Jdb case

[Glenn012]

You could indeed be wrong, making assumptions without evidence or data will do that. Given you’ve said explicitly that you do that, it’s pretty safe to assume you’ll usually be wrong.

Okay. I can't prove it so can only take you at your word. But it's a feeling I get regardless. Just as the feeling Jack got when the NRL admin asked him to stand down voluntarily amounted to a tacit admission of guilt.

 

[Glenn012]

Jack de Belin tipped to win legal battle against NRL's no fault stand down policy
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...court-dylan-walker/142l48kjzmar81mu7pr5m55fnx

URL doesn't work.

 

[SGMax]

If it's a no fault policy how come he is stood down.
They said Todd Greenbergs daughter and friends have affected their passion for the game.
I and thousands of other still love the dragons.
And why is the storm CEO Bart Campbell taking the stand .
What the he'll does he have to do with it .
Butt out dickhead and look after the storm .

Thanks JD for spotting what everyone seems to miss.
The NRL think if they just name the policy "no fault" then its ok to treat him like he is guilty.
I don't know if he is guilty, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle, but they can't sacrifice someone's rights on an unknown.

If there had been some additional evidence such as footage of him harassing her or stalking her etc, then I might agree.
Basing a stand down decision solely on an accusation for a period that may be 2 years cannot be justified.

 

[WoyD4LWoy]

URL doesn't work.

I just noticed that...but article is on sporting news.com

 

[Willow]

Einfeld has also made the case that there are a plethora of reasons why people might walk away from the game including refereeing controversies, concerns about concussion and alcohol and gambling advertising.

If I was to single out one thing that is harming any sport, it would be the gambling. The alcohol advertising is not far away in second place. We did away with cigarette advertising, even though it was resisted.

In his testimony on Wednesday, Greenberg said that he was concerned about the impact player behaviour was having on women and that they would walk away from the game.

He told the court some of his daughter’s friends had told him they were refusing to play casual touch rugby league because of the game’s so-called “summer from hell”.

My immediate thoughts on this are 'what's going on in women's touch rugby league?' Is he seriously suggesting that these friends have suddenly stopped playing touch because of totally unrelated incidents?

With the greatest respect, Greenberg's daughter's friends are not witnesses. They can have their opinions but their opinions have nothing to do with the case in question.

Even if we were to entertain their opinions as a valid reason for the NRL's stance, then surely there's more to this story. More likely it is indicative of the NRL's inability to promote the game to women over a much longer period preceding this so-called "summer from hell". That's assuming if Greenberg has got it right.

 

[The Damo]

Einfeld has also made the case that there are a plethora of reasons why people might walk away from the game including refereeing controversies, concerns about concussion and alcohol and gambling advertising.

If I was to single out one thing that is harming any sport, it would be the gambling. The alcohol advertising is not far away in second place. We did away with cigarette advertising, even though it was resisted.

In his testimony on Wednesday, Greenberg said that he was concerned about the impact player behaviour was having on women and that they would walk away from the game.

He told the court some of his daughter’s friends had told him they were refusing to play casual touch rugby league because of the game’s so-called “summer from hell”.

My immediate thoughts on this are 'what's going on in women's touch rugby league?' Is he seriously suggesting that these friends have suddenly stopped playing touch because of totally unrelated incidents?

With the greatest respect, Greenberg's daughter's friends are not witnesses. They can have their opinions but their opinions have nothing to do with the case in question.

Even if we were to entertain their opinions as a valid reason for the NRL's stance, then surely there's more to this story. More likely it is indicative of the NRL's inability to promote the game to women over a much longer period preceding this so-called "summer from hell". That's assuming if Greenberg has got it right.

Speaking as someone who supports the decision - my god the nrl and Greenberg have been staggeringly incompetent in how they’ve defended it. To come up with that rubbish on the stand after having time and advice to prepare is breathtakingly bad.

 

[possm]

These are the words of Magistrate Clisdell:
“He has a substantial contract to play professional rugby league, and it requires him to travel interstate.”

That was on February 2nd, and well reported.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=“He+has+a+substantial+contract+to+play+professional+rugby+league,+and+it+requires+him+to+travel+interstate.”

