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

[Valheru]

I'd say refer to Hayne case: a club probably wont sign a bloke with a rape charge hanging over his head. Club would pull the offer before the stand-down even comes into play

No doubt but if there was a MOU signed prior to the charge proving they had agreed to terms would that not e enough for the player to go to court claiming the NRL had cost them $X in earnings... if they were found not guilty of course.

I know I am being very specific but these are the the things the NRL need to think about. Perhaps they have and are willing to chance it.

 

[adamkungl]

No doubt but if there was a MOU signed prior to the charge proving they had agreed to terms would that not e enough for the player to go to court claiming the NRL had cost them $X in earnings... if they were found not guilty of course.

I know I am being very specific but these are the the things the NRL need to think about. Perhaps they have and are willing to chance it.

I'd say their lawyers have spent the last 2 weeks going over this with a fine tooth comb.
No doubt there will be some interesting issues to arise from this.

 

[taipan]

Agree with the hard decision, after what happened over the off season, the code was left with no other choice.
And they are not acting as judge or jury in the matter, that is still the court's finality.

Playing when the case is still pending ,would not help the player, would upset some of the crowd
and stir up some in the media to create further damaging headlines.
That the RLPA will not contest the decision, suggests it was probably the only way to go, under the circumstances.
I further suggest, the Commission would have sought decent legal opinion before going ahead with the new rules.

 

[kbw]

I think Beattie and Greenburg should be stood down for bringing the game into disrepute.
That Inglis and Burgess (and this is not an anto Souths thing) were not punished for their indiscretions is bringing the game into question. Especially Inglis, that was an extremely bad thing he did and he has basically got off scott free. He endangered other lives in a very seious manner.

 

[Timmah]

That Inglis and Burgess (and this is not an anto Souths thing) were not punished for their indiscretions is bringing the game into question. Especially Inglis, that was an extremely bad thing he did and he has basically got off scott free. He endangered other lives in a very seious manner.

I'm of the opinion that neither Napa's actions nor Burgess' brought the game into disrepute and I'm annoyed that it appears Napa will be punished. I guess that's up for debate.

However, your statements that Inglis was "not punished for his indiscretion" and "basically got off scot free" are simply lies, he was stood down as the national team captain and suspended for two matches.

I can certainly agree that he should've been punished more - by both court and code - but he did not escape punishment as you have claimed.

 

[Frailty]

What about the case of a player in final year of contract on say $500k, they announce a re-signing of contract in June at $650k for 2 years but it isn't yet signed (as is normal) and then a month later they get done for same thing as JDB. They are immediately stood down and case takes 18 months meaning the agreed contract never eventuates as club is uncertain if player will play at all that year and player is essentially unemployed following year and then found not guilty.

Very specific I know but that is clear proof they would have earned $650k that year but didn't due to being stood down by someone other than their employer for something they were found not guilty of.

Again, it would fall under clauses within the playing contract that they are to abide by a certain standard or face consequences at the discretion of the NRL. So that aspect would be hard to challenge.

Now, the situation about whether the playing contract is void prior to signing, well that's an issue for contract law and whether the verbal agreement is enough to consider the contract enforceable - this would be directed at the club rather than the ARLC. (Better yet, it would encourage teams and players not to announce contracts until signed).

 

[adamkungl]

Apparently NSW and QLD Cups will also enforce the ban

Id personally be fine with JDB being allowed to play football at a lower level, just out of the spotlight of NRL first grade and reps.

 

[This Year?]

The new policy is flawed. Why restrict it to only violent crimes or crimes against women? Make it for all crimes. If the NRL wants a clean image then it needs to do it properly and have the policy clear and specific.

 

[Elephant Hunter]

The new policy is flawed. Why restrict it to only violent crimes or crimes against women? Make it for all crimes. If the NRL wants a clean image then it needs to do it properly and have the policy clear and specific.

Where does the code say anything about violent crime or crime against women? I have not seen that stated anywhere.

