Todd's not pre-empting the case at all. Complete furphy. Todd's job is to see if the game will be harmed by XYZ actions and outcomes. Todd's determination on image or brand damage is no relation to a criminal matter. That's for the courts to decide.
The ARU didn't cut Izzy adrift because his actions were criminal- they cut Izzy adrift because he'd breached his contract and was damaging the game. Just as Scott may or may not have done.
Do we see the difference between damage to the game & criminal yet?
Pearce, Carney, Monoghan- not one of them convicted of a criminal offence- but by gee they were stood down correctly for damaging the game... Get it?
Todd's job is to look after the NRL. The brand of the NRL. He'd quite like to know- thank you very much- before he decides to stand the player down if the player would kindly share the video his own defence team has trumpeted as a key plank in his acquittal because if becomes public after the sentencing. Like hmmm, let me see here.... like it did at the Wighton trial and is shown round the clock for the next week or so of Scott punching a lady copper in the face while she tries to assist him out of a puddle of his own vomit or something...
Maybe... just maybe... Todd should be hedging against that outcome - doing his due diligence to the game- by asking to see this video that Eid (Scott's lawyer) is yelling about. What a great way for Curtis to help Todd get the game behind him!
Let's just pay special attention to the wording of the "no fault stand down rule" and think about which words preclude it from prejudicing a case... hmmm, "no fault?"and note that its wording does NOT limit it to ONLY cases with long prison sentences but allows Greenberg discretion in when and why to apply it if read carefully...?
*players charged with a criminal offence carrying a penalty of at least 11 years will be automatically stood down from playing in the NRL competition;
*the suspension will not require any finding of fault by the player and there is no right of appeal;
players are still able to train with their team and are entitled to be paid their full remuneration under their contracts;
*and the NRL’s CEO can use his discretion to stand down players charged with less serious criminal offences, particularly where the offence involves women and children.
Nothing in that wording that LIMITS Greenberg to ONLY discretion involving women and children here at all. Specific wording and punctuation makes it clear he HAS discretion to use it for less serious offences.
"Particularly" but NOT "specifically" or "only".
So if Scott wants the NRL to stick its neck out for him- maybe he just, y 'know SHOWS them the video which shows his side of events. If he wants to keep it all secret, then maybe, just maybe , his boss looking after the whole games image might just stand him down- on full pay mind you- while the matter is cleared up. You know, AFTER Curtis refuses to show his boss the footage. Which he might do, I hope.
