Jdb case

[SnowDragon]

Come on guys, it’s a frustrating situation I know, but we don’t know if he is guilty or not, we don’t know the facts of the case, we weren’t there so hypothesising or making statements doesn’t really help...

IMO JDB isn’t even the main discussion point here. The point is that the nrl has made a rule change that effects the livelihood and potentially public perception of a player. They have done this however to address appalling player behaviour and the game we all love.

I would ask 2 questions;
1) is this rule legal? (Jdb taking to court will define the answer)
2) is it socially and morally correct? That’s what public debate is about

Personally I am uncertain of the legality, bordering on thinking it’s not but will accept the courts response. (I am no lawyer).
As to point 2, I tend to think it is correct. Player behaviour is being shown to be overall unacceptable to my beliefs.

At the moment, too many NRL players set bad behaviours. The game has a chance to act in a positive way to change perception, to show what bad behaviour is, and to show it is not accepted.

 

[ST Tangles 01]

Basically what happened today is the court ruled the rule had not been implemented when he was stood down and they had no right to do so because of this.

If they implement the rule before round 1 JDB will be back in court.

Then the Judge can rule on the validity of the rule.

 

[possm]

Basically what happened today is the court ruled the rule had not been implemented when he was stood down and they had no right to do so because of this.

If they implement the rule before round 1 JDB will be back in court.

Then the Judge can rule on the validity of the rule.

Yes you are exactly right.

I might had that if it is the image of the game the ARLC/NRL are truly worried about, they should sit down with JDB and agree on a settlement which both sides are happy with. If they do not do this then by implementing the ARLC/NRL new rule and by applying it in retrospect to ensnare De Belin, they will only esculate the problem because it will be dragged through the courts and in my opinion lose the argument. Maybe the judgement would be far more costly then the proposed settlement.

 

[Wittenberg]

JDB should sue the arse off the NRL if he is found not guilty and it should be noted that the NRL’s attitude expressed by telling Saints that ‘you stand him down or we will’, effectively shows the Club was under duress when it stood him down, BUT I worry about the ramifications of supporting him with his legal challenge. I have said it before and I will say it again,we have everything to lose if we ‘win’ and have him be allowed to play until his case. Our membership numbers will drop and sponsors will not appear or will disappear throughout this saga. Added to that JDB will be the total focus as the year goes on. His mind cannot be focussed on footy and neither will the rest of the team as the competition continues. If I stood by anyone at the moment I’d support his partner.

 

[West coast dragon]

Li

JDB should sue the arse off the NRL if he is found not guilty and it should be noted that the NRL’s attitude expressed by telling Saints that ‘you stand him down or we will’, effectively shows the Club was under duress when it stood him down, BUT I worry about the ramifications of supporting him with his legal challenge. I have said it before and I will say it again,we have everything to lose if we ‘win’ and have him be allowed to play until his case. Our membership numbers will drop and sponsors will not appear or will disappear throughout this saga. Added to that JDB will be the total focus as the year goes on. His mind cannot be focussed on footy and neither will the rest of the team as the competition continues. If I stood by anyone at the moment I’d support his partner.

Like I said before nrl needs to do what it specialises in an that’s football let the process of the law sort jack out clearly a judge agrees with me they don’t have the consistency to be the moral authority

 

[Rob Dragon]

Let's put aside the legalities folks. Those arguments are best sorted by professionals who frankly will have better information then us. DeBelin absolutely has the presumption of innocence.

My issue is that the game needed/s a circuit breaker. The off season stuff has become a horror story and if it continues this game won't last another 10 years. I am serious about this. It becomes a house of cards. Supporters drip away. Sponsors drip away. Juniors drip away. TV ratings fall off a cliff. Game attendances decline further and then BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP. Flat line.

I have watched our great club since 1971. I love the Dragons. I am feeling somewhat disinterested at the minute.

Something very significant has to change AND fast. Once mothers start grimacing at the code we are in trouble.There is lots of grimacing going on.

Finally, don't for one minute think that a truly professional and national competitor like the AFL is bunkering down working out how they can capitalise on the debacle. They're in schools now in places you would not believe and they will accelerate their strategies now.

I believe this is the crucial time in the history of the game in the last 30 years.

 

[Morotti]

Real

The new rule is reasonable.

The public want to see players held to acceptable social standards of conduct.

However it is unreasonable to stand a player down without having a basis for it.

Being charged by the police is not evidence of a breach of the new rule.

If I maliciously accuse you of something You haven’t done, why should you voluntarily stand down.

Take the lift from the top of your ivory tower down to ground level for a minute.

It’s not about Jack, it’s about the NRL making reasonable rules that can be used to administer the game.

