Benji Marshall not guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm

[mave]

Being drunk at an official team function a few days after being named face of the game and thus 'bringing the game into disrepute' which I agree is a very loose term.


As opposed to going out at 3am a few days after being named face of the game and alledgedly belting a bloke in the face and thus "bringing the game into disrepute', which I agree is a very loose term.

 

[eels bloke]

Benji Marshall is one of the greatest human beings on earth. If he made a decision to snuff a hater, then it must of been the right decision.

F*ck the media and this image of the game sh*t. Sometimes in life you can't just walk way, sometimes you have to fight.

Imagine the hater was a sober female, would you see it any differently?

 

[mave]

Imagine the hater was a sober female, would you see it any differently?

Would you????????

Alledgedly, Stewart was accused by a sober female.

 

[Eels Dude]

It's debatable. As the CEO Gallop's opinion holds far more power than your average Joe.

I'm imagining that he could have spoken with Stewart on the night and than come up with a press release along the lines of, 'I've spoken with the accused player. He had a club function... responsibly caught a cab home before the alleged incident occured. I've spoken with him and have no reason to believe that any punishment should be forthcoming. The issue will be for the police and courts to decide...

There will always be animosity towards Gallop for his exceptionally poor handling of the situation. His method poured fuel onto the fire.

Gallop didn't express an opinion. He simply handed Stewart a four game suspension for bringing the game into disrepute for being drunk at an official function. Probably harsh on hindsight. But that's not assuming or making a judgement on whether someone is guilty of a crime or not.

Gallop is representing the NRL and has to protect the image of the company first and foremost. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against Stewart, and the fact he was previously refused service then thrown out of the season launch what was Gallop supposed to do? Had he done nothing after Manly did nothing the backlash against the NRL from the general public and media would have been enormous.

Tim Smith did some stupid things at Parramatta, but he was never charged with any criminal offence but he did some stupid things when he was drunk and that's why our club was forced to suspend him. Jarryd Hayne similarly committed no offence in the King Cross shooting incident. But he was stood down for two matches by the club simply for putting himself in a risky position. But you don't see any Eels fans still whingeing that Jarryd Hayne was treated harshly by the club in regards to his punishment.

 

[Eels Dude]

Being drunk at an official team function a few days after being named face of the game and thus 'bringing the game into disrepute' which I agree is a very loose term.


As opposed to going out at 3am a few days after being named face of the game and alledgedly belting a bloke in the face and thus "bringing the game into disrepute', which I agree is a very loose term.

Exactly. That's why you should let it rest. Just move on and stop being so bitter.

 

[boonboon]

Brett Stewart was suspended because he was hammered, so much so that he was refused service and ask to leave the Manly Wharf Hotel as part of a club function- and I think we all know a footballer has to be really drunk to be asked to leave his local hotel after a club function. Benji Marshall has been reported as sober and signing autogrpahs and having photos with fans - Both the Stewart suspension and the Benji response have nothing to do with the charges they are/ were facing - so the difference is one player was hammered as part of a club function the other was not drunk at McDonalds - What could the NRL suspend him for given they aren't making any judegment on the incident

 

[boonboon]

Being drunk at an official team function a few days after being named face of the game and thus 'bringing the game into disrepute' which I agree is a very loose term.


As opposed to going out at 3am a few days after being named face of the game and alledgedly belting a bloke in the face and thus "bringing the game into disrepute', which I agree is a very loose term.

Benji muuch like Stewart wasn't is not be looked at by the NRL at this stage for the suposedly belting the bloke - So you would expect the NRL to suspend him for being at McDonalds at 3am ? It would mean suspending every NRL player who was out at that time last weekend - I would imagine most teams would struggle to field a side this weekend

 

[mave]

Brett Stewart was suspended because he was hammered, so much so that he was refused service and ask to leave the Manly Wharf Hotel as part of a club function- and I think we all know a footballer has to be really drunk to be asked to leave his local hotel after a club function. Benji Marshall has been reported as sober and signing autogrpahs and having photos with fans - Both the Stewart suspension and the Benji response have nothing to do with the charges they are/ were facing - so the difference is one player was hammered as part of a club function the other was not drunk at McDonalds - What could the NRL suspend him for given they aren't making any judegment on the incident

Sweet, so any player found to be drunk at/after a club functuion will be given a 4 week suspension.

