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

[Timmah]

Effectively scott free then . I think you can argue that he should not be picked for Australia regardless.

On Napa , a severe kick up the ass was def in order. but it also shows what a vile creature the leaker of the video is.
I disagree on Burgess what he did was as bad as Pearce (or worse) its not a Roosters v Souths thing, but to face a panel of of south's people. I like a lot of people are sick of the inconsistency

You can choose to dismiss national team representation all you like, but whether you like it or not, being stripped of the national captaincy and missing two internationals (given how few most players get the opportunity to play) is a reasonable punishment.

As I outlined, I do believe he should have got further suspended, but to claim he got off 'scot free' is just utter bullshit.

As for Burgess, what did he do that was "worse than Pearce"? Mind you Pearce should never have been punished. Burgess' alleged incident was investigated and no evidence found of wrongdoing so how do you propose they sanction him for doing nothing wrong?

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

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.

 

[Timmah]

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.

While I tend to agree the situation seems unfair, I don't understand why anybody would want him playing - for his own wellbeing. The negative attention he would receive would far outweigh any positive support and could further damage his mental state.

 

[justdave]

The 11 year minimum thing I get but is it true Greenberg has discretionary power to stand down a player for charges under the 11 year rule?

Walker for example goes no where near the 11 year threshold but could be still stood down. If so, a player can be arbitrarily stood down depending on what mood Greenberg is in on any given day?

That’ll go down well from fans of clubs who’ve had a player stood down if a player at another club isn’t.

(I’m using Walker as an example am an not saying he shouldn’t be stood down)

 

[thorson1987]

So I keep seeing both posted.

Is it offences carrying max or min 11 year sentence?

 

[justdave]

So I keep seeing both posted.

Is it offences carrying max or min 11 year sentence?

I think the wording is ‘11 years or more.’

 

[franklin2323]

The 11 year minimum thing I get but is it true Greenberg has discretionary power to stand down a player for charges under the 11 year rule?

Walker for example goes no where near the 11 year threshold but could be still stood down. If so, a player can be arbitrarily stood down depending on what mood Greenberg is in on any given day?

That’ll go down well from fans of clubs who’ve had a player stood down if a player at another club isn’t.

(I’m using Walker as an example am an not saying he shouldn’t be stood down)

pretty much and their lies the problem for me. IF a rule was to come in having a blanket can't play until the court case is over for any charge would stop the percieved bias that will no doubt follow

 

[yakstorm]

The wording is that the maximum sentence imposed is 11 years or more.

Walker has two charges, one is Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (Max 5 years) and Common Assault (Max 2 years), so even combined, he is well under the 11 year threshold, so clearly Greenberg does have the digression to make his own calls on any charged player.

In my opinion, and this is what frustrates me with the NRL, there is always so much 'grey' that they make themselves easy targets for fans, media, and general public as there is never anything that resembles consistency.

In this off-season we've had 10 players charged with assault. One has been stood down (De Belin), one has been banned for life (Barba), one could be stood down depending on what Greenberg says (Walker), and then you have nothing being said about the likes of Musgrove, Coleman, Moga, Chee Kam and Bolton.

The game hasn't even come out and said for the likes of Hayne or Taueli, you're not welcome back into the game until X or never (which could be the case for the later of the two after being found guilty and sent to jail).

If we want to draw lines in the sand, make them clearer, make them simple and make sure that it at least looks like everyone is being punished in a more consistent manner, regardless of their club, their profile, etc.

If we're not considering the legal process and just standing down any player which 'brings the game into disrepute with an ugly criminal charge' (which is pretty much what we're doing now), then the game has the opportunity to just say, any assault, you're stood down until a decision, and then it can have a scale based upon the type of charge. Common assaults are generally sorted relatively quickly so their 'stand down' will be less anyway and then they can make some rules based upon the charge / conviction / etc, it will equal to X.

