Is it time for the NRL to stand down (with pay) players charged with a violent crime?

[Frailty]

Greenburg has discretion in his role as CEO - but that does not mean he is the lone contributor or does not get advice. If he is found to be doing a poor job, he answers to the ARLC. It's that simple.

As for why even have the discretionary power? Because crimes are not black and white. Personally, I see a significant difference between a player abusing his partner who is holding a young child and a player who drunkenly punched someone.

The 11 year threshold is simply to minimise the amount of incidences where discretion is required.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Dylan Walker has been stood down under the new policy also - https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/01/manly-accept-nrl-decision-to-stand-down-dylan-walker/

 

[Frailty]

Then why make it about him? Why have it written into policy that it is at HIS discretion? Particularly when Beattie said that there were already rules in place that allowed the NRL to stand down players.

You still havent answered my main question Timmah. You pointed out in your post that the circumstances between Walker & Chee Kams cases are different. Forget its Greenberg. Do you not think that writing a new policy to override previous policies that places this decision at one mans discretion is doomed to fail?

It's almost like nothing in society is left to one mans discretion. I mean CEO of major companies don't have discretionary powers. Police officers don't have discretionary powers. Judges don't have discretionary powers.

What you don't understand is that discretion needs to happen because things aren't black and white. But with that discretion is responsibility for which the CEO will ultimately answer to the ARLC.

 

[Tiger5150]

It's almost like nothing in society is left to one mans discretion. I mean CEO of major companies don't have discretionary powers. Police officers don't have discretionary powers. Judges don't have discretionary powers.

What you don't understand is that discretion needs to happen because things aren't black and white. But with that discretion is responsibility for which the CEO will ultimately answer to the ARLC.

I think you have inadvertently gotten to the heart of the matter.

Ok I'm boring Timmah with my criticism of Greenberg. Im boring myself TBH but Greenberg is almost daily displaying his incompetence.

What I think you have raised in your post (whether you understand it or not) is that by being INCREDIBLY reactionary and all about bluff and bluster and how he and the NRL LOOKS, Greenberg has made himself less answerable to the ARLC than he is answerable to the media. He is being driven by the Media agenda and reacting to the media agenda rather than leading on principle and good decisions.

I understand that it is a bad look if DeBelin plays, Walker or Chee Kam for that matter, and it is not straight forward, but what is the over-riding principle? DeBelin, Walker and Chee Kam are innocent as they stand today. The right decision would have been to simply say "Player X has the right to presumed innocence and to have his day in court". It is not the NRL's place to step into this. Now it could be in the club or the players interest to stand down, but that is their decision and that is where the grey between the media publicity or public perception of DeBelin vs Chee Kam comes into play. Do you really think anyone is going to sledge Chee Kam?

By stepping into a realm where they really have no place, the NRL has opened itself up to legal and financial risks. There is no way DeBelin was going to play, Dragons have already shown their hand, but now you can bet your house that if he is not found guilty there will be a massive case against the NRL. So you have to ask why they have done this. Why have the NRL done this rather then leave the player to have his day in court? Because Greenberg REACTS to the media agenda rather than having the balls to set his own.

TLDR
Discretion doesnt need to happen at all, you leave it to the courts to do their job as the NRL has done for years. That would take leadership that doesnt bend to the medias will.

 

[TheFrog]

o you have to ask why they have done this. Why have the NRL done this rather then leave the player to have his day in court?

My feeling is that there was significant possibility of ugly crowd scenes whenever the player took the field, especially at away games. This has the potential of damaging the NRL brand even further.

There can be little doubt that the NRL has already been brought into disrepute by this matter. Maybe the media are too powerful but a very significant proportion of the audience appear to agree with them.

 

[Frailty]

I think you have inadvertently gotten to the heart of the matter.

Ok I'm boring Timmah with my criticism of Greenberg. Im boring myself TBH but Greenberg is almost daily displaying his incompetence.

What I think you have raised in your post (whether you understand it or not) is that by being INCREDIBLY reactionary and all about bluff and bluster and how he and the NRL LOOKS, Greenberg has made himself less answerable to the ARLC than he is answerable to the media. He is being driven by the Media agenda and reacting to the media agenda rather than leading on principle and good decisions.

I understand that it is a bad look if DeBelin plays, Walker or Chee Kam for that matter, and it is not straight forward, but what is the over-riding principle? DeBelin, Walker and Chee Kam are innocent as they stand today. The right decision would have been to simply say "Player X has the right to presumed innocence and to have his day in court". It is not the NRL's place to step into this. Now it could be in the club or the players interest to stand down, but that is their decision and that is where the grey between the media publicity or public perception of DeBelin vs Chee Kam comes into play. Do you really think anyone is going to sledge Chee Kam?

By stepping into a realm where they really have no place, the NRL has opened itself up to legal and financial risks. There is no way DeBelin was going to play, Dragons have already shown their hand, but now you can bet your house that if he is not found guilty there will be a massive case against the NRL. So you have to ask why they have done this. Why have the NRL done this rather then leave the player to have his day in court? Because Greenberg REACTS to the media agenda rather than having the balls to set his own.

TLDR
Discretion doesnt need to happen at all, you leave it to the courts to do their job as the NRL has done for years. That would take leadership that doesnt bend to the medias will.

This is an oversimplification of the matter. The NRL/ARLC is a company with a big public profile, and it's profits are entirely dependent on the public perception and engagement with the company. Similar businesses with public profiles will routinely act in similar situations - so it is not the NRL being incompetent or simply reactionary.

