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

[El Diablo]

It's reported that Hayne, Fifita and Dugan have recently lost sponsors.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...sor-exodus-over-stream-of-off-season-scandals

Semi lost at least one sponsor after falsely being accused of DV

 

[adamkungl]

So you don't think the NRL would receive any negative publicity for standing down players who turned out to be innocent.

They would.
From fans shitty their club has lost a player, from opportunistic media just looking to stir controversy. It's a no win situation really, even on a website like LU opinions are divided almost down the middle (poll is currently at 13-11)
But the negative publicity won't be of the "there's an accused rapist picked for State of Origin" variety.

The NRL will always receive negative publicity, partially because some people have nothing better to do with their time, but mostly because club sport is divisive by nature.
But different kinds of negativity have different effects.

You say making it a policy is to prevent the knee jerk reaction but suggesting they make it a policy isn't?

By this definition basically any policy change ever is a knee jerk.

 

[firechild]

even on a website like LU opinions are divided almost down the middle (poll is currently at 13-11)

How many of your alts have voted yes?

 

[adamkungl]

How many of your alts have voted yes?

1000

 

[Willow]

No, it's quite clearly speculation into what might happen, and framed as a question not a statement.
Early days yet.

I don't even know who his third party sponsors are, or if he even he has any. But the largest club sponsor St George Bank have released a statement where they said they are staying out of it, opting instead to leave it up to the Club and the NRL.

“As these allegations are before the court we are unable to comment on such legal matters, and individual player misconduct is a matter for the NRL,” a spokesperson for St George Bank said.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...t/news-story/05838fb816d23092494028337bb78f16

IMO this is a fairly pragmatic approach.

I only raise it because sponsors pulling out are one of the stories circulating without people checking to see what statements have been made.

 

[Valheru]

Its important to recognise that where someone is not convicted, it doesn't necessarily mean the accusation is false and that the accuser is lying. It simply means the prosecution hasn't been able to convince the court beyond reasonable doubt.

You'd think in most cases, its one word against another. So the odds are stacked against the prosecution.

Yes we know a not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean factual innocence however the law tells us we must maintain a presumption of innocence. I don't see why the NRL should be any different.

 

[VirgilTracy]

Sponsors will almost always be far less willing to "wait and see" than clubs - the relationship between them and a player is based entirely on the positive value the player has, and the last thing most want to be seen to do is support someone who is found guilty.

For every SKD type case (which gets raised a lot on here) there are cases where players have continued to play on an innocent until proven guilty basis, and then been found guilty. I keep raising the Adam Johnson - Sunderland case because its the opposite of SKD - he was charged with very serious offences and allowed to play on, only to be found guilty. The negative PR for Sunderland of allowing him to play was enormous.

In the end the NRL has to decide which is more damaging to the game - players stood down and then found innocent, or players allowed to play and then found guilty? If you have a set rule, no matter what your policy is you're going to have one or the other.

Previously I would definitely have erred on the side of letting players play and have their day in court. But the issue now isn't about trying to get it right for every individual player but what is in the interests of the game as a whole, and I'm tending the other way, particularly if it may have the effect of persuading some players to not even put themselves in these situations in the first place.

 

[T-Boon]

The main argument for standing players down with pay seems to be "the image of the game".
Maybe we should go about improving the games image with women by working harder in that sphere.

Bring the NRLW forward to pre NRL season. Add more Sydney teams. Make the NRL players attend the WNRL matches (in suits and top hot). Make the NRLW massive, actually spend some money on it rather than the typical half arsed effort clubs are doing now tacking it to finals so there is no costs.

Work on making the women high profile. Work with the media increasing their profile.

In RL the media is basically the enemy some money needs to get spent on improving that relationship.

 

[adamkungl]

Regardless of which side you fall, here's someone contributing absolute Billy Madison negative-IQ level rubbish to the conversation



Or to rephrase more clearly, "why does an NRL club have some obligation to a contracted employee, but no obligation to some other random bloke who used to play football??"

 

[myrrh ken]

Yes we know a not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean factual innocence however the law tells us we must maintain a presumption of innocence. I don't see why the NRL should be any different.

Just making a point that not everyone gets it.

On topic, I'm not sure the answer. Its tricky given court cases can drag on for years.

