New NRL Campaign "Feel it"

[bartman]

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

I'd go out on a limb and say... yes.

These people are professional athletes. Being paid for their skill, athleticism, professionalism, attention to training etc.

To get pissed (to that level) during a competition season (ie after you've started training for that season) is probably risky behaviour, that has resulted in the punishment.

The player had a choice about his behaviour - with this punishment (stood down until trial) more players might think about their choices, and the impact on their professional lives. If they don't like the sacrifice at this elite, professional level, choose a different profession, or run around in park footy and get pissed all you like.

 

[strider]

their club (employer) was supplying them with all the booze - so they can't very well get all high and mighty with them and stand them down

I don't know what he did - haven't even read anything to suggest what "sexual assault" means in this case .... apparently they took her to the hospital? what does that suggest??? ... did she start anything and he went too far? - was it all him? ... buggered if I know .... so I find it hard to tar and feather him just yet

 

[bartman]

Agreed the club was culpable too - that's probably why the NRL called them in this morning and fined them. And why the NRL had to stand down Stewart, because Manly would have looked dumb given they started the day's proceedings off.

Obviously he's not guilty until he's guilty... but imo for being in the position of risk for it to be possible for a charge to be laid is enough to justify some penalty from the industry/employer, for bringing the game into disrepute as a result of his own choices and behaviour.

Sitting in the corner until the trial wearing a dunces cap is quite appropriate, and I'd happily support the same approach if one of our players got themselves that far into a scrape that they end up needing to answer a charge.

 

[strider]

i think the NRL just wanted $100K to pay for editing their bloody ad :lol:

 

[sportive cupid]

apparently they took her to the hospital? what does that suggest??? ... did she start anything and he went too far? - was it all him? ... buggered if I know .... so I find it hard to tar and feather him just yet

Usually that means they followed protocol when there is an accusation of sexual assault.The alledged victim is seen by a doctor and counsellor and samples are taken.

 

[bartman]

:lol: Probably!

Maybe it was a set up all along - NRL make him the star, get Manly in on the trick with their boozy season launch, watch him f**k up, and then NRL hit Manly for the.. oh, wait? *scratches head*

:lol: Peter Peters and crew fell for it! lolManly

 

[fish eel]

I'd go out on a limb and say... yes.

These people are professional athletes. Being paid for their skill, athleticism, professionalism, attention to training etc.

To get pissed (to that level) during a competition season (ie after you've started training for that season) is probably risky behaviour, that has resulted in the punishment.

The player had a choice about his behaviour - with this punishment (stood down until trial) more players might think about their choices, and the impact on their professional lives. If they don't like the sacrifice at this elite, professional level, choose a different profession, or run around in park footy and get pissed all you like.

OK, nice bar you've set there. One thing needed is consistency.

Player 1 gets pissed, has accusations made and is charged by coppers, stood down, misses a season and is cleared/found not guilty.

Player 2 gets pissed, punches someone, but no charges are pressed - does he sit out for the year?

I'm not defending anyone, I'm just not sure it's black and white

 

[strider]

Usually that means they followed protocol when there is an accusation of sexual assault.The alledged victim is seen by a doctor and counsellor and samples are taken.

samples of what? is that what I think u might mean samples of? wouldn't they then be calling it rape? .... sexual assault seems a hazy term :-k

 

[bartman]

OK, nice bar you've set there. One thing needed is consistency.

Player 1 gets pissed, has accusations made and is charged by coppers, stood down, misses a season and is cleared/found not guilty.

Player 2 gets pissed, punches someone, but no charges are pressed - does he sit out for the year?

I'm not defending anyone, I'm just not sure it's black and white

Yep, I guess it has to have a bar, and the laying of charges are the only one that come to my mind so far.

Maybe we draw the line at sexual charges?

Or maybe include certain categories of crimes like drugs, extortion, armed robbery. Some sort of hierarchy, with a bar that is clear and communicated to players, so they and their clubs can knwo the expectation and take action accordingly.

But yes, because the Watmough case a sponsor of the club that employs the guy is hardly going to press charges and bring the asset he sponsors into (further) disrepute, then that does present a consistency problem with in this case general assault.

Have you seen Scott Sattler's idea about holding 20% of a player's wage in bond, and issuing a christmas bonus if the player hasn't come into trouble?

 

[bartman]

samples of what? is that what I think u might mean samples of? wouldn't they then be calling it rape? .... sexual assault seems a hazy term :-k

Sexual assault as a legal term now includes rape (in the more common sense), as well as digital and oral contact with genitals without consent. But there is no different categories of these to the law - they are all considered sexual assault.

I've read in the various reports that they took DNA scrapings from under Stewarts' fingernails for testing, hope that gives enough of a picture to make it clearer

 

[sportive cupid]

samples of what? is that what I think u might mean samples of? wouldn't they then be calling it rape? .... sexual assault seems a hazy term :-k

Probably strides.I mean semen\hair samples as well as a more general examination of the body areas concerned.

