New NRL Campaign "Feel it"

[JessEel]

Sexual Assault of a minor would be a good starting point......

and Matai's repeated allegations of beating his partner wouldn't have been? :crazy:

 

[fish eel]

and Matai's repeated allegations of beating his partner wouldn't have been? :crazy:

I'm only aware of the common assault charge which he was dismissed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/01/25/1833901.htm

Not familar with any domestic violence allegation and charges he has faced?

 

[JessEel]

maybe i have him mixed up, but i was sure that he was a repeat offender....

 

[fish eel]

maybe i have him mixed up, but i was sure that he was a repeat offender....

Just because he took Benny out at Brookie ;-)

 

[strider]

matai had numerous issues - just didn't get charged for them all - and eventually got off the one he did


so if the NRL are expected to de-register him, what happens if it is ultimately dismissed? .... I'm not saying he has or hasn't done it - but what if it turned out he didn't? .... it takes a year+ to get it through court - he gets the arse for that whole period - turns out he was innocent and his career is f'ed ..... I imagine it would open up a nice lawsuit against the NRL

its a tough situation ..... hard to know what they should do

 

[fish eel]

matai had numerous issues - just didn't get charged for them all - and eventually got off the one he did


so if the NRL are expected to de-register him, what happens if it is ultimately dismissed? .... I'm not saying he has or hasn't done it - but what if it turned out he didn't? .... it takes a year+ to get it through court - he gets the arse for that whole period - turns out he was innocent and his career is f'ed ..... I imagine it would open up a nice lawsuit for the NRL

its a tough situation ..... hard to know what they should do

I dont think any can or should be deregistered until there has been a conviction.

 

[JessEel]

lol - not the only reason i enjoy seeing him injured. He's a dog on the field (and apparently off)


Any assult charges should warrant deregistration in my opinion (providing they are susstained, obviously)
Whether they be public, domestic, sexual..... it brings the game into disrepute.
One thing to get drunk and damage property, another thing to damage a human being

 

[strider]

then no need for any hoo-har for another year or so then

 

[fish eel]

then no need for any hoo-har for another year or so then

No, I think the question in the meantime is whether or not he should be stood down.

Not the same as de-registering him. He'd still ge getting paid, just not playing.

Your are right though, the problem with that is the court process could be slow and he could be found not guilty.

It's a PR nightmare if he plays though, particuarly for the next few weeks in the lead up to his first appearance in court.

 

[strider]

no one seemed to give much of a sh*t about lafranchi playing almost a whole season before his case was decided .... the timing of lafranchi's incident was different - at the end of a season, so the up-roar had died down by the time he was to play again

 

[spiderdan]

well stewart is out until rd 5 apprently

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25170949-23214,00.html

 

[Hellsy]

It is a hard call, I mean dont get me wrong I am not siding with the players whom have erred. But is a charge enough to warrant them stood down until proven guilty in court?
As Strider said, Laffanchi played on and was then case dismissed. If he had been stood down surely he would have grounds to sue for loss of earnings.
I think there needs to be lines set and then each case matched to those lines, if you cross it then you are suspended, if not then you can play on.
I've thought about this more over the last few days and have changed my mind about 3 times I think :lol: :lol:

 

[bartman]

Allegations are investigated by police pretty swifty and usually either lead to a charge or no charge. Standing down a charged player - on full pay - until the charge is dealt with is OK imo. I'm talking about that certain class of "serious" charges - assault, sexual assault etc, not speeding fines.

If players continue to be paid by their employer while waiting the trial/verdict, they have no grounds for suing if eventually receiving a not guilty verdict. Usually the club has forked out some extra money toward their defence or legal advice anyway.

All that has happened is an employer has stood down an employee on full pay while they clear their name. Same that happens with Ministers in government when facing allegations, same that happens with school teachers and medical staff while being internally investigated, same that happens with council employees, and I'd say the same that hapoens with most corporate employees?

The NRL needs to identify which charges carry this automatic standing down, and which charges don't. But beyond that it's then up to the players to behave themselves accordingly and not put themselves in positions where they can be charged. It's not that difficult!!!

With this approach, the clubs will all start to take more responsibility to supervise/educate/protect/mentor their players to stay out of trouble, and this will only benefit the players themselves, the club, and the image of the game we love.

No club wants to pay their players to sit on the sideline wearing a dunces cap, so suddenly clubs will get more active than they have been before about educating (often young) players about respect for each other, respect for women, respect for other cultures, respect for society, limits with alcohol.

Players will learn that they are fortunate to be earning the money they do for the job they perform, and that playing isn't a god-given right, but one that is earned by sticking to the code of conduct. They are responsible for the image of their employer and industry even outside of "work" hours, and may have to make sacrifices or restrictions on their behaviour compared to the average joe.