The 'flight risk' condition was deleted from the bail conditions so JdB didn't have to report to police twice a week. The magistrate agreed with JdB's defence that this restricted him from doing his job.

When debating the 'flight risk', even the police prosecutor Sgt Thackray said, "I’m not saying its likely, I’m saying it’s a risk."

Yes, and without an investigation or facts supporting the Stand Down Rule, the ARLC/NRL should have deferred to the line of thinking contained in this order.

 

[Eastview]

I cannot believe Greenberg used his daughter and his friends as an example of why he introduced the rule. So if his daughter and her friends said they weren't going to support/play rugby league because they thought, for example, the Roosters (or any other club) needed to be moved to WA he would simply just tell the club to move or be booted?

 

[Old Timer]

This from Old Timer a few years ago:


There is much more where that came from. Anything he says in regard to Jack should be disregarded.

And exactly what are you trying to say with that post?
And while you are explaining that get back to me where I slandered him according to you.

 

[2218]

It's because these matters should be kept in context and addressed on a case-by-case basis.

This is exactly right willow. I’ve argued so much over this. It would surprise me greatly if the federal court don’t agree with this as well

 

[Old Timer]

You asked for it. Much more where that came from. Want more or will you have the courage to admit you have an agenda in regard to Jack?

You are s complete knob jockey
You are trying to draw some ridiculous comparison between what I posted re his football ability and a criminal matter.
You state I have an agenda we’ll go into all my posts re the charges and impending trial and find one post where I have wavered from saying let the judicial system do its work.
If I had an agenda I would hardly be saying that he should be stood down with full pay surely I would say just stand him down or sack him.
You seem to be having a hard time getting the reality or gravity of what is at hand.

 

[2218]

Speaking as someone who supports the decision - my god the nrl and Greenberg have been staggeringly incompetent in how they’ve defended it. To come up with that rubbish on the stand after having time and advice to prepare is breathtakingly bad.

Damo I would suggest that it was a bad decision to start with however they couldn’t retract the decision as it would make them look incompetent and somewhat supportive. Best outcome for them was to leave it in a judges decision as they can always say they tried.

 

[Slippery Morris]

Greenberg is an idiot saying his daughter is turned off by this particular case and not the other off-field incidents especially the ones she was unfortunate to see footage of on Social Media. That is understandable as the footage is pretty degrading to woman and shows what idiots we have playing the game. I am sure that would be the big turnoff if she saw those not a court case where we are still waiting on an outcome.

Bring back David Gallop. He was around during the Coffs Harbour incident and he handled it so much better than this clueless mob.

Greenberg knew about the Ben Barba incidents with his wife and swept that under the carpet when he was at the Dogs and "prepared a statement" for Ben to say he had a gambling habit and was seeking help? Greenberg sat him out for 6 weeks and let him come back to finish the season in the hope he will win them a comp. That backfired. Does he really have that short of a memory. Jeez

 

[Glenn012]

You are s complete knob jockey
You are trying to draw some ridiculous comparison between what I posted re his football ability and a criminal matter.
You state I have an agenda we’ll go into all my posts re the charges and impending trial and find one post where I have wavered from saying let the judicial system do its work.
If I had an agenda I would hardly be saying that he should be stood down with full pay surely I would say just stand him down or sack him.
You seem to be having a hard time getting the reality or gravity of what is at hand.

Correctamundo!!! If you don't like him as a RL player or even don't like him personally or think he is a cat (which is what I saw you clearly suggest without stating outright. Utterly ridiculous comment considering how tough he has always played but that's another story.), that's fine. You should be able to state your opinion. But this is a criminal matter so leave your f**king agenda out of it.

 

[Glenn012]

Greenberg is an idiot saying his daughter is turned off by this particular case and not the other off-field incidents especially the ones she was unfortunate to see footage of on Social Media. That is understandable as the footage is pretty degrading to woman and shows what idiots we have playing the game. I am sure that would be the big turnoff if she saw those not a court case where we are still waiting on an outcome.

Bring back David Gallop. He was around during the Coffs Harbour incident and he handled it so much better than this clueless mob.