Stepping down a player who is facing criminal charges - with pay, with welfare supports - is objectively the best practice for the NRL and similarly profile companies. It is entirely legal (and I doubt you will see it with any significant challenge - which is why the RLPA isn't planning an action).

Ultimately, it would be completely irresponsible for the ARLC to not act on this issue.

 

[Timmah]

I think you have inadvertently gotten to the heart of the matter.

Ok I'm boring Timmah with my criticism of Greenberg. Im boring myself TBH but Greenberg is almost daily displaying his incompetence.

What I think you have raised in your post (whether you understand it or not) is that by being INCREDIBLY reactionary and all about bluff and bluster and how he and the NRL LOOKS, Greenberg has made himself less answerable to the ARLC than he is answerable to the media. He is being driven by the Media agenda and reacting to the media agenda rather than leading on principle and good decisions.

I understand that it is a bad look if DeBelin plays, Walker or Chee Kam for that matter, and it is not straight forward, but what is the over-riding principle? DeBelin, Walker and Chee Kam are innocent as they stand today. The right decision would have been to simply say "Player X has the right to presumed innocence and to have his day in court". It is not the NRL's place to step into this. Now it could be in the club or the players interest to stand down, but that is their decision and that is where the grey between the media publicity or public perception of DeBelin vs Chee Kam comes into play. Do you really think anyone is going to sledge Chee Kam?

By stepping into a realm where they really have no place, the NRL has opened itself up to legal and financial risks. There is no way DeBelin was going to play, Dragons have already shown their hand, but now you can bet your house that if he is not found guilty there will be a massive case against the NRL. So you have to ask why they have done this. Why have the NRL done this rather then leave the player to have his day in court? Because Greenberg REACTS to the media agenda rather than having the balls to set his own.

TLDR
Discretion doesnt need to happen at all, you leave it to the courts to do their job as the NRL has done for years. That would take leadership that doesnt bend to the medias will.

One look at the near 50-50 split in the poll of this very thread would tell you it's not the media's will, but that everyone is divided on this issue. They're going to be criticised no matter which action they take or don't take.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Is Jack de Belin going ahead with trying to get a court injunction to stop his standing down?

 

[Last Week]

This was always a no win situation for the NRL.

Ultimately, it would have come down to sponsorships and future prospective sponsorships.

Is it unfair for De Belin? Absolutely. But the accusations affect the entire sport and any sponsor affiliated with him. It shouldn't, but it does.

Partners in the game.

 

[firechild]

There can be little doubt that the NRL has already been brought into disrepute by this matter.

So that's the fault of a person that has potentially been falsely accused of a crime? I'm certainly not saying JDB is innocent but it's entirely possible that a player gets his reputation destroyed AND gets punished for it when they've done nothing wrong.

 

[TheFrog]

So that's the fault of a person that has potentially been falsely accused of a crime?

Your words not mine.

 

[firechild]

Your words not mine.

Right, but you said that the player needs to be punished (stood down) because the look was bad for the game.

 

[TheFrog]

Right, but you said that the player needs to be punished (stood down) because the look was bad for the game.

Once again, your words not mine. I don't think they had a lot of choice for reasons I've already indicated.

 

[Timmah]

For clarity, this is the part of the NRL's official statement which refers to Walker:

NRL announce sanctions
Mr Greenberg also said that, following the change to the game's policy on player behaviour, Manly player Dylan Walker will be placed on a no-fault stand-down prior to the commencement of the NRL season.

It will remain in place until the finalisation of his current court case.

"The NRL stresses that we are making no judgement on his guilt or innocence. That is a matter for the courts," Mr Greenberg said.

https://leagueunlimited.com/news/32813-nrl-announce-sanctions/

 

[Vee]

For clarity, this is the part of the NRL's official statement which refers to Walker:

NRL announce sanctions
Mr Greenberg also said that, following the change to the game's policy on player behaviour, Manly player Dylan Walker will be placed on a no-fault stand-down prior to the commencement of the NRL season.

It will remain in place until the finalisation of his current court case.

"The NRL stresses that we are making no judgement on his guilt or innocence. That is a matter for the courts," Mr Greenberg said.

https://leagueunlimited.com/news/32813-nrl-announce-sanctions/

Where did the reported 3 months come from? Common sense to stand him down until it's finalized.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Does this apply to coaches?

If so I would like to make a serious complaint about a certain short, grumpy coach from the nation's capital.

 

[Timmah]

Where did the reported 3 months come from? Common sense to stand him down until it's finalized.

I'm guessing the 3 months comes from the fact his next court case is May 10th, and given the progression of the case there may well be a verdict either then or in the days/weeks that follow. That would bring us to the start of June.

 

[siv]

The RL Players association are as weak as. They have to take action to support their member. The AFL Players Association would tell the AFL to get stuffed if they tried the same policy. Remember their is no game without players and the AFL Players Association know that and they let the AFL no that.

If the RLPA tried to sue the NRL

The NRL would just remove all of their funding as players dont pay them NRL does

 

[Captain Apollo]

If the RLPA tried to sue the NRL

The NRL would just remove all of their funding as players dont pay them NRL does

Yeah good luck if the NRL do that. The players wouldn't take that sitting down and would guarantee an industrial relations war between the players and the NRL.

 

[TheFrog]

Is it unfair for De Belin? Absolutely.

In that he pays the price of demonstrating to other players what can happen to your career if you aren't careful and the chips don't fall your way.