This one needs some tweaking

Basically he has been stood down as a result of bringing the game into disrepute effectively. But we don't know whether anything he did resulted in bringing the game into disrepute until he is judged by the court.

Like you say anyone can make up anything and then go to the police. Now I know that is simplistic in this case but for arguments wake, what if Jack is stood down and then he is acquitted of all charges? What has he done wrong then?

On another note, this is a retrospective rule change. So that will be an interesting concept. Because they knew what rule to bring in that would lead to Jack breaching it and having to stand down.

 

[Dragsters]

Basically what happened today is the court ruled the rule had not been implemented when he was stood down and they had no right to do so because of this.

If they implement the rule before round 1 JDB will be back in court.

Then the Judge can rule on the validity of the rule.

Correct.

Currently it's a policy, not a rule...

 

[Willow]

The NRL sanctions were largely well received by most circles of league fans.

From what I'm reading it has been roughly 50/50 across most online sources.

People who subscribe to the DT may disagree, but then again they subscribe to the DT.

 

[Obi Wan]

The statement from the RLPA's website regarding their position on the matters makes for interesting reading. I don't think it would be wise to officially enact and implement the new rule without their blessing ;

https://www.rlpa.com.au/statement-player-sanctions/

 

[Willow]

Dragons star Jack de Belin still eligible to play after NRL 'no-fault policy' blunder

Dragons star Jack de Belin is still currently eligible to play despite being the first to fall under the NRL's new 'no-fault' policy, after the code's lawyer revealed the controversial ruling had not yet been legally enacted.

De Belin was suspended under the NRL's 'no fault' policy established last Thursday by the Australian Rugby League Commission which upholds players who have been charged by police for a serious criminal offence will be stood down by the league while their case is before the court.

De Belin, facing a charge aggravated sexual assault of which he strongly denies, was the first to fall under the new ruling.

However, Alan Sullivan QC, for the NRL and the Australian Rugby League Commission, said the proposed new rule had not yet been enacted.

"There's nothing to stop him playing rugby league from (between) now and the time the rule is enacted," he said on Thursday.

That confusion means the eligible forward could play in Round 1 of the 2019 season if the ruling is not officiated in time.

"The no fault rule which has banned Jack De Belin is not enacted yet .. admits lawyer for NRL .. judge says he should be able to play," 9News' Damian Ryan tweeted.

Despite the mix-up, it appears de Belin will still likely miss the start of the 2019 season with the ruling expected to be legally enacted before Round 1 gets under way next Thursday night.

"NRL lawyer tells me the no fault rule will be enacted by next week before court hearing meaning that De Belin ban will really be a ban...what a bun fight," Ryan concluded.

De Belin is suing the NRL and ARLC in the Federal Court in Sydney over their representations that on February 28 he was suspended on full pay, having previously pleaded not guilty to raping a 19-year-old woman in Wollongong.

The NSW State of Origin lock claims they did not have the power to suspend him and that they engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

Justice Stephen Rares said NRL material had suggested de Belin had been stood down when in fact he had not.

"There is no entitlement to stand him down from what you have told me," he said.

"The truth is, nothing is in place at the moment. It is damaging to him as a professional and as an individual."

The case was adjourned to March 12 by which time the new rule may be in place.

- with AAP

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/jack-d...d-by-nrl/2f6a7736-40d5-45f2-b781-e1d8f9cb1bc4

 

[RufusRex]

Why should the NRL lose money/brand and image because one of their employees has been charged with a serious offence?

Like it or not Jack has been charged and like it or not that charge is having a negative impact on the NRL as a business.

They sure a shit should have the right to stand a player down in these circumstances .. It is all about the charge and nothing to do with the guilt/innocence.

Jack loses two things
1. The ability to play NRL
2. Potential money due to rep

no chance of 2 now that he is taking this action - black line through his name ... So all that is happening is Jack cannot play footy .. he is not missing out on the dollars now. An arguement can be made about his next contract but do you really think clubs wont pay if he is innocent?

 

[The Damo]

Jack De Belin is employed and paid by SGI. SGI had decided not to stand him down however, the ARLC/NRL were not happy with this decision and rather than negotiate a settlement, the ARLC/NRL introduced new retrospective policy to force De Belin to stand down. The ARLC/NRL did not conduct an investigation to ascertain the facts of the matter and so were acting on their own preference.

I believe De Belin will win this legal battle and then be eligible to play this season. I also believe he will be awarded costs and a sizable sum in damages.

For what it is worth I also believe De Belin will be found not guilty after considering the actions of all three people concerned immediately after the alleged incident.

