Dude, you seem a bit confused about the no fault stand down policy.
Under Rule 22A - 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.
Now correct me if I am wrong about this, but he's being accused of assaulting a female police officer, yeah?
One of the reasons the RLPA's legal action against the ARLC and NRL failed is because the Federal Court understood that the reputation of an employer like the NRL is intrinsically tied to the reputations of their employees, and as such they are justified in taking action beyond what you would expect in a normal workplace. It sounds like Greenberg would like some level of assurance beyond Scott's word that the NRL won't have a female cop basher running around for half the season only then to plead guilty at the last minute like Fightin' Wighton did.
That's not how the court system works mate. Scott always has the presumption of innocence, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove their case.
Greenberg has thrown Scott a lifeline he in all likelihood wasn't going to get given the charge sheet, and based on Mr Eid's creative defence of police misconduct. The only reason Eid wouldn't show them the tape is if he truly had no confidence in his argument.
No i understand the NFSD, and the clause that Todd gets to do whatever the f**k he likes depending on how he wakes up each morning.
It's all a bit moot now since the NRL will apparently get the chance to view the footage. For me the reputational side of this has been and gone largely until a result of the case comes. The news cycle had move away from the act and into the decision from the NRL. It will be completely ignored once that verdict comes until his court dates.
If the offence didnt rise to the required level for NFSD, i think holding fire would actually help the NRL avoid the Fightin' Wighton situations... call their bluff... prove your innocent and when you cant and you plead it out last minute, we're gonna hit you with a f**king hammer blow.
The courts give the presumption of innocence sure, but potential jurors probably arent if they see Greenberg hand down a massive suspension, or conversely if after they see this footage and Todd comes out and says "it's not risen to the level requiring the NFSD policy being inacted" then that's telling too.
Eid's arguement was that he wasnt legally allowed to show them the tape, not that he didnt want to. I dont know if that's true in terms of legal protocol of releasing evidence, or if it's was just posturing.
Look ultimately i suspect Scott in going to end up pleading this out, he's going to get suspended for at least 10 weeks and he's going to fined heavily... and that's if it's just bad, and it could be significantly worse than bad! Im not in defence of Scott here, but im not super wild about this policy and how it's been enforced across the varying different cases. Lots of inconsistency, and the point of the policies like this is to at least limit that inconsistency.
