This is my point though. The league has allowed people like Packer and Lui and Avua'a back in, there has to be a degree of consistency. If they were to adopt an approach like Cannard suggests of one serious strike and you are out permanently, then, that might be different. That leads to all sorts of shades of grey though about what is or is not serious enough conduct to justify a permanent ban. Is a drink driving offence sufficient? If they have two or three is that sufficient? If they are involved in a collision whilst drunk in charge, is that sufficient to ban them permanently? What if they are involved in a fight at a club or pub and get charged and convicted of assault, is that enough?
It also raises the issue as to whether an employer or governing body like the NRL have an obligation whether it be legal, moral or otherwise to assist a person who has gone off the rails but has taken proven and positive steps to rehabilitate themselves by supporting their rehabilitation. My understanding is that the governing body has been of the view that there is an opportunity if not an obligation to make a player a better person if possible and that this is best achieved by having them within the game and within the structure that a club provides.