Nice precedent to set.

The clubs have a function at least every week of the footy season.

How many players are going to be eligible to play in Round 2?

 

[franklin2323]

Brett Stewart was suspended because he was hammered, so much so that he was refused service and ask to leave the Manly Wharf Hotel as part of a club function- and I think we all know a footballer has to be really drunk to be asked to leave his local hotel after a club function. Benji Marshall has been reported as sober and signing autogrpahs and having photos with fans - Both the Stewart suspension and the Benji response have nothing to do with the charges they are/ were facing - so the difference is one player was hammered as part of a club function the other was not drunk at McDonalds - What could the NRL suspend him for given they aren't making any judegment on the incident

That's the line Gallop wants you to swallow. If the allegations against him aren't raised nothing happens. Watmough was kicked out also yet didn't get punished. On Marshall isn't getting in that situation getting the game a bad name

 

[Perth Red]

How P'd Off did Gallop look at the media scrum? That was the biggest sigh I have ever heard on TV!

 

[Pittwater Legend]

Gallop didn't express an opinion. He simply handed Stewart a four game suspension for bringing the game into disrepute for being drunk at an official function. Probably harsh on hindsight. But that's not assuming or making a judgement on whether someone is guilty of a crime or not.

Gallop is representing the NRL and has to protect the image of the company first and foremost. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against Stewart, and the fact he was previously refused service then thrown out of the season launch what was Gallop supposed to do? Had he done nothing after Manly did nothing the backlash against the NRL from the general public and media would have been enormous.

Tim Smith did some stupid things at Parramatta, but he was never charged with any criminal offence but he did some stupid things when he was drunk and that's why our club was forced to suspend him. Jarryd Hayne similarly committed no offence in the King Cross shooting incident. But he was stood down for two matches by the club simply for putting himself in a risky position. But you don't see any Eels fans still whingeing that Jarryd Hayne was treated harshly by the club in regards to his punishment.

The point is Gallop could have expressed an opinion in favour of Stewart and given this stance substance. As it is it's conclusive that his reaction was weak and a smokescreen. A suspension for being drunk at a club function on licensed premises could never be justified unless the NRL had placed a player ban on alcohol. This wasn't the case.

The circumstances surrounding Brett's departure from the club is sketchy. He was part of a group that was asked to leave. He wasn't specifically directed to. Out of the group he was the only one to retire home. It's also believed that a long flight from the UK and a disruption to his doses of medication for his diabetes could have induced what seemed an intoxicated state. People interviewed about his nature shortly before and after the incident deemed Stewart to be coherent.

I agree that Gallop has to represent the NRL. But with reference to basic human rights and the fact that all Australians are deemed innocent until proven guilty he could have respectably stood by a player that he has a responsibility for. Any CEO worth his salt wouldn't mind a fight, especially if it's justified.

The comparison with Tim Smith doesn't seem valid. Stewart is a complete cleanskin. Parramatta obviously dealt with Tim Smith the way they did because they felt they had no control over him. A comparison with Watmough would be more apt and I'd agree that Watmough should be suspended for any misdemeanours. In this case mentioning Jarryd Hayne doesn't seem fair either. Stewart had some jovial drinks at a club function on licensed premises before responsibly retiring home. How can you blame him for putting himself in a risky situation in this instance?

