by Steve Mascord on Wednesday 9 Mar 2011 15:53
SO, not much to write about this week, then! Let's start by not beating around the bush: Manly have a point. Manly have a good point.
I, like most of you, always thought Brett Stewart was intoxicated at the time of the 2009 incident. That's what the NRL's report found at the time and the Sea Eagles have not made a song and dance about it until now.
While the League at the time said the punishment against Stewart was for "putting himself in the position" to get in trouble, most objective, fair minding league supporters believe that the embarrassment he caused the sport because he was its frontman at the time was a factor in the severity of the punishment - a month-long ban and $100,000 fine.
This is a complex issue which many have ill-advisedly and unsuccessfully tried to simplify. Manly took little action at the time and given that the season launch clearly did get too boozy, they should have done more. Under these circumstances, and irrespective of the sexual assault allegations against Stewart, the NRL was justified in getting involved.
However, the precedent the League set with the four-week ban and six-figure fine has clearly not been a precedent at all. I don't know how anyone could convincingly argue that it has been.
Discord spoke to Rugby League Professionals Association boss David Garnsey on Monday and he pointed out that in the wake of the Stewart affair, the NRL assembled a sub-committee responsible for deciding what action should be taken in the event of a club under-reacting to an instance of off-field misbehaviour.
AAP reported on March 22, 2009, the committee would comprise "NRL and Rugby League Players Association delegates as well as club chief executives Stephen Noyce (Sydney Roosters), Todd Greenberg (Bulldogs), Shane Richardson (South Sydney) and Bruno Cullen (Brisbane)".
As Garnsey rightly points out, the formation of the committee means the Stewart penalty is already an obsolete measure which would not occur if the same circumstances were to arise again. That's because there is a new body in place (it may not involve the same people - in fact Bruno has already left us) and it would automatically be called in to discuss Manly's inaction.
The NRL can save face and still give Manly the apology it wants.
It just needs to say: "The penalty meted out to Brett Stewart at the beginning of the 2009 season was in keeping with the facts as they stood at the time and the system that the National Rugby League had in place at the time for circumstances in which a club is viewed to have taken insufficient action against a player.
"Manly are now coming forward with a different account of facts relating to the day in question and the NRL has also changed its systems for dealing with such incidents. The NRL acknowledges that the affair was an important part of the evolution of its dealings with off-field misbehaviour which brings the game into disrepute.
"We maintain that Brett Stewart was guilty of a misdemeanour.
"But the NRL also acknowledges that the issue would be dealt with differently now - if the club refused to act itself - and that it is possible a penalty imposed under current conditions would be less severe. The bodies now in charge of assessing club disciplinary measures, however, retain the option of imposing a more severe penalty.
"As is the case with on-field rule changes, judiciary suspensions and issues like salary cap penalties, there is a constant process of fine tuning and reassessment. The NRL acknowledges that the penalty meted out to Manly and Brett Stewart was harsh by current standards.
"But without that penalty and those sets of circumstances, we could never have improved our systems and regulations to where they are today."
There. Problems solved.
http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=38609
