What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mad Monday

___

Juniors
Messages
873
Given they were technically in the public view on the terrace, it's not illegal.Just scummy.
I don't mean access to the photos (which by the way is illegal if they obtained them using a drone) I mean the actual content:

NSW Crimes Act 1900 No 40

Division 15C Recording and distributing intimate images
91N Definitions
(1) In this Division:
distribute includes:
(a) send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate to another person, or
(b) make available for viewing or access by another person, whether in person or by electronic, digital or any other means.
 

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,987
Being realistic for a moment, I do think it's time for players to take a step back and think about how they act, unfortunately. And that's not to say that I have any issue with what the Dogs players got up to, especially given it was largely in a private setting.

The problem is other people. These guys are public figures, like it or not, and there are utter parasites like the Daily Telegraph who will go to any lengths to create a story like this, for utter morons and delicate helicopter parents to be outraged over and for people to latch onto for whatever personal crusade they might have. So far just on social media I've seen it used in anti-NRL posts, "toxic masculinity" posts, and that sort of rubbish.

Greenberg's response is gutless as well...If you want to criticise the players, that's fine, but given the apparent lengths the gutter-trash excuse for a journo went to you'd hope a strong leader would be at least acknowledging that most of this behaviour was actually behind closed doors and the game doesn't appreciate organisations who go to those kinds of lengths to dig up a negative story.

It's sad for the players who should be able to let their hair down however they like so long as they aren't hurting anyone, but in the modern world I think Mad Monday needs to become something different.
Agree with this tbh.

Thankfully the RLPA threw their two bob into the NRL's statement yesterday, pointing out they had concerns for player's privacy:

The RLPA also released a statement on Tuesday afternoon, admitting the players acted in a way "not in line with the values that we expect of our members" while also raising concerns about the players' privacy.

"We share the disappointment of other stakeholders regarding the impact that these incidents can have on the perception of the game and players, particularly given all of the impressive things that players are doing, on and off field, and the positive direction that the game is heading in," CEO Ian Prendergast said.

"Given the emotion involved around incidents such as these, it's important that we all take a deep breath and put things into context, while working through the process in a measured way. We're also concerned about the intrusive nature of the reporting involved here.

"The players we have spoken with are embarrassed about their behaviour, which was out of character. However, while we accept players have stepped out of line on this occasion, they are entitled to let their hair down at the end of a tough year.

"I'm sure many of us have had night's that we're not proud of. These guys will now have to live with the consequences of their actions in the cold hard light of day."

Prendergast said the RLPA would continue to monitor the situation with the club and the NRL while "seeking to ensure that the players involved are properly supported and treated fairly".


If you were at a pub with your missus and a bloke started taking his gear off do you reckon you'd think it was ok? The vomiting and passing out stuff isn't a good look. Either do it all behind closed doors or have a bit more decorum. I have no issue with Mad Monday as a concept as long as it's out of public view.
I'm not sure how the 'pub with the missus' comparison makes sense as it was a private function for NRL first grade players. Agree re the vomiting passing out stuff.

The behind closed doors stuff is ignorant though - Canterbury tried that in 2012 and it earned them stalking journos, paps at fences and a 9 news chopper hovering over Belmore.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
RLPA response was dumb. They should have come out with:

How did News Ltd get these photos of a third story private balcony?
Why are the police not investigating the illegal activity of this newspaper in publishing an intimate photo of a naked person without their permission?
Players have the same rights as everyone else and clearly those rights have been breached by these apparent illegal actions of the paper and its employees.
Murdoch clearly stated he would do everything possible to make AFL successful in NSW, is this one of the tactics of News Ltd to damage the game of Rugby League he promised?

They should just keep hammering this line and put the pressure back on News ltd, reinforces to the public what merkin scum the organisation is.
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,014
Wouldn't hate porn laws make the online publishing of someone in the nude without their permission illegal? Didn't some AFL player get publicly hanged by same media outlet for doing that to a woman recently?

I think you mean revenge porn, and I don't know. I wouldn't think revenge porn laws cover someone getting their kit off in a public setting.

I know the basics of the media side of it, but I would imagine that if you don't show the full block and tackle then it's not actually classified as nudity. I would also say that it's a completely different thing to the flogballer who put up a photo he was sent (or that was taken) in private confidence
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,014
I don't mean access to the photos (which by the way is illegal if they obtained them using a drone) I mean the actual content:

NSW Crimes Act 1900 No 40

Division 15C Recording and distributing intimate images
91N Definitions
(1) In this Division:
distribute includes:
(a) send, supply, exhibit, transmit or communicate to another person, or
(b) make available for viewing or access by another person, whether in person or by electronic, digital or any other means.