Greenberg knew about the Ben Barba incidents with his wife and swept that under the carpet when he was at the Dogs and "prepared a statement" for Ben to say he had a gambling habit and was seeking help? Greenberg sat him out for 6 weeks and let him come back to finish the season in the hope he will win them a comp. That backfired. Does he really have that short of a memory. Jeez

He is grasping at straws. It's f**king ridiculous! Basing the laws governing the competition on how his daughter feels!!! FFS, this guy has been skillful going with the prevailing political winds. pursuing things with zeal to please the powers that be either way but I afraid for him and happy personally he seems to have screwed up here.

 

[Old Timer]

It's because these matters should be kept in context and addressed on a case-by-case basis.

I’ll try again to see if I can make the point which I think is important.
If people are using the argument “innocent until proven guilty” or “entitled to the presumption of innocence” then they are quoting how they generally believe how the law interprets matters before they go to trial.
If that is how people interpret how the law works then you can’t shift the goal posts by saying “kept in context and addressed on a case by case basis”
You either believe in the principal or you don’t.
If you believe in it then it has to apply in all situations as no one is aware of the brief of evidence that will be contested at trial and who are we to judge if one persons innocent plea is any more honest or meritorious than any other persons.
If as you say “addressed on a case by case basis” then you are being the judge and jury with no evidence at hand to guide the decision making and therefore never use the “innocent until proven guilty argument”
Imo any deviation by people means they are selective in their application of the law.
My argument in this instance is not about whether JDB is guilty or not whether he should be stood down but us about people making a general statement and then putting a fence round it.

 

[Old Timer]

Correctamundo!!! If you don't like him as a RL player or even don't like him personally or think he is a cat (which is what I saw you clearly suggest without stating outright. Utterly ridiculous comment considering how tough he has always played but that's another story.), that's fine. You should be able to state your opinion. But this is a criminal matter so leave your f**king agenda out of it.

And exactly where did I make any connection between my interpretation of his football ability (alll posted long before any charges were made) and the criminal matter?
The only one making that connection is you because you have a very poor ability in respect of having a rational discussion.
By all means turn the light in and see if you can find your way out of the hole you are digging.

 

[SaintPauli]

I'm curious about this line of argument. I think someone else suggested three months.

To clarify, are you saying the NRL / ARLC should have suspended JdB for a set period (say, 6 months) and then allow him to play after that? A compromise?

Agree when it comes to courts there is NO RUSHING! A major flaw as I have already posted. The NRL cannot and should not be the law in making its own "assumptions! " We are talking about the livelihood of a player and his family.
The repercussions are big. Innocent unless proven guilty.

 

[2218]

I’ll try again to see if I can make the point which I think is important.
If people are using the argument “innocent until proven guilty” or “entitled to the presumption of innocence” then they are quoting how they generally believe how the law interprets matters before they go to trial.
If that is how people interpret how the law works then you can’t shift the goal posts by saying “kept in context and addressed on a case by case basis”
You either believe in the principal or you don’t.
If you believe in it then it has to apply in all situations as no one is aware of the brief of evidence that will be contested at trial and who are we to judge if one persons innocent plea is any more honest or meritorious than any other persons.
If as you say “addressed on a case by case basis” then you are being the judge and jury with no evidence at hand to guide the decision making and therefore never use the “innocent until proven guilty argument”
Imo any deviation by people means they are selective in their application of the law.
My argument in this instance is not about whether JDB is guilty or not whether he should be stood down but us about people making a general statement and then putting a fence round it.

If there was damning evidence jack would of been refused bail by police. Then I’d say the nrl would seriously consider suspending or cancelling his contract ie barba with video footage ie Tyrone May video footage. Debelin has not even breached code of conduct. To blanket a stand down for all offences that carry 11 years without any process involved is ludicrous and not even the bail act has that in place unless it’s a show cause offence.

 

[Old Timer]

If there was damning evidence jack would of been refused bail by police. Then I’d say the nrl would seriously consider suspending or cancelling his contract ie barba with video footage ie Tyrone May video footage. Debelin has not even breached code of conduct. To blanket a stand down for all offences that carry 11 years without any process involved is ludicrous and not even the bail act has that in place unless it’s a show cause offence.

No damning evidence you say.
Well then how is it that he is going to court?
Do you think the police, DPP and the legal system are running this case based on nothing?
Did you miss the judges statement when the matter was brought before him?
As I say leave it the judicial system to work it out.