Non-eels footy stuff

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Such a nothing case and nothing ruling.
Judge - he can't be suspended because there is no rule to suspend him
NRL - so..... all we have to do is put the rule in writing
Beattie - someone get me a napkin and pen!

I'm assuming that the hearing is still going on....as nobody else seems to be reporting it. I would be very surprised is a judge actually said one of the things in that Fox report. I have a suspicion that some of the quotes may be attributed to the wrong person. Not sure.

 

[Gronk]

I'm assuming that the hearing is still going on....as nobody else seems to be reporting it. I would be very surprised is a judge actually said one of the things in that Fox report. I have a suspicion that some of the quotes may be attributed to the wrong person. Not sure.

It's now going to be heard next Thursday.

EDIT: It seems that de Belin is also suing misleading and deceptive conduct in addition to restraint of trade. So maybe a rule change might not work if the court agrees on the conduct issue.

 

[84 Baby]

I'm assuming that the hearing is still going on....as nobody else seems to be reporting it. I would be very surprised is a judge actually said one of the things in that Fox report. I have a suspicion that some of the quotes may be attributed to the wrong person. Not sure.

Essentially the judge said "I can't rule on something that don't exist" but as it stands NRL can't suspend de Belin either. Adjourned to next week so NRL can enact rule then judge can decide on it

 

[Bazal]

Legal technicalities amuse and confuse me.

Does this mean that if, say, the NRL had instead said "we believe that JDB has brought the game into disrepute" and suspended him under existing rules or whatever a la Brett Stewart and Mitchell Pearce, they'd have been able to uphold the suspension (pending legal challenge)?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Essentially the judge said "I can't rule on something that don't exist" but as it stands NRL can't suspend de Belin either. Adjourned to next week so NRL can enact rule then judge can decide on it

It's the quote where the judge apparently

said suggestions he has suspended were “damaging to Jack de Belin as a professional and an individual”.

That I find curious. That sounds like a quote from the applicant's attorney, or manager. It would be odd for a judge to make such a definitive statement. One might say that they agreed that there was potential for damage, but seems an odd thing to say after a short hearing.

EDIT: from updated article, was definitely the judge...but with a fuller quotation.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Legal technicalities amuse and confuse me.

Does this mean that if, say, the NRL had instead said "we believe that JDB has brought the game into disrepute" and suspended him under existing rules or whatever a la Brett Stewart and Mitchell Pearce, they'd have been able to uphold the suspension (pending legal challenge)?

Probably, but that would also be immediately challengeable on different grounds. They would need to establish that he has breached the NRL code of conduct, and to make such a decision on the basis of sufficient evidence.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Essentially the judge said "I can't rule on something that don't exist" but as it stands NRL can't suspend de Belin either. Adjourned to next week so NRL can enact rule then judge can decide on it

Couldn't they have just said, "FFS Your Honour, obviously we intend to introduce that rule. Just tell us now if it's legal, ya merkin"?

 

[Gronk]

Legal technicalities amuse and confuse me.

Does this mean that if, say, the NRL had instead said "we believe that JDB has brought the game into disrepute" and suspended him under existing rules or whatever a la Brett Stewart and Mitchell Pearce, they'd have been able to uphold the suspension (pending legal challenge)?

All of the above. It seems that whilst the NRL may have obtained their own legal advice on this, the court might hold that you can't impose ex post facto (retrospective) rules on players. Meaning that the offence occurred in 2018 and the new rule comes in 2019.

 

[Bazal]

Probably, but that would also be immediately challengeable on different grounds. They would need to establish that he has breached the NRL code of conduct, and to make such a decision on the basis of sufficient evidence.

Of course.

I just find it amusing that they can't suspend him under a new rule they have announced publicly, because it's not written down or whatever...but they could probably suspend him (in effect, until a hearing decided otherwise) under an existing rule that is more damaging, theoretically, to the player's reputation.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Of course.

I just find it amusing that they can't suspend him under a new rule they have announced publicly, because it's not written down or whatever...but they could probably suspend him (in effect, until a hearing decided otherwise) under an existing rule that is more damaging, theoretically, to the player's reputation.

I find it more amusing that they announced this rule before they had actually made the rule. Then in court today, say, no, he's not suspended, we haven't made the rule yet. But we will. Next week. We promise.

 

[strider]

Couldn't they have just said, "FFS Your Honour, obviously we intend to introduce that rule. Just tell us now if it's legal, ya merkin"?

to which the judge would have replied ... f**k off, i need to drag all these things out and extend my pay cheque - and all legal reps involved would have cheered

 

[84 Baby]

Couldn't they have just said, "FFS Your Honour, obviously we intend to introduce that rule. Just tell us now if it's legal, ya merkin"?

to which the judge would have replied ... f**k off, i need to drag all these things out and extend my pay cheque - and all legal reps involved would have cheered

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

FFS!!

 

[Twizzle]

Judge has decided that, at present, the NRL have no right to stand De Belin down, because the 'rule' under which they have purported to have done so does not yet exist:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...n/news-story/9ca75a4a1aea3f8ca39dcbc42c244e82

I won't quote the article because I think it will soon be edited by the Fox people....there are some potentially misleading sentences in it which appear to result from the merging of old and new articles.

I sorta just made the same comment in the NRL forum, bringing in a rule then applying it retrospectively is, well like Bazal said, a can of worms inside a can of worms

 

[Noise]

De Belin an accused rapist with a top knot is going to expose Greenberg’s policy like a Portuguese chicken

 

[Bazal]

That brings up a good point.

When is the NRL going to take a stand on REAL issues of bringing the game into disrepute like having a top knot?

 

[Gary Gutful]

That brings up a good point.

When is the NRL going to take a stand on REAL issues of bringing the game into disrepute like having a top knot?

Neck tatts should be out as well. I'm yet to meet anyone with a neck tatt that has any redeeming features.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Kornstar]

Neck tatts should be out as well. I'm yet to meet anyone with a neck tatt that has any redeeming features.

I have to agree with you.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Issac appears a bit thick.