As I understand it, for that to apply you would have to prove that the images were intimate. Intimate does not automatically include "private" (in the common sense, not the legal sense) or nude
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
The behind closed doors stuff is ignorant though - Canterbury tried that in 2012 and it earned them stalking journos, paps at fences and a 9 news chopper hovering over Belmore.

TBF though that just made the media all look like total prcks to the public when they did that. Yes they'll still try to get a story but people will see the footage and go what a load of merkins those journos are peering through cracks in the fence. Holding a mad monday in a city pub with seemingly little by way of club supervision of the event is pretty stupid you'd have to admit?
 

mave

Coach
Messages
13,901
If you are going to have media and public outrage anyway, I would much rather be at a hip city pub, than locked away at Belmore Oval.

Journos are pure scum, and as has been proven, will go to just about any lengths for the negative story.
 

mave

Coach
Messages
13,901
And just on this, didnt a player get a 4 week suspension for being publically drunk at a club function , the club (Manly) copped a 100k fine for not having checks and balances to keep players in check at an official function, etc.

Will Toddles be fining the Doggies 100k ?
Any players copping a 4 week ban ?

Or are the NRL going to display their famous inconsistency yet again.
 

Timmah

LeagueUnlimited News Editor
Staff member
Messages
100,987
Love to know where the photos were taken from.
Only spot is either up a tree or illegally climbed the bridge???
Andrew Webster has raised a few of these questions in the SMH today.

I've bolded the relevant parts:

The most maddening aspect of the Bulldogs’ Mad Monday madness is coach Dean Pay, football general manager Gareth Holmes and well-paid security were all there as the madness took place.

It took place a week after NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg warned all 16 club bosses in a conference call: “Oh, and while I’ve got you, for those clubs bowing out, remember on Mad Monday to have a good time but don't do anything stupid.”

Cut to a North Bondi primary school on Tuesday morning. Greenberg steps out of a classroom where he has met young footy fans of the future, walks across the road and dives straight into a media scrum.

He’s there to answer questions about The Daily Telegraph’s front-page screamer on drunken Bulldogs players getting nude while listening to Neil Diamond (I mean, who hasn’t?) at the Harbour View Hotel in The Rocks before another player was captured passed out on the footpath — before regaining consciousness and having a spew.

“There's no doubt we will take some action,” Greenberg said. “We will make some determinations quickly after the Bulldogs finish their report and then I want to start talking about the finals series.

“We had a detailed discussion with the eight clubs that weren't playing finals so the expectations were very, very clear and the Bulldogs have let down the game today.

“I have no problem with people celebrating the end of their season as long as they do it respectfully. On this occasion, they have made some poor choices. That ultimately gives the game a black eye.

“It's embarrassing for the players first of all, it's embarrassing for their club and it's embarrassing for the game.”

NSW Police immediately launched an investigation. So, too, NSW Liquor and Gaming. Many commentators and columnists were terribly outraged. Neil Diamond is sure to be appalled when he finds out.

Why the Tele decided to strategically place photographers with telephoto lenses at a high vantage point to snap drunken footballers attending a private function is a question for them.

Another might be this: was it really necessary to run a front-page photo of winger Marcelo Montoya, bent over and looking at the final result of his technicolour yawn on the pavement? How do we unsee that?

The Bulldogs have used the Harbour View for Mad Monday shenanigans for the past few years. Questions are now being asked about who might have tipped them off. This incident has certainly cast the club in a poor light after a new board was installed in February.

According to those in attendance, the private function was roped off and players couldn’t be seen by other patrons. The photographers got their money shot when the players and coaching staff ventured out onto the balcony to enjoy the intoxicating mix of Tooheys New and the sound of Sweet Caroline.

The Bulldogs and the not-so-easily-outraged person on the street might argue this story is a beat-up. And they are probably right.

At this stage, nobody at the bar or on the street has complained about the Bulldogs’ behaviour. No fluffy white poodle-cross puppy dogs have been harassed. No urine tricks captured on camera phones have surfaced.

Perhaps more telling is that only five outraged people have called or messaged the NRL directly to complain about the damage the incident has done.

Doesn’t matter. Surely clubs understand there are people at every turn looking to expose them, ready for them to slip up.

It’s the law of the rugby league jungle. I hate the rules as much as anyone. But they are the rules. The game continues to have one foot stuck in its working-class past, the other in its professional future.

Johnathan Thurston has just spent the past week telling us how it took him years to realise how important it is to set a standard off the field as much as on it.