If they don't like it they are simply in the wrong job, and can easily quit and be an average joe...

 

[carson]

Brett Stewart destroyed a $1.5 million dollar ad, wouldn't the logical answer be for Brett Stewart to have to pay for the reshoot.

If the club wanted to pick up the bill, fine however it counts towards their salary cap.

By hitting the players hip pockets it will soon have a sobering effect.

 

[sportive cupid]

I read in the paper today (or was that yesterday?) that onlookers had come to the girls assistance.

Gee this is bad news, IF he is proven guilty in court he will not play league again. The NRL would have to de-register him, and he wont get a work visa for overseas with a criminal charge..... jail may also be a penalty for guilt.

geesss that really puts it into perspective.Here I was thinking about the girl.

 

[sportive cupid]

No, I think the question in the meantime is whether or not he should be stood down.

Not the same as de-registering him. He'd still ge getting paid, just not playing.

Your are right though, the problem with that is the court process could be slow and he could be found not guilty.

It's a PR nightmare if he plays though, particuarly for the next few weeks in the lead up to his first appearance in court.

I tend to think that whether he is guilty or not is beside the point with regard to whether he should play.He is obviously responsible for behaviour that is bringing the game into disrepute by getting drunk and being asked to leave the launh venue.If he plays he creates the potential for a debacle of a match on the weekend with fans all adding to the mess.

 

[fish eel]

Allegations are investigated by police pretty swifty and usually either lead to a charge or no charge. Standing down a charged player - on full pay - until the charge is dealt with is OK imo. I'm talking about that certain class of "serious" charges - assault, sexual assault etc, not speeding fines.

If players continue to be paid by their employer while waiting the trial/verdict, they have no grounds for suing if eventually receiving a not guilty verdict. Usually the club has forked out some extra money toward their defence or legal advice anyway.

All that has happened is an employer has stood down an employee on full pay while they clear their name. Same that happens with Ministers in government when facing allegations, same that happens with school teachers and medical staff while being internally investigated, same that happens with council employees, and I'd say the same that hapoens with most corporate employees?

The NRL needs to identify which charges carry this automatic standing down, and which charges don't. But beyond that it's then up to the players to behave themselves accordingly and not put themselves in positions where they can be charged. It's not that difficult!!!

With this approach, the clubs will all start to take more responsibility to supervise/educate/protect/mentor their players to stay out of trouble, and this will only benefit the players themselves, the club, and the image of the game we love.

No club wants to pay their players to sit on the sideline wearing a dunces cap, so suddenly clubs will get more active than they have been before about educating (often young) players about respect for each other, respect for women, respect for other cultures, respect for society, limits with alcohol.

Players will learn that they are fortunate to be earning the money they do for the job they perform, and that playing isn't a god-given right, but one that is earned by sticking to the code of conduct. They are responsible for the image of their employer and industry even outside of "work" hours, and may have to make sacrifices or restrictions on their behaviour compared to the average joe.

If they don't like it they are simply in the wrong job, and can easily quit and be an average joe...

I'm undecided whether he should not play until it is heard and dealt with by court, only because that can be such a long process. The player could miss a season only have be found not guilty. While he may be getting paid, when you lose a season in what is a limited career that is a big thing. There are also other opportunities he would have lost such as rep honours, finals football etc and other income in the way of bonuses that may have come his way.

That being said, I do see the arguments for standing him down which are mainly PR reason. Particuarly until the initial court date he should be stood down just to put a lid on it.

The decision by Manly to name him this weekend would have achieved nothing other than shine an even bigger spotlight on him.

 

[fish eel]

I tend to think that whether he is guilty or not is beside the point with regard to whether he should play.He is obviously responsible for behaviour that is bringing the game into disrepute by getting drunk and being asked to leave the launh venue.If he plays he creates the potential for a debacle of a match on the weekend with fans all adding to the mess.

Yes, he should be punished for that, goes without saying. And yes, I agree he should have been stood down this week.

The question is, do you stand him down until any trial is concluded?

If he is not guilty and cleared - is missing potentially a whole season a fair punishment for getting pissed?

 

[sportive cupid]

Yes, he should be punished for that, goes without saying. And yes, I agree he should have been stood down this week.

The question is, do you stand him down until any trial is concluded?

If he is not guilty and cleared - is missing potentially a whole season a fair punishment for getting pissed?

well getting pissed and putting the game and hence all the future rugby league players playing future in jeopody...yeah I think thats moving towards a fair punishment.

 

[sportive cupid]

Don't forget-this guy was the face of the new season.