So they choose 2009 and this incident to start the stand, rather than whatever year the other incidents took place? Take a stand, thats fine, im all for it, but it is unfair to stewart, definitely unfair, to suddenyl impose a whole range of punishments for the same or similar siutations. However you spin it it is still unfair that stewart would cop a punishment that others didnt, and its not like these other incidents took place 30 years ago in another era, it was within the last 3-5 years or so. Yes whatever happened shouldnt have happened, but im not syaing this situation is unfair on stewart in reagrds to the girl, im saying it would be in reagrds to other players in similar situations who were not stood down. But like I said, if manly chooses to stand him down, fine. My only problem is the nrl picking and choosing when to get involved.
We have to draw a line somehwere, if we want the behaviour of players and the image and marketability of the game to improve.
If that's unfair when compared to events of the past fine, but to move forward there has to be different apporaches, not excuses, or referring back to precedents. You might b efine with having the game dragged through the gutter every time a player drinks too much or can't keep his dick in his pants, but I think things have to change. Why not start at the next calendar year after the Centenary year was tarnished by so much bad player behaviour?
That is no reason to throw it out as a precedent. The situation is no different. A player has brought disrepute to the code and the club with sexual assualt claims borught against them. He wasnt suspended. It would be unfair to not use this as a precedent.
See above. One was done after a club function, so the players current club could be said to be partly culpable for tehir player's actions given he partook of alcohol on their watch. Quite different, and why make the excuse? Why need to follow imperfect precedents? Do you want this sh*t happening through whatever club on a weekly basis?
Ignoring precedent is not what our society is built on, and you would be spewing if you broke the law and the judge threw out precedent and then threw the book at you when others in a similar situation got a slap on the wrist.
It's a different situation. Lafranchi's cheated on his wife in someone's flat and it became an issue of consent. This is an open public drunken attack of some nature on a 17 year old following a public club function.
And judges change (or set) precedents all the time, when the circumstances are different. What would you call the Mabo and Wik decisions versus the previous "precedent" of Terra Nullius? There were "precedents" in this country of aboriginals being locked up purely because of what race they were. Society moves on, and things like precedents do change with the times.
Again, if you want to change things put out a rule now and say further crap like this will be treated in such and such a way, but you cant go changing the rules after its occurred or because the player is more high profile (at the time of incident) or whatever reason.
I'm suggesting the NRL were ropeable about the damage to the game through player behaviour in the centenary year, and through their member clubs are likely pushing them for zero tolerance and a common process where allegations lead to charges of a serious nature against players. This priority could have been emphasised at the end of year clubs conference, so nothing new. Is it unfair because all players weren't sat down and told, "listen, you can't break the law now and expect to keep playing"? If stood down this year they'll all still be on full pay like Bird was, so what's the problem?
.
