Barba sacked by Cowboys

[TheFrog]

Is the Bolton case really analogous to the DV ones? According to the reports he touched a woman's thigh in a bar.

But she complained about it, which is more than what Ms Currie has done.

He (bolton) should get a month or so, which is quite a lot less than life. GI, also, should have been suspended for more than just two Test matches.

 

[Timmah]

Dozens of offences, can you count them out for me? Todd just helped GI get off the same thing Carney got punished for.

Carney's rap sheet isn't short, if that's what you're asking:

• Mid range DUI December 2006
• DUI, reckless driving, failing to stop when directed by police, negligent driving & driving while disqualified May 2007
• Allegedly urinates on someone at a Canberra pub. Complaint withdrawn but stood down by Raiders July 2008
• Allegedly evicted from a Goulburn club August 2008. (contract with Raiders terminated)
• Vehicle damage Feb 2009
• Photo leak incident with 2nd hand phone April 2009
• Arrested after altercation outside an Atherton pub, released without charge May 2009
• Allegedly injuring another man by deliberately setting his pants on fire Jan 2010
• Police allege Jake Friend handing Carney a pill on a Saturday night. A search of the pair finds no pills on Carney (Friend had 7 valium pills) Jun 2010
• Low range DUI Feb 2011
• Found drinking with Anthony Watts & stood down from Roosters indefinitely (returned R10) April 2011
• Found to have been drinking with Myles & FPN after agreeing otherwise with the club.
• Bubbler incident June 2014

LINK: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...k=d7d3484ecc006ddf85832e339341701e-1549337836

 

[Perth Red]

And while I agree that Greenberg is a largely incompetent buffoon who is completely reactive to image over substance, there are a couple more things worth noting

1 - the public rarely has the whole story, while the NRL usually does. There has to be some level of belief that their decision making is based on the whole picture. What were the details of the offence, what were the circumstances, is it actually out of character, is the player likely to reoffend, what steps has the player taken.
Simply, they have more information than we do. Scott Bolton case is a good example - we have people here saying "why wasnt he life banned, he assaulted a woman". He was convicted of touching someone on the thigh. Lack of information and misinformation leads to dubious comparisons, this is why the NRL insist on a case by case basis for these things.

2 - Greenberg has showed some rare backbone in sticking to his guns, taking each case on its merits when most of the public is calling for blanket life bans. Bowing to public pressure would be taking the easy way out.

So an unwanted touch in the thigh is ok, how about a gentle touch on the breast? or a light slap on the head? or a heavy smack on the backside or does it have to leave injury for it to be deemed serious enough assault to be worthy of a ban? A push is ok, but a punch is a life ban? Or is it only a life ban if its a third offence, or is three ok but a fourth will see you punted? or is four ok as long as spread out but woh betide you if there is a fifth. DUI ok as long as you dont kill someone but drunk at a private party and if it hits facebook you're in NRL strife, go on a mad rampage and terrorise a family is bad but some workshops and rehab and all good as long as you dont mess up again.

Its such a complicated landscape!

 

[some11]

Refresh my memory then.

Why was he marked "never to return"?

Carney was a deadshit, people like to pretend he was only sacked for only one of his stupid acts.

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

Carney was a deadshit, people like to pretend he was only sacked for only one of his stupid acts.

This is a thin resume you have here.

Don't you have more detailed information on Todd Carney's reign of carnage?

 

[adamkungl]

So an unwanted touch in the thigh is ok, how about a gentle touch on the breast? or a light slap on the head? or a heavy smack on the backside or does it have to leave injury for it to be deemed serious enough assault to be worthy of a ban? A push is ok, but a punch is a life ban? Or is it only a life ban if its a third offence, or is three ok but a fourth will see you punted? or is four ok as long as spread out but woh betide you if there is a fifth. DUI ok as long as you dont kill someone but drunk at a private party and if it hits facebook you're in NRL strife, go on a mad rampage and terrorise a family is bad but some workshops and rehab and all good as long as you dont mess up again.

Its such a complicated landscape!

Crimes have degrees and punishments have varying severity accordingly.
Sorry if this is all a tad complicated.

