challenge to this rule has now been concluded."

The 28-year-old is accused of sexually assaulting a 19-year-old woman at a unit in Wollongong on the NSW south coast in December.

He was suspended in February after he was charged with five serious sexual assault offences.

Thank you for providing further evidence to prove my point that JDB did indeed avail himself of challenging the NRL stand down policy.

I’m glad we can finally agree on something.

 

[Old Timer]

Thank you for providing further evidence to prove my point that JDB did indeed avail himself of challenging the NRL stand down policy.

I’m glad we can finally agree on something.

Yes it clearly says there was "no utility" in proceeding.

 

[muzby]

Yes it clearly says there was "no utility" in proceeding.

Thanks for reiterating the that fact that his lawyers withdrew the application AFTER he challenged it.

JDB challenged it in court.

It’s not me trying to say it, it’s in the court documentation.

It’s in the newspapers.

FMD. Even Mary would be able to comprehend something as simple as this.

As I said earlier, all you’re doing here is making yourself look like a twat.

 

[Dorsai]

You are all arguing terminology, not an actual point.
Did he take the ARL to court? The answer is yes.
Did he challenge the decision though? Technically, no, as he withdrew the challenge.
Had he proceeded to trial, then yes you would be correct in saying he challenged it. If it was withdrawn pre trial or during opening arguments then, no challenge took place.
The order confirms that as it states dismissed. Which is paramount to it not proceeding and having been withdrawn.
You could argue it was challenged but based on all the terminology used you would be incorrect.
It was taken to court but withdrawn. That is the simple answer.

 

[_Johnsy]

You are all arguing terminology, not an actual point.
Did he take the ARL to court? The answer is yes.
Did he challenge the decision though? Technically, no, as he withdrew the challenge.
Had he proceeded to trial, then yes you would be correct in saying he challenged it. If it was withdrawn pre trial or during opening arguments then, no challenge took place.
The order confirms that as it states dismissed. Which is paramount to it not proceeding and having been withdrawn.
You could argue it was challenged but based on all the terminology used you would be incorrect.
It was taken to court but withdrawn. That is the simple answer.

Well technically he did challenge the decision as the documents were lodged, when does any challenge of a court decision begin? When the documents are lodged.

Did he follow through with the challenge, No.

Now can we all move on? I reckon that would be great.

 

[thebigredv]

I really feel unsatisfied with what the NRL did to support the dragons in this whole scenario. Two seasons without one of our best players who is technically innocent at least for now.

Bending over backwards to get sbw to roosters.
Changing the rules to get south's a young prodigy.

We get two no names for a bit that barely make first grade.