 

[Hellsy]

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

*Wow... cause I totally am on Brett Stewarts side... I think he should get off scott free because the girl deserved it, she probably came onto him and was asking for it... she totally deserves everything she got.... :roll: :roll: :roll:

Please don't ASSUME you know what I am thinking, just because I posted only one of my thoughts/perspectives does not mean I do not have others. In fact if you come across any of my other posts you will see I am more for the the TRUTH than wild accusations and am very interested in other peoples thoughts on what they believe the NRL should do when faced with issues like this

* Smartarse opinion only, it is in no way my true thoughts

 

[strider]

its interesting - i just saw on NRL on Fox that the "code of conduct" basically said something along the lines of " ... players at functions representing the NRL must behave in a sober, courteous and (something else) manner ..."

and supposedly the NRL are NOT standing stewart down because of his being charged, but because he went against teh code of conduct

... now apparently Watmough got into a verbal with a guy and subsequently hit him at the same function after the guy took offence at watmough talking badly about/to his daughter ..... so surely watmough wasn't being sober and courteous .... why isn't he sitting on his arse on the sideline too?

 

[fish eel]

Yep, I guess it has to have a bar, and the laying of charges are the only one that come to my mind so far.

Maybe we draw the line at sexual charges?

Or maybe include certain categories of crimes like drugs, extortion, armed robbery. Some sort of hierarchy, with a bar that is clear and communicated to players, so they and their clubs can knwo the expectation and take action accordingly.

But yes, because the Watmough case a sponsor of the club that employs the guy is hardly going to press charges and bring the asset he sponsors into (further) disrepute, then that does present a consistency problem with in this case general assault.

Have you seen Scott Sattler's idea about holding 20% of a player's wage in bond, and issuing a christmas bonus if the player hasn't come into trouble?

Thing with those charges, all very serious, I'd hazard a guess and say they take some type of planning. A clear mind? The type of stuff that has been going on, like the Brett Stewart incident all comes back to alcohol rather than deliberate attempts to break law. Definately no excuse at all....just a common factor.

The biggest issue in terms of discipline has to be consistency IMO.

its interesting - i just saw on NRL on Fox that the "code of conduct" basically said something along the lines of " ... players at functions representing the NRL must behave in a sober, courteous and (something else) manner ..."

and supposedly the NRL are NOT standing stewart down because of his being charged, but because he went against teh code of conduct

... now apparently Watmough got into a verbal with a guy and subsequently hit him at the same function after the guy took offence at watmough talking badly about/to his daughter ..... so surely watmough wasn't being sober and courteous .... why isn't he sitting on his arse on the sideline too?

and 5 weeks has him coming back after his court appearance?

But no, nothing to do with the charges :sarcasm:

Of course, they probably cant come out and state the obvious......

 

[Nikki]

... now apparently Watmough got into a verbal with a guy and subsequently hit him at the same function after the guy took offence at watmough talking badly about/to his daughter ..... so surely watmough wasn't being sober and courteous .... why isn't he sitting on his arse on the sideline too?

I dunno what happened in the lead up to his altercation, but he allegedly told the sponsor that he should be embarrassed or ashamed by the fact his daughter turned up to a Rugby League event in a short/skimpy skirt. The sponsor guy took acception to it. Dunno if the girl had turned Watmough down earlier, but IMO, truer words could not have come out of his mouth. (Never thought I would say that). Some of these girls just parade themselves for attention, then cry foul when it goes too far. Of course everyone has the right to say NO!

Just on Brett Stewart, I was saying to Hels earlier tonight, I cant see him being charged with sexual assualt, but maybe common assualt.

 

[fish eel]

I dunno what happened in the lead up to his altercation, but he allegedly told the sponsor that he should be embarrassed or ashamed by the fact his daughter turned up to a Rugby League event in a short/skimpy skirt. The sponsor guy took acception to it. Dunno if the girl had turned Watmough down earlier, but IMO, truer words could not have come out of his mouth. (Never thought I would say that). Some of these girls just parade themselves for attention, then cry foul when it goes too far. Of course everyone has the right to say NO!

If that is true, it's a pretty sad indictment on Watmough's opinion of his teammates he would make a comment like that. Just ordinary. The girl can wear what she wants and grown men should be able to control themselves.

Just on Brett Stewart, I was saying to Hels earlier tonight, I cant see him being charged with sexual assualt, but maybe common assualt.

Thats what he was charged with though.

 

[Nikki]

I meant convicted or what ever it is.. I dunno legal terms, otherwise I would be making sh*t loads of money. lol.

I wouldnt say its just Watmoughs team mates that think that way. The term Footy s**t gets thrown around alot.

 

[fish eel]

I wouldnt say its just Watmoughs team mates that think that way. The term Footy s**t gets thrown around alot.

Sure.

But none of us know the girl or what she was wearing, and TBH, it doesnt matter in my opinion.

 

[bartman]

Just on Brett Stewart, I was saying to Hels earlier tonight, I cant see him being charged with sexual assualt, but maybe common assualt.

There must be evidence/witness statements the police have that indicate there was maybe more than just a crash tackle involved, for them to have laid the sexual assault charge.

I think it all comes down to what happened after the tackle, and before he allegedly had to be pulled off the allegedly screaming girl. If someone doesn't go near a woman's "bits" at all when they crash tackle them, then yes it's just a charge of assault.

*sorry, just read you meant convicted, please ignore*

 

[TheRam]

Stewart, who is alleged to have digitally penetrated a 17-year-old girl while in a drunken stupor, arrived at Dee Why Police Station in the back of a police car shortly before 6 on Tuesday night.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25169627-23214,00.html


I hope that clears it up for some people. It also explains as to why the police took DNA samples from under his finger nails.