 

[Eels Dude]

The point is Gallop could have expressed an opinion in favour of Stewart and given this stance substance. As it is it's conclusive that his reaction was weak and a smokescreen. A suspension for being drunk at a club function on licensed premises could never be justified unless the NRL had placed a player ban on alcohol. This wasn't the case.

You may be right with the smokescreen. But Gallop should in no way come out and publicly support Stewart or anyone else. That's an insult to the alledged victim and in his role he cannot just do that. He gave him a suspension and then rightfully let the police and court system do what they had to do. He could have handled it better, but really it's over with now.

I agree that Gallop has to represent the NRL. But with reference to basic human rights and the fact that all Australians are deemed innocent until proven guilty he could have respectably stood by a player that he has a responsibility for. Any CEO worth his salt wouldn't mind a fight, especially if it's justified.

He isn't responsible for Brett Stewart. Stewart is responsible for himself. He represents the NRL but Gallop himself isn't responsible for what any player does off the field and what ever dramas they get into. And he certainly shouldn't have to stick up for players simply because they play in the NRL competition.

The comparison with Tim Smith doesn't seem valid. Stewart is a complete cleanskin. Parramatta obviously dealt with Tim Smith the way they did because they felt they had no control over him. A comparison with Watmough would be more apt and I'd agree that Watmough should be suspended for any misdemeanours. In this case mentioning Jarryd Hayne doesn't seem fair either. Stewart had some jovial drinks at a club function on licensed premises before responsibly retiring home.

The comparison with Tim Smith is fair because he was fined and stood down by the Eels after his FIRST drunken incident. Not his second, not his third, not his fourth, but his FIRST. At that time he was a cleanskin. He was subsequently also punished on his second and third incidents, despite not one resulting in any police investigation let alone charges.

Hayne was the victim of an attempted drive by shooting. He did nothing wrong apart from being out in Kings Cross in the early hours of the morning and was targeted because he intervened minutes before to prevent Mark Gasnier from getting in a fight. But apparently that's far worse than what Brett Stewart did.

How can you blame him for putting himself in a risky situation in this instance?

Never said he did, nor he deserved his punishment. But Manly fans need to stop and think that their players are the only ones to get hard done by. Most are hard done by by their own clubs, but still hard done by. Perhaps the Manly club need to use discipline a bit better to avoid the NRL intervening.

 

[Pittwater Legend]

You may be right with the smokescreen. But Gallop should in no way come out and publicly support Stewart or anyone else. That's an insult to the alledged victim and in his role he cannot just do that. He gave him a suspension and then rightfully let the police and court system do what they had to do. He could have handled it better, but really it's over with now.

It's extremely ludicrous to think that an NRL player wisely caught a cab home at 8pm and than allegedly assaulted a girl in the front yard of a set of residences after rejecting her initial advance. That's the way the media reported it.

You're right, Gallop could have handled it better but he played judge, jury and executioner with Brett's career. Manly fans will never forgive him and will be glad to see him fall on his sword.

The suspension with his extremely limited take on the situation was a blatant error and extremely damaging.

He isn't responsible for Brett Stewart. Stewart is responsible for himself. He represents the NRL but Gallop himself isn't responsible for what any player does off the field and what ever dramas they get into. And he certainly shouldn't have to stick up for players simply because they play in the NRL competition.

I would think ensuring that a player is represented fairly in a unique circumstance like this would partly be his responsibility as CEO which is why I said this in the first place.

The comparison with Tim Smith is fair because he was fined and stood down by the Eels after his FIRST drunken incident. Not his second, not his third, not his fourth, but his FIRST. At that time he was a cleanskin. He was subsequently also punished on his second and third incidents, despite not one resulting in any police investigation let alone charges.

You'll have to enlighten me on Tim Smith's incident. Just so you know the Manly club don't believe Brett Stewart was responsible for any incident on the night. From what was reported in court this was rightly so. Manly do believe that his actions on the night were responsible.