The Telegraph are reporting that with NSW crime act the crimes could / would be

BITING THE BULLET
Serious indictable offences that carry a minimum sentence of 11 years include:

Murder or acts done with intent to murder
Manslaughter
Assault causing death
NOTE: Not assaults causing death while intoxicated
Assault of a police officer (while officer executing their duty) which causes grievous bodily harm
Recklessly causing GBH - but only if in the company of another
NOTE: Causing grievous bodily harm individually carries a maximum 10-year penalty
Sexual Assault
Aggravated sexual assault
Kidnapping
Bestiality
Robbery or stealing from the person

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...g/news-story/5ec9a006e9e5da98dfe56c0674faf2e0

 

[Frailty]

The new policy is flawed. Why restrict it to only violent crimes or crimes against women? Make it for all crimes. If the NRL wants a clean image then it needs to do it properly and have the policy clear and specific.

Because of the scope of the crimes act, this is illogical.

 

[This Year?]

Where does the code say anything about violent crime or crime against women? I have not seen that stated anywhere.

The Telegraph are reporting that with NSW crime act the crimes could / would be

BITING THE BULLET
Serious indictable offences that carry a minimum sentence of 11 years include:

Murder or acts done with intent to murder
Manslaughter
Assault causing death
NOTE: Not assaults causing death while intoxicated
Assault of a police officer (while officer executing their duty) which causes grievous bodily harm
Recklessly causing GBH - but only if in the company of another
NOTE: Causing grievous bodily harm individually carries a maximum 10-year penalty
Sexual Assault
Aggravated sexual assault
Kidnapping
Bestiality
Robbery or stealing from the person

Heard Toddles say it in an interview.

 

[This Year?]

Because of the scope of the crimes act, this is illogical.

But but but the NRL doesn't want it's image tarnished! Think of the outraged mums!!

 

[Timmah]

The new policy is flawed. Why restrict it to only violent crimes or crimes against women? Make it for all crimes. If the NRL wants a clean image then it needs to do it properly and have the policy clear and specific.

That's not what the new policy says, it says for serious indictable offences carrying a maximum imprisonment term of 11 years or more. No idea where you got your line from.

 

[Elephant Hunter]

The thing that could be interesting is how is the 11 year prison term being determined or set?

Is this the maximum term (which no one is ever given)?
The Non-parole term?
The Average term received?
Is this the combined term for all charges that are brought against a player or for a single charge?

The way I understand the rules as they have been reported, the player could be stood down if any single charge could carry a maximum of greater than 11 years.

BUT

That would mean that a player could commit a serious sexual assault against a child in Victoria and not be automatically stood down as the 5 charges Cardinal Pell has been found guilty of carry 10 years maximum each.

This seems a bit off.

Maybe rather than trying to set a blanket time in prison rule they would have been better going and selecting the types of crimes instead.

 

[This Year?]

That's not what the new policy says, it says for serious indictable offences carrying a maximum imprisonment term of 11 years or more. No idea where you got your line from.

Saw it on ABC news.

 

[Eion]

If JDB is found not guilty does he have any recourse to missed rep payments? He’s a shoe in for SOO and it’s no longer chump change.

 

[Timmah]

The thing that could be interesting is how is the 11 year prison term being determined or set?

Is this the maximum term (which no one is ever given)?
The Non-parole term?
The Average term received?
Is this the combined term for all charges that are brought against a player or for a single charge?

The way I understand the rules as they have been reported, the player could be stood down if any single charge could carry a maximum of greater than 11 years.

BUT

That would mean that a player could commit a serious sexual assault against a child in Victoria and not be automatically stood down as the 5 charges Cardinal Pell has been found guilty of carry 10 years maximum each.

This seems a bit off.

Maybe rather than trying to set a blanket time in prison rule they would have been better going and selecting the types of crimes instead.

The 11 year rule is as defined by crimes in NSW under that Act.

I do question that myself though, as only 9 of the 16 clubs are actually in that jurisdiction.

 

[Timmah]

If JDB is found not guilty does he have any recourse to missed rep payments? He’s a shoe in for SOO and it’s no longer chump change.

I've said this previously and been shouted down for suggesting an incumbent player would be likely to earn selection again under normal circumstances.

 

[Eion]

I've said this previously and been shouted down for suggesting an incumbent player would be likely to earn selection again under normal circumstances.

Doubtless he would sue.

 

[Sphagnum]

I wonder if we will see any trumped up rape charges against key players leading into the finals each year.

Does anyone think of the potential pitfalls of knee jerk decisions like these before they make them?