Hayne signs with Gold Coast

[SBD82]

Hey, if people are okay to have the governing body pick and choose when and if it applies its own rules, that's fine. But be careful what you wish for.

I'm a dragons supporter. This week I saw the NRL enforce a stupid rule to suspend our best player in the interest of consistency. A little discretion is very welcome right now.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I'm a dragons supporter. This week I saw the NRL enforce a stupid rule to suspend our best player in the interest of consistency. A little discretion is very welcome right now.

Judiciary is another matter. The point of a judiciary is they should make a judgement, otherwise it would just be completely automatic. But it shows up this notion of "good of the game". And that's what I mean by picking and choosing when they act.

 

[_Johnsy]

You have no f**king idea. And you've been shown up by people who do. You keep talking about contracts as if they have any bearing on this rule. Which just further proves you have nfi.

So your by your rationale the need for a "clearance" and a player registration form over rides a signed legal contract. NFI indeed. How is Lionel Hutz's law school going?

 

[Jason Maher]

NRL National Clearance and Permits Policy

2 a. A clearance is required when a player and match official is moving from one Club/Association to another regardless of whether it is a new season or during a season

And

3 A Clearance may be initiated from the 1 November to 30 June within the same season


------------------------------

He is moving from one club to another. It is after June 30.

Unlike the registration rules there are no clauses allowing for associations to alter these rules.

He is not moving from one club to another. Therefore this section of the rules is completely irrelevant.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If nothing else this thread is making it very clear who is actually involved in the sport and knows how it's run and who is just some NRL centric armchair fan whose entire knowledge of be sport comes from the footy show and tv commentary.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

He is not moving from one club to another. Therefore this section of the rules is completely irrelevant.

Yes he is. Any time a player plays for a new club he needs a clearance from the old one. That's 101 times now.

 

[dogz08]

If nothing else this thread is making it very clear who is actually involved in the sport and knows how it's run and who is just some NRL centric armchair fan whose entire knowledge of be sport comes from the footy show and tv commentary.

how many times have you told us that in this thread

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

 

[STORM.99/07]

if Hayne got an automatic clearance to play for the broncos or storm,i`m sure we`d all be spewing .ffs , give the Titans a go, they`ve battled enough over the years. now for the Knights

We didn`t need or want him

 

[coolsteve]

We didn`t need or want him

missing the point, much

 

[STORM.99/07]

missing the point, much

not really.
you are happy he is going to a club that has been mediocre but you would hate to see him go to a successful club

 

[SBD82]

Judiciary is another matter. The point of a judiciary is they should make a judgement, otherwise it would just be completely automatic. But it shows up this notion of "good of the game". And that's what I mean by picking and choosing when they act.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded bit.

Of course the judiciary should use their discretion. The NRL should too. In this case it looks like they have. And if they have I think they are correct.

 

[coolsteve]

yeah, storm. thats what they supposedly brought the salary cap in for. spread the talent. but, geez, this clearance thing has been toasted

 

[no name]

Why would his contract or some "deal" negate the need for a clearance? It's the national policy. The only answer is that the NRL have just unilaterally decided they will ignore the rule on a whim because they want Hayne to play for the Titans this weekend.

Please show us the undeniable proof that rules have been unilaterally ignored on a whim.
As I said, rules may have been broken or they may have not.
Give us the finer details and you will have a few more people on board.

 

[Nice Beaver]

Meltdown still in progress.

Will check back tomorrow.

 

[STORM.99/07]

I just hope that hayne doesn`t stuff the Titans .They are playing good footy and would hate to see him come in and make it all about him and not the team.

 

[no name]

Not if a players see's out his contract and then doesn't play for 3 years. The NRL must ratify & register his contract but they do not need NRL or the previous club's "clearance" to play in the NRL again at any time in the future once a contract is complete or the players is mutually released from his contractual obligations.

As I said, not sure about NRL level.

As far as I know, in local leagues, you could be out of the game for 15-20 years, a clearance is needed from the last club you played at.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Please show us the undeniable proof that rules have been unilaterally ignored on a whim.
As I said, rules may have been broken or they may have not.
Give us the finer details and you will have a few more people on board.

Well, the policy is the national policy, written by the NRL themselves. There is no clause that says the NRL is exempt from it. There is no scope for associations to just ignore it or change it. There are some laws the NRL can wriggle on because they include clauses that give associations the right to alter certain rules or procedures. But here is nothing in this one that mentions that. No contract can subvert the rules. Registration rules don't impact it. There is just nothing that would suggest the NRL can allow it unless they just decide to ignore the rule or change it as a one off exception. When the NRL gives an explanation that makes no sense and does not address how the rule can be circumvented what can you do?

 

[no name]

Well, the policy is the national policy, written by the NRL themselves. There is no clause that says the NRL is exempt from it. There is no scope for associations to just ignore it or change it. There are some laws the NRL can wriggle on because they include clauses that give associations the right to alter certain rules or procedures. But here is nothing in this one that mentions that. No contract can subvert the rules. Registration rules don't impact it. There is just nothing that would suggest the NRL can allow it unless they just decide to ignore the rule or change it as a one off exception. When the NRL gives an explanation that makes no sense and does not address how the rule can be circumvented what can you do?

I asked for you to show us the details of Hayne's contract.
I'm taking it as you don't have them.

 

[Jason Maher]

Yes he is. Any time a player plays for a new club he needs a clearance from the old one. That's 101 times now.

That's not what the rule you posted says. It says when a player moves from one club to another. Any normal speaker of English would interpret that as a direct transfer from one club to another. Now perhaps in practice it has been interpreted/enforced according to your understanding (so free agents who have no current ties with their old club need permission from their old club to play for a new club), but that is not what the rule itself actually says. If it ever came to a legal challenge, any governing body at any level that tried to enforce the rule in the way you state would be done instantly for restraint of trade.

As for the sub clause, all that appears to be saying to me is that it doesn't matter whether a transfer happens during a season or over the off-season period. How anyone can read "new season" as "after a several season break where a player has gone and played other sports", unless they are motivated to read that into the wording, is beyond me.