Hayne was the victim of an attempted drive by shooting. He did nothing wrong apart from being out in Kings Cross in the early hours of the morning and was targeted because he intervened minutes before to prevent Mark Gasnier from getting in a fight. But apparently that's far worse than what Brett Stewart did.

I'll admit that Hayne was unlucky (on several accounts) and I personally don't think he should have been punished. What was wrong with Brett catching a cab home to see his girlfriend at 8pm?

Never said he did, nor he deserved his punishment. But Manly fans need to stop and think that their players are the only ones to get hard done by. Most are hard done by by their own clubs, but still hard done by. Perhaps the Manly club need to use discipline a bit better to avoid the NRL intervening.

I'd think that if you were in our shoes you might be a little more understanding and sympathetic. Some Manly fans are so passionate about the club that the players feel like family. Stewart went through extreme torment for a long period and it was painful for Manly fans so close to the source of the truth having to deal with outlets and opposition fans entertaining the fact that he could be guilty of a sexual assault. This was a day to day battle for so long so it's not something you can just let go. We want justice and we won't go quietly. The Manly club could use discipline better but the Stewart case is a case of it's own that has to be excluded from all other incidents associated with the club.

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

Gallop was wrong in suspending Stewart, if he was found Guilty Manly would have had no choice but to terminate his contract, Gallop over-reacted

and on Benji, if he gets found guilty then suspend him & fine him, lets talk footy now

Depends. If found guily (given the reported lack/minor injury to the other party) Benji at most will have to do some community service, pay a small fine and probably have a suspended sentence with no premenant conviction noted if he behaves himself in the future.

The judge might see some evidence that while Benji should not have hit the bloke but that he was provoked and might find him not guilty.

Either way any legal punishment to Benji will be very minor, so will any punishment given to him by the NRL or his club. Probably a small fine (probably less than Todd Carney's) and maybe some extra community service. Doubt very much Benji will miss a single week of football over this matter.

 

[Eels Dude]

It's extremely ludicrous to think that an NRL player wisely caught a cab home at 8pm and than allegedly assaulted a girl in the front yard of a set of residences after rejecting her initial advance. That's the way the media reported it.

I agree. It is ludicrious. But at the end of the day there was enough evidence for the police to charge him with sexual assault lets leave it at that.

You're right, Gallop could have handled it better but he played judge, jury and executioner with Brett's career. Manly fans will never forgive him and will be glad to see him fall on his sword.

Well Manly fans need to think of the bigger picture. You shouldn't judge Gallop's performance of CEO of the NRL based on this one decision. Everyone knows he'sa puppet to a certain extent. The best thing to do is just let it go, just for Brett Stewart's sake even. I'm sure he wants to move on... Why cannot Manly fans?

This statement can be misconstrued. Let me know what you actually meant by it.

He obviously felt responsible for Brett Stewart when he handed him a 4 match suspension. You can't have it one way. I would think ensuring that a player is represented fairly in a unique circumstance like this would partly be his responsibility as CEO which is why I said this in the first place.

Fair call. Jake friend was also punished by the NRL. Other players have been handed punishments by their own club. But you do not see other clubs fans coming out and bagging out their club's administration for handing down fines or suspensions ytears afterwards. They accept it and move on. Like you Manly fans should.

You'll have to enlighten me on Tim Smith's incident. Just so you know the Manly club don't believe Brett Stewart was responsible for any incident on the night. From what was reported in court this was rightly so. Manly do believe that his actions on the night were responsible.

Tim Smith's incidents were as follow in this order.

1) Turning up to a late afternoon training session and failing a breath test after having a few beers at lunch with Mark Riddell
2) Being somewhat intoxicated in Parramatta on a sunday afternoon and yelling to some random on the street who had the nerve to call Ray Hadley the next day just to report that.
3) He was found drinking at the Tollgate pub in Parramatta after being banned from drinking by the club due to the previous too issues.

He also recieved a minor fine for urinating in public somewhere in that time frame. None of these incidents are major yet the club took action on the first one just to kick him into gear.