I'm sure you can figure out for yourself if an unwanted thigh touch is a more or less severe crime than a third offence violent assault, sit down and have a think.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

It's the teals that are most outrageous

f**kn teals!

 

[Perth Red]

Has Bolton received any condemnation or punishment form the NRl or is a touch in the thigh and a conviction of assault against a woman deemed not worthy of a Todd response? Whats the response on Walker?

 

[betcats]

Carney's rap sheet isn't short, if that's what you're asking:

• Mid range DUI December 2006
• DUI, reckless driving, failing to stop when directed by police, negligent driving & driving while disqualified May 2007
• Allegedly urinates on someone at a Canberra pub. Complaint withdrawn but stood down by Raiders July 2008
• Allegedly evicted from a Goulburn club August 2008. (contract with Raiders terminated)
• Vehicle damage Feb 2009
• Photo leak incident with 2nd hand phone April 2009
• Arrested after altercation outside an Atherton pub, released without charge May 2009
• Allegedly injuring another man by deliberately setting his pants on fire Jan 2010
• Police allege Jake Friend handing Carney a pill on a Saturday night. A search of the pair finds no pills on Carney (Friend had 7 valium pills) Jun 2010
• Low range DUI Feb 2011
• Found drinking with Anthony Watts & stood down from Roosters indefinitely (returned R10) April 2011
• Found to have been drinking with Myles & FPN after agreeing otherwise with the club.
• Bubbler incident June 2014

LINK: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...k=d7d3484ecc006ddf85832e339341701e-1549337836

Its a long way short of "literally dozens". And since drink driving doesn't rate for the NRL anymore you can almost half it.

When you are comparing him to criminals convicted of violent crimes nothing Carney did rates even close to it, half of them are just him breaking team rules, not the law.

 

[Albert Rosenfeld]

Its a long way short of "literally dozens". And since drink driving doesn't rate for the NRL anymore you can almost half it.

The word is "halve."

 

[Timmah]

Crimes have degrees and punishments have varying severity accordingly.
Sorry if this is all a tad complicated.

I'm sure you can figure out for yourself if an unwanted thigh touch is a more or less severe crime than a third offence violent assault, sit down and have a think.

Part of the problem is that people like PR only see stuff like this in black and white, right and wrong. There's no room in their mind for things like restorative justice and the like.

I think the NRL over time (multiple CEOs, commissioners, pre-commission as well) has definitely been too willing and open to bring repeat offenders back. I don't think one-strike bans will work.

 

[Perth Red]

Its a long way short of "literally dozens". And since drink driving doesn't rate for the NRL anymore you can almost half it.

When you are comparing him to criminals convicted of violent crimes nothing Carney did rates even close to it, half of them are just him breaking team rules, not the law.

I think what is abundantly clear is that the NRL hasn't in the past been too concerned about the crime, the severity of the crime, or the impact of the crime. For them its all about the rehab and second chance. So even if minor indiscretions you'll get hit harder for numerous offences, where as commit one very severe crime and as long as you come back and keep your nose clean all's good. If Todd's new found balls will continue and mean one female assault crime is enough to see you wiped out for good remains to be seen.

You're right Timmah, I was brought up that smacking or sexually assaulting a woman is a terrible cowardly thing to do and that it deserves severe punishments. Damn my black and white upbringing.

 

[Timmah]

Its a long way short of "literally dozens". And since drink driving doesn't rate for the NRL anymore you can almost half it.

When you are comparing him to criminals convicted of violent crimes nothing Carney did rates even close to it, half of them are just him breaking team rules, not the law.

What is clear, is that for you it's more important to win this argument than it is to have a reasonable and fair discussion based on facts.

You asked what Carney's rap sheet looked like, two of us have gone to the trouble of providing it for you. It's not short, it's not trivial, he did all those things and despite being offered rehabilitation and multiple avenues to correct his behaviour, he kept doing dumb and sometimes illegal shit, or putting himself in situations where that sort of thing could happen.

That's a bit different to some of the cases happening now which for many of the players involved are first offences or, as discussed, are still before the courts.

As for the references to Lodge, as per Kungl's post, I agree that the NRL were too lenient on and him and he shouldn't have been allowed back.