The reaction from Club Land was interesting. “How dumb are they?” said one club chief executive. Who? The Bulldogs or the newspaper that published the images? “The Bulldogs for putting themselves in that situation. Don’t give them the chance to embarrass you like that.”

Another club boss said he recently met officials from other sports. “Rugby league is our best competitor,” offered one official. Why? “Because you keep shooting yourselves in the foot.”

The Bulldogs have launched an investigation and it will be interesting to see how Pay, Holmes and other senior officials answer questions about their actions on Monday night.

The Bulldogs’ late-season performances, including wins over the Broncos, Dragons and Warriors, indicated they have the makings of a proper football team. Nobody is talking about that now.
 

carcharias

Immortal
Messages
43,120
Andrew Webster has raised a few of these questions in the SMH today.

I've bolded the relevant parts:

My band had some pics taken from the veranda down to us on the street earlier this year.
Directly across the road from the same spot the dogs were.
The only place is up a tree or hanging off the bridge or I think there was some sort of fencing but it would not have been high enough.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,725
As I understand it, for that to apply you would have to prove that the images were intimate. Intimate does not automatically include "private" (in the common sense, not the legal sense) or nude

Na mate.

intimate image means:
(a) an image of a person’s private parts, or of a person engaged in a private act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, or
(b) an image that has been altered to appear to show a person’s private parts, or a person engaged in a private act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy.
private parts means:
(a) a person’s genital area or anal area, whether bare or covered by underwear, or
(b) the breasts of a female person, or transgender or intersex person identifying as female, whether or not the breasts are sexually developed.

In saying that, for the players to want it to be investigated, they would essentially have to admit to indecent exposure. And yes, where they were is in a public place.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,725
It's an interesting scenario actually. Someone heavily intoxicated, gets naked in public and has photos taken of them and gets published. It actually meets the burden of proof for the offence.

It's amazing there is less outrage over this side of the scenario.

Change the situation a bit. Instead of a football team, how about a women's netball team? The narrative suddenly reads "vulnerable drunk woman has her nude photographs published in a newspaper".

I'd encourage the players to make a complaint to Police. Yes, they did a silly thing by getting undressed in public, but what's the real outrage here? Idiots getting pissed? Or a vulnerable person's naked body shared by a multi billion dollar organisation to the public?

By virtue of being football players they seem to not be afforded the same moral protection as the rest of the world.
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,014
Na mate.

intimate image means:
(a) an image of a person’s private parts, or of a person engaged in a private act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy, or
(b) an image that has been altered to appear to show a person’s private parts, or a person engaged in a private act, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would reasonably expect to be afforded privacy.
private parts means:
(a) a person’s genital area or anal area, whether bare or covered by underwear, or
(b) the breasts of a female person, or transgender or intersex person identifying as female, whether or not the breasts are sexually developed.

In saying that, for the players to want it to be investigated, they would essentially have to admit to indecent exposure. And yes, where they were is in a public place.

But that's what I mean...a player stripping down in a public setting fails the bold at least and would therefore, to my understanding, not be classified as an intimate image.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, I've done the media law side of it and that's it, but they drilled into us the kind of things that are illegal and taking photos of the Bulldogs players on a public terrace that is visible from outside is not illegal UNLESS an illegal method was used to take the photos.

That doesn't mean it's not scummy. I just think the discussion is getting a bit hyberbolic when people claim things like illegality.
 

Last Week

Bench
Messages
3,725
But that's what I mean...a player stripping down in a public setting fails the bold at least and would therefore, to my understanding, not be classified as an intimate image.

I'd suggest that seeing as the players were in what they thought was a private room, they would be fair to assume that they would have privacy.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
69,800
But that's what I mean...a player stripping down in a public setting fails the bold at least and would therefore, to my understanding, not be classified as an intimate image.

I'm not a lawyer by any means, I've done the media law side of it and that's it, but they drilled into us the kind of things that are illegal and taking photos of the Bulldogs players on a public terrace that is visible from outside is not illegal UNLESS an illegal method was used to take the photos.

That doesn't mean it's not scummy. I just think the discussion is getting a bit hyberbolic when people claim things like illegality.

I guess the argument is then how private was the balcony. If my neighbour is sunbathing naked in her garden and I climb a step ladder to take her picture over the 6 foot fence is she in a public place or private place? If you couldn't see the balcony from the street and had to go to abnormal lengths to view it, then there would be an argument it was reasonably considered private by the willy twirling man and he's entitled to his privacy I'd have thought.

Not that in the state he was probably in he had any idea where he was stripping down I suspect!
 

Latest posts

Top