I'll admit that Hayne was unlucky (on several accounts) and I personally don't think he should have been punished. What was wrong with Brett catching a cab home to see his girlfriend at 8pm?

I already said there was nothing wrong it. But I commented on the fact you said it's not fair to compare Hayne's situation with Stewart but I think they're quite comparable and thats all I meant.

I'd think that if you were in our shoes you might be a little more understanding and sympathetic. Some Manly fans are so passionate about the club that the players feel like family. Stewart went through extreme torment for a long period and it was painful for Manly fans so close to the source of the truth having to deal with outlets and opposition fans entertaining the fact that he could be guilty of a sexual assault. This was a day to day battle for so long so it's not something you can just let go. We want justice and we won't go quietly. The Manly club could use discipline better but the Stewart is a case of it's own that has to be excluded from all other incidents associated with the club.

As are all fans to their respective clubs, and their players, especially their high profile ones and favourites. Laffranci faced a sexual assault charge. So did that bloke at the Warriors I can't remember his name. Even Inglis faced an assualt charge. At the end of of the day it happens and it's the same for every club. Because Stewart happens to be just one player out of a few to recieve a suspension doesn't mean you Manly fans should have a lifelong vendetta against the CEO of the NRL.

 

[Willow]

I cannot speak for any one other than myself....

Personally, I'm "uptight" about this alleged Marshall incident, because...

Stewart was suspended, giving an impression of supposed guilt, by the NRL, before any formal legal proceedings had been finalised.

In my opinion, Stewart paid the price for previous transgressions from other players and media pressure.

In my opinion, no player/manager/representative/etc, should be sanctioned or punished by the governing body until guilt has been proven in a court of law.

Gallop has set the precedent.

Either apologise to Stewart for over-reacting or continue the precedent.

There are precedents, then there's time.

Again, apples and oranges. The two incidents are unrelated.

The game's administrators might be dopes at times, and they will make mistakes, but I'd be very disappointed if they didn't treat each case on its own merits.

 

[jabroni]

An apology from Gallop to Stewart will heal Manly fans wounds. We all feel he was treated wrongly. Most supporters do. UNfortunately, Gallop's words keep coming back to bight him on the arse. Mr Double Demerit, etc.

If im not mistaken, the prosecution in the court case failed after many attempts to establish that Brett Stewart was drunk. For every person that said he was, an interviewing police officer, among others came to the defence and said that he was not drunk. So to have Gallop saying that Stewart was drunk is just another insult to add to the many others.

If Gallop had a pair, or actually wanted to right the wrongs, he would come out and say that the NRL over reacted with Brett Stewart, and made a decision with out knowing all the facts. They are sorry for it and don't want to see it happen to another player. Saying that they had learned from their mistakes would make a lot of people happy. Trying to justify the mistakes of the past with ever changing reasoning is just perpetuating the matter.

 

[gallagher]

I thought the Manly club and its supporters loved being hated? But here you are whinging that nobody loves you.
Poor little boys, sink your head into mum's apron.

 

[Eels Dude]

If im not mistaken, the prosecution in the court case failed after many attempts to establish that Brett Stewart was drunk. For every person that said he was, an interviewing police officer, among others came to the defence and said that he was not drunk. So to have Gallop saying that Stewart was drunk is just another insult to add to the many others.

FFS it's not the police's responsibility or the prosecution's responsibility to 'prove' he was drunk. Their responsiblity started and ended with an allegation of sexual assault.

Gallop responded and suspended Stewart due to him being ejected from Manly's season launch after prior being refused service. How many times do Manly fans need to be explained that. Yes it was over the top. Yes he wouldn't have been punished if the situation hadn't drawn media interest due to a criminal charge being layed. Just get over it already.

 

[adamkungl]

the NRL will never apologise...so we'll have to endure Moanly sooking for eternity