 

[Quicksilver]

Part of the problem is that people like PR only see stuff like this in black and white, right and wrong. There's no room in their mind for things like restorative justice and the like.

I think the NRL over time (multiple CEOs, commissioners, pre-commission as well) has definitely been too willing and open to bring repeat offenders back. I don't think one-strike bans will work.

For who?

The NRL takes out the garbage and we can all pretend like the guy never existed.

The NRL would never have to deal with them again. If there's a future problem it's not the NRL's problem.

 

[betcats]

What is clear, is that for you it's more important to win this argument than it is to have a reasonable and fair discussion based on facts.

You asked what Carney's rap sheet looked like, two of us have gone to the trouble of providing it for you. It's not short, it's not trivial, he did all those things and despite being offered rehabilitation and multiple avenues to correct his behaviour, he kept doing dumb and sometimes illegal shit, or putting himself in situations where that sort of thing could happen.

That's a bit different to some of the cases happening now which for many of the players involved are first offences or, as discussed, are still before the courts.

As for the references to Lodge, as per Kungl's post, I agree that the NRL were too lenient on and him and he shouldn't have been allowed back.

I didn't ask what his rap sheet looked liked, I was pointing out Kungls ridiculous exaggeration. I had just looked at it prior to anyone posting it here so I knew as a fact it was not "literally dozens". Its hard to have a fair and reasonable discussion based of facts when those facts are being made up and exaggerated, so its obvious to me you are the one who is not interested in having "a reasonable and fair discussion based on facts".

 

[Timmah]

You're right Timmah, I was brought up that smacking a woman is a terrible cowardly thing to do and that it deserves severe punishments. Damn my black and white upbringing.

That statement in itself proves my point. You have taken my statement and twisted it into a simple black v white, right or wrong issue. In reality, life is more complex than simple lines like yours.

What I'm referring to, to help you understand, is that punishments, justice and the like are all far more complex than just "Person X did this, they must serve this punishment". Of course mandatory sentencing etc exists in the criminal justice system but we have courts and judges etc to decide, based on a variety of factors, the punishments required.

What I think would help with this whole rigmarole would be more transparency and/or publicity around the Integrity Unit - who they are, their function and their powers. At the moment it seems very secretive, and then they only review matters and make recommendations to the CEO/Board for them to then consider and enact.

 

[Timmah]

For who?

The NRL takes out the garbage and we can all pretend like the guy never existed.

The NRL would never have to deal with them again. If there's a future problem it's not the NRL's problem.

Like any employer, they can't be seen to just cast people aside without an attempt to counsel them. Modern HR 101

 

[Matua]

But she complained about it, which is more than what Ms Currie has done.

He (bolton) should get a month or so, which is quite a lot less than life. GI, also, should have been suspended for more than just two Test matches.

I wasn't suggesting he receive no sanction.

 

[Perth Red]

Like any employer, they can't be seen to just cast people aside without an attempt to counsel them. Modern HR 101

Nonsense, people get sacked all the time for severe breaches of rules. No second chance, no rehab or counselling, there's the door, see you. Why the NRL feels it has to be a social worker for these idiots who have been given a chance in life that many could only dream of is beyond me. Like someone else said the best way to deal with repeat offenders is not to give them a chance to repeat! If its severe enough, see you.

 

[Timmah]

Nonsense, people get sacked all the time for severe breaches of rules. No second chance, no rehab or counselling, there's the door, see you. Why the NRL feels it has to be a social worker for these idiots who have been given a chance in life that many could only dream of is beyond me. Like someone else said the best way to deal with repeat offenders is not to give them a chance to repeat! If its severe enough, see you.

Exactly. Severe breaches. If the breach is relatively minor and you have players being sacked without any support for such infractions, the court of public opinion (and potentially legal opinion) would be swinging back the other way - that it's too harsh etc etc.

Nobody's advocating we want woman bashers prevalent in the game - as I've said I'd prefer the NRL not have registered Lodge's contract - but I can't see a reason why we should cast aside players for more minor first-time infringements. When they start to add up - like Carney's - that's when they go.