The NRL has no place investigating, they haven’t and nor should they. That’s a job for police. The suspension is based on him being charged, it’s a fact he’s been charged and they’ve acted on that fact.
And I mean no offence but if you’ve formed that opinion based purely on the reported behaviour after the incident then there’s great bodies of evidence about human behaviour in similar situations you are probably not aware of. I’d encourage you to search out testimony from women who’ve had their allegations proved about how they acted afterwards, I think it could change your thinking.

 

[The Damo]

The new rule is reasonable.

The public want to see players held to acceptable social standards of conduct.

However it is unreasonable to stand a player down without having a basis for it.

Being charged by the police is not evidence of a breach of the new rule.

If I maliciously accuse you of something You haven’t done, why should you voluntarily stand down.

Take the lift from the top of your ivory tower down to ground level for a minute.

It’s not about Jack, it’s about the NRL making reasonable rules that can be used to administer the game.

This one needs some tweaking

The basis for the stand down is being charged.
The DPP only lays charges, especially serious ones, if they judge there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt. They certainly aren’t always right, but a single accusation with no evidence is highly unlikely to get charged.

 

[The Damo]

Real


Basically he has been stood down as a result of bringing the game into disrepute effectively. But we don't know whether anything he did resulted in bringing the game into disrepute until he is judged by the court.

Like you say anyone can make up anything and then go to the police. Now I know that is simplistic in this case but for arguments wake, what if Jack is stood down and then he is acquitted of all charges? What has he done wrong then?

On another note, this is a retrospective rule change. So that will be an interesting concept. Because they knew what rule to bring in that would lead to Jack breaching it and having to stand down.

As long as people keep saying that all it takes to get charges laid is to go to the police, im going to keep pointing out that it’s not true. It’s tedious but look at this graph and tell me if the numbers agree.

 

[possm]

Why should the NRL lose money/brand and image because one of their employees has been charged with a serious offence?

Like it or not Jack has been charged and like it or not that charge is having a negative impact on the NRL as a business.

They sure a shit should have the right to stand a player down in these circumstances .. It is all about the charge and nothing to do with the guilt/innocence.

Jack loses two things
1. The ability to play NRL
2. Potential money due to rep

no chance of 2 now that he is taking this action - black line through his name ... So all that is happening is Jack cannot play footy .. he is not missing out on the dollars now. An arguement can be made about his next contract but do you really think clubs wont pay if he is innocent?

The problem is that De Belin is not an employee of the NRL or ARLC, that is why they asked SGI to stand him down. As De Belin has not been reported for an indiscretion on the field, the ARLC and NRL have no right to stand him down.

However, if a rule was included in his contract or if the ARLC/NRL sat down and negotiated a deal with De Belin, the NRL/ARLC may get De Belin to agree to voluntarily stand down.

 

[Saints Forever]

The basis for the stand down is being charged.
The DPP only lays charges, especially serious ones, if they judge there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt. They certainly aren’t always right, but a single accusation with no evidence is highly unlikely to get charged.

The DPP have only one side of the story and statistically far more cases than they win.

Hence being charged is simply not enough.

 

[Saints Forever]

It will be interesting to see whether the clubs must pass a resolution to adopt the proposed rule, and if so whether the NRL manage to get the numbers required to implement it.

May not be so simple

 

[The Damo]

The DPP have only one side of the story and statistically far more cases than they win.

Hence being charged is simply not enough.[/QUOTE
JDB had the opportunity to make a statement before he was charged. I don’t know if he did or not, but if he did they’d have weighed that before laying charges.
And yes, most charges of sexual assault don’t result in convictions. That’s not the same as saying there wasn’t a reasonable case to lay the charge.
And I just disagree, someone facing charges of this seriousness should be stood down from any public role, for the good of the person, the companies involved, and for society in general. I honestly don’t se how it prejudices his case in any way

 

[Dorsai]

Its been said here a million times already, however the fact is the only body with the right to judge DeBelin is the court. Full stop.

The ARL/NRL do and I am pretty sure, will not have a leg to stand on in court. They are restricting his trade. Sure they keep boasting he is getting paid. Will he be paid for lost earnings for SOO? Maybe a Kangaroo jumper? The league have been pretty quiet on that, and frankly every time Meninga opens his mouth to preach it’s like seriously, take a look at yourself buddy.

At the end of the day he is entitled to play until a court either puts him in jail or says your free to go. All the league has done is pander to the media and help convince the masses he is guilty.

If anyone is guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, it’s this unholy media we are stuck with. It’s not about reporting fact. It’s about pushing opinion, mostly theirs, to whip the masses into a frenzy. Get everyone hanging off every word of the next report. Don’t let a fact get in the way of a good story as long as we can stir you all up into a frenzy.

I for one, hope he sues their butts off. And hopefully the two muppets running the show will get the flick. Neither could manage to light a candle in a match factory.