Of the 16 'incidents' in the off-season, the only players so far who we know won't be lacing up the boots in round one are Jaeman Salmon (1 Game Ban), Jack de Belin (Stood down indefinitely), Myles Taueli (Jailed), Ben Barba (Banned) and Payne Haas (4 Game Ban)....

 

[adamkungl]

We could argue that 11 year bar should be lower, to capture serious assault and DV charges without any grey area.
But I guess the point of it is to give the NRL an automatic out for players charged with the most serious of crimes, rape and murder.
For charges below this bar, the ARLC has made it clear that it is well within the CEOs power to stand down players. Expect to see future Walkers sat down immediately I think.

Imagine if we were having this conversation about someone actually charged with murder - would more than 50% of fans here still be holding their line on 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

 

[franklin2323]

We could argue that 11 year bar should be lower, to capture serious assault and DV charges without any grey area.
But I guess the point of it is to give the NRL an automatic out for players charged with the most serious of crimes, rape and murder.
For charges below this bar, the ARLC has made it clear that it is well within the CEOs power to stand down players. Expect to see future Walkers sat down immediately I think.

Imagine if we were having this conversation about someone actually charged with murder - would more than 50% of fans here still be holding their line on 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

That would be a no brainer. But most if not all are incidents while players are out on the booze. So for me any blanket rule so be in place to cover such incidents.

 

[Valheru]

We could argue that 11 year bar should be lower, to capture serious assault and DV charges without any grey area.
But I guess the point of it is to give the NRL an automatic out for players charged with the most serious of crimes, rape and murder.
For charges below this bar, the ARLC has made it clear that it is well within the CEOs power to stand down players. Expect to see future Walkers sat down immediately I think.

Imagine if we were having this conversation about someone actually charged with murder - would more than 50% of fans here still be holding their line on 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

Well with murder in the vast majority of cases there is a dead body so someone has actually died, there is no disputing that. With that comes physical evidence, investigation in to motives, alibis etc. etc. and there can only be a certain amount of people who committed the crime. That's not to say they always get murder charges right but rapes, and especially DV incidences are usually he said, she said and charges (although probably no the most serious ones) can be given on little evidence.

 

[TheFrog]

As I outlined, I do believe he should have got further suspended, but to claim he got off 'scot free' is just utter bullshit.

The NRL appear to have taken "no conviction recorded" as "not guilty".

 

[TheFrog]

Remember their is no game without players

This does not mean they should make the rules pertaining to themselves.

 

[mave]

The NRL needs more grey areas like a hole in the head.
Why do they continually have inconsistencies.

 

[firechild]

how do you propose they sanction him for doing nothing wrong?

4 weeks and $100k is the going rate right?

 

[DC_fan]

Should a player charged with a violent crime be stood down from NRL until the matter is resolved?

I did not know how to respond to this survey, so I didn't. Probably needed a third option of 'undecided'. I can see obvious reasons why players should be stood down, but at the same time I can see why they shouldn't be. For mine it opens up a can of worms if the NRL stands down players for something they have not been found guilty of. The way the court system works cases could take sometime to be adjudicated on. Potentially leaving player out of the game for a lengthy period of time. Also who is to say that a person may falsely accuse a player of an incident just to have them rubbed out of the game.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...y/news-story/360a696abfad038f28181e1901dfe8e5


Couldn't make this shit up...... Walker stood down for three months

 

[mave]

Meh, some players get stood down, others get character references.

Greenburg is the King of Consistency.

 

[firechild]

Has anyone discussed the implication of this for guilty verdicts?
The NRL is prepared to say that some players cannot play while awaiting trial which would make them pretty hypocritical if they then welcomed back a player that had been convicted of that crime. To me, the logical progression of this is to ban for life any player found guilty of a crime that would see you stood down in the first place.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

NRL - lets have a big press conference about our new tough stance re violent crimes carrying a sentence of 11 years or more!

Next Day- Hey Toddy what about Dylan?

Toddy- Hold my Beer