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

[El Diablo]

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.

good ole Jess has been asked for ages about hush money being endorsed by the AFL CEO and has never replied once

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=@JessiHalloran hush&src=typd

she doesn't care about violence against women in any other football code at all

 

[Captain Apollo]

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

I suggest you look up the meaning of double jeopardy mate. Some of these legal principles date back much longer than rugby league does, and people have quite literally died fighting for them.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

I think as fans the rest of you should embrace the off-field drama like I have. I was sick of defending the game I love due to the behavior of the meatheads that play it, so I decided to enjoy the drama. It all adds to the storyline of the NRL, the greatest soap opera for males in the entertainment world. It's taken the place of pro wrestling.

 

[adamkungl]

I suggest you look up the meaning of double jeopardy mate. Some of these legal principles date back much longer than rugby league does, and people have quite literally died fighting for them.

Wait, so you don't want to the NRL to take any action before the courts because it can influence the eventual punishment, but you do support the punishment taking the NRLs actions into account?

Also I I'm not sure double jeopardy applies how you seem to think it does

 

[myrrh ken]

The beauty of the current situation for players is that they beg for mercy from the court because a conviction and hefty sentence means that they will lose their contract.

Once they get a lenient sentence they can point the nrl to the court result (esp a s10) and say see it wasnt that bad.

Genius

 

[Captain Apollo]

Wait, so you don't want to the NRL to take any action before the courts because it can influence the eventual punishment, but you do support the punishment taking the NRLs actions into account?

Also I I'm not sure double jeopardy applies how you seem to think it does

Gee you are a burke aren't you? Where the hell did I say that?! I never did, so stop making shit up.

I merely pointed out that in one recent instant the courts did take into account the punishment meted out by the NRL which resulted in a lighter sentence. I never condoned it.

As such based on this piece of evidence, it is reasonable to infer that if what you are proposing occurs, namely players being suspended when charged, it could result in lighter sentences by the courts who are found guilty as the guilty player will submit they have already been partly punished due to the actions of the NRL and/or their clubs. The Magistrate who presided over Greg Inglis' court case said this, so it is not something I'm making up numb skull. When it comes to law, legal precedent is very important, or do you not know what that is either.

You are looking at this as solely through the lens of it being a PR problem. It isn't. It is a legal problem and needs to be treated accordingly (and no legal system is perfect, as us humans aren't perfect).

 

[adamkungl]

Whatever, the NRL shouldn't base their decision either way on what the courts may or may not do.
The NRL has an obvious requirement to not interfere with the legal process, but that doesn't extend to trying to guess whether a judge might go soft due to the NRLs actions. It's out of their hands.

 

[Willow]

good ole Jess has been asked for ages about hush money being endorsed by the AFL CEO and has never replied once

https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=@JessiHalloran hush&src=typd

she doesn't care about violence against women in any other football code at all

I suppose it's one way of keeping players on the field while making the game look squeaky clean at the same time.

But I'm struggling to find any News Corp article that reported on this hush money scandal in the AFL. Other publications had no trouble reporting on it.

Fremantle hit the headlines earlier this month when it was reported an official made a secret payment to a former junior staffer to settle an alleged sexual harassment complaint.

The AFL’s integrity unit investigated the harassment claims and found no further action was needed.

The Fremantle official at the centre of the storm has remained anonymous.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/af...s/news-story/79514b3544dc3379850c2d62ad163566

Liz Ellis has slammed AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan for endorsing hush money payments for sexual harassment victims, claiming it does not address the cultural problems within an organisation.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/afl/ellis-slams-afl-for-endorsing-hush-money/ar-AAwubQb

Well Liz Ellis must have this wrong. It's only the NRL that has a cultural problems when it comes to treatment of women.

Seriously though, the whole notion of hush money suggests that we are only hearing about a few leaked cases. It'll be the tip of the iceberg. And if that's the case, the AFL has a much bigger problem, that is largely of its own making.

 

[footy75]

Surely you got to judge each incident on each merits.

 

[firechild]

Surely you got to judge each incident on each merits.

Problem is, that's what gets us to the point we're at now. Different cases have been treated differently in the past and it only leads to inconsistency. We've had players stood down then found to be not guilty with serious implications for the player, on the other hand we've had players allowed to keep playing even after entering a guilty plea but then suspended after the case has reached completion. It's pretty easy to draw a line at the point where a person either pleads or is found guilty. Exceptions would be for more minor cases such as DUI (not saying DUI is minor, only in that facing court is not really about proving guilt) where the facts are known from the start.

 

[Usain Bolt]

Catch 22 for the NRL but i feel suspending an innocent man from playing would have 100 times less backlash than letting a guilty man play.

Can just imagine the media frenzy if JDB is allowed to play then is found guilty. It will be all about how the NRL lets rapists play it’s game blah blah blah

 

[M2D2]

Considering weve had some storm in a teacup and straight up fabrication/fraud dramas with some players that would have fallen into this criteria.
My vote will be no.
If found guilty, not allowed to EVER play again.

 

[AJB1102]

Catch 22 for the NRL but i feel suspending an innocent man from playing would have 100 times less backlash than letting a guilty man play.

Can just imagine the media frenzy if JDB is allowed to play then is found guilty. It will be all about how the NRL lets rapists play it’s game blah blah blah

The media frenzy will whip up in either direction. NRL will either be bashed for playing a rapist or denying an innocent man of his career.

 

[adamkungl]

Well it's now official policy, and a good move on the NRLs part in my opinion.

Key points:

Players facing court with serious indictable offences (defined as crimes with a max sentence of 11 years and over) will be stood down from playing duties, but not training and other club activities, with full pay.

The CEO will have discretion for crimes that fall under that 11 year bar, with one possible example being domestic violence offenses.

As a clearly defined policy, the stand-down holds no judgement, it is neither an indication of guilt nor innocence.

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/02/28/arlc-confirm-policy-change/

FWIW, the poll in this thread finished 25-20 to the 'No' votes. Does LU reflect the wider fanbase or is it a small niche?

 

[Valheru]

I can't agree that this policy holds no judgement, it is a clear presumption of guilt IMO.

This policy will last exactly as long as it takes for a player to be found not guilty of an offence and the inevitable court proceedings against the NRL thereafter.

 

[Timmah]

I can't agree that this policy holds no judgement, it is a clear presumption of guilt IMO.

This policy will last exactly as long as it takes for a player to be found not guilty of an offence and the inevitable court proceedings against the NRL thereafter.

If a player has signed a contract and agreed to be bound by such a rule, I don't see how they would have such legal recourse?

 

[Miller was a legend]

I can't agree that this policy holds no judgement, it is a clear presumption of guilt IMO.

This policy will last exactly as long as it takes for a player to be found not guilty of an offence and the inevitable court proceedings against the NRL thereafter.

You could always vote on James Hooper’s poll

 

[Valheru]

If a player has signed a contract and agreed to be bound by such a rule, I don't see how they would have such legal recourse?

I'm sure lawyers will find a way.

As an example, if they argue it is a restriction of trade then it doesn't matter what the player has signed.

 

[Miller was a legend]

I'm sure lawyers will find a way.

As an example, if they argue it is a restriction of trade then it doesn't matter what the player has signed.

Hang on, so Hayne could sue if the NRL or say RU refuse to register him whilst he is before the courts, because they are restricting his trade by not wanting him till he is cleared?

 

[adamkungl]

Personally find it a very long bow to draw that someone could sue the NRL for implementing a policy which is in most standard employment contracts, especially public facing roles.