 

[siv]

If there is evidence to sack or stand down a player, I have no issue for a immediate or rapid penalty or being stood down

But its the false claim that is a issue

Eg someone showed a photo on social media for say the playing group Cronk Tedesco Keary and Friend on them playing up in France

Do we demand they are stood down before the WCC or worse before the Grand Final

6 weeks after the major event its proven to be photoshopped

 

[El Diablo]

Regardless of which side you fall, here's someone contributing absolute Billy Madison negative-IQ level rubbish to the conversation
View attachment 27221


Or to rephrase more clearly, "why does an NRL club have some obligation to a contracted employee, but no obligation to some other random bloke who used to play football??"

because Hayne is old and past his used by date

ask her why her hubby the car trasher still has a job at the DT and Fox Sports

https://forums.leagueunlimited.com/threads/james-hooper.473008/

 

[Twizzle]

Not at all, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion

I think this is very relevant and substantiates my point

Semi lost at least one sponsor after falsely being accused of DV

 

[adamkungl]

If there is evidence to sack or stand down a player, I have no issue for a immediate or rapid penalty or being stood down

But its the false claim that is a issue

Eg someone showed a photo on social media for say the playing group Cronk Tedesco Keary and Friend on them playing up in France

Do we demand they are stood down before the WCC or worse before the Grand Final

6 weeks after the major event its proven to be photoshopped

The discussion is about police charges for violent crimes, where the prosecution believes there is enough evidence to take to trial, not fake photos of 'bad boy' behaviour. Totally irrelevant.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

Should be business as usual until the matter has been to trial and the courts have made their verdict.

Whether we like it or not, if you stand a player down, even on full pay, there's at least an implication that you are presuming he did something wrong.

 

[Willow]

because Hayne is old and past his used by date

ask her why her hubby the car trasher still has a job at the DT and Fox Sports

https://forums.leagueunlimited.com/threads/james-hooper.473008/

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-14/the-drum-thursday-february-14/10813846

Fast forward to the 45th minute mark.

No room for alternative viewpoints in that 'discussion'. For the life of me I can't understand why a former immigration minister and human rights expert are getting asked about a subject they know almost nothing about. No a single player representative or NRL spokesperson in sight.

At one point Halloran said there should be 50% women in administrative positions in the NRL. I'm all for that... bring it on I say. But does she mean like we have 50% women in AFL admin or in any other sporting admin? Perhaps she can show us the 50% women in News Corp admin or how about this...50% women holding senior political positions. All of sudden it only Rugby League that has to do it because there's obviously no glass ceiling in anywhere else, especially in parliament house.

 

[Captain Apollo]

Here is something to consider, what happens when a player is charged, they are stood down under this proposal, and they are found guilty? What odds they will submit that being punished under this proposed policy should be taken into account by the court when the court hands out its punishment.

If you do not think this will happen I will hand you exhibit a - Greg Inglis. When Inglis was sentenced for his drink driving charge, the presiding Magistrate took into account Inglis' remorse on losing the Australian captaincy as one of the factors in not doing more than placing him on a good behaviour bond.

Now imagine the outrage if a player convicted of a violent crime gets a lighter sentence as the presiding magistrate or judge takes into account a playing suspension and lost pay (e.g. from non-selection for say NSW or Qld) for the player.

You can't have it both ways, which is why I'm not in favour of this idea.

 

[adamkungl]

Here is something to consider, what happens when a player is charged, they are stood down under this proposal, and they are found guilty? What odds they will submit that being punished under this proposed policy should be taken into account by the court when the court hands out its punishment.

If you do not think this will happen I will hand you exhibit a - Greg Inglis. When Inglis was sentenced for his drink driving charge, the presiding Magistrate took into account Inglis' remorse on losing the Australian captaincy as one of the factors in not doing more than placing him on a good behaviour bond.

Now imagine the outrage if a player convicted of a violent crime gets a lighter sentence as the presiding magistrate or judge takes into account a playing suspension and lost pay (e.g. from non-selection for say NSW or Qld) for the player.

You can't have it both ways, which is why I'm not in favour of this idea.

Seems like a flaw in the courts rather than the NRLs handling tbh. The legal system probably should not be taking football games into account in deciding whether to jail someone

 

[T-Boon]

Seems like a flaw in the courts rather than the NRLs handling tbh. The legal system probably should not be taking football games into account in deciding whether to jail someone

Extra-curial punishment is absolutely taken into account in sentencing and the jurisprudence behind that is sound. Look it up anyone who wants to have an opinion on it.

 

[T-Boon]

I think if you are going to lose a star player from a strong premiership campaign then a club might well be tempted to pay hush money. This step would really feed into that.