NRL IU Penalty v Court System

[siv]

One thing that is leaving a bad taste in fans mouths is the confusion on how the NRL Integrity Unit should respond to non football related matters - that are domain of the Police and Court system

I see a few options

A - should the NRL-IU replace and ignore the court system and just hand down penalties to players

B - should the NRL wait for the court process and then hand down a penalty

C - let the clubs deal with it

D - just let the courts deal with it as its not football related

As a fan I don't like the Carney type of deregistration process without announcing a penalty to the player and the fans

There are penalty options seem to be varied from
- fines
- suspenisons
- community service
- life bans

Social outrage seems to determine the severity these days

So the question is how should the NRL-IU and court system work on non football related matters in handing down penalties ?

Are we guilty till proven innocent or innocent till proven guilty

 

[Cactus]

You cannot have A as you cannot have the NRL replace any policing or judicial systems.
You cannot have C as the clubs are cloaked in self interest in these matters
You cannot have just D alone as that would ignore the interests of the game itself and its stakeholders

IMO you have answered the question in your opening paragraph when you said "non football matters"

B it is.

 

[Timmah]

B. As @Cactus said, the other three aren't an option.

 

[shaggs]

If it is B, do the clubs stand the player down until the court case is heard??

Can the NRL allow a player to play for 6 months on a known charge who then gets found guilty?
Inversely, how can a stand down be justified if they are let off without charge?,

 

[Perth Red]

B, and do away with this "deregistered" BS. Impose a ban, be it time related or for life.

Lets have some really clear (lol) framework with penalties accordingly. Every case on its merits just leads to massive inconsistency and stinks of favouritism to certain players or clubs.

 

[myrrh ken]

D and hand out good character references to the favourites

 

[snickers007]

Option A is definitely an option, as players are bound by the NRL National Code of Conduct.

Participants are encouraged and expected to:
- Show positive acts of sportsmanship, discouraging all instances of foul or illegal play, or acts of violence, both on and off the field.

And failure to do so

Breaches of the Rugby League Code of Conduct may result in penalties, including but not limited to:
- Suspension of a participant on a temporary or permanent basis

Furthermore, under the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed at the end of 2017, players under the RLPA umbrella are partners in the game. Along with the pay and benefits received by the players, they also agreed to "increased integrity safeguards", and are directly accountable for bringing the game (and their club) into disrepute.


I don't necessarily think that Option A should be the hard and fast rule, but in cases where the transgression is obvious, and has evidence to back it up - then it should be applied, irrespective of any police/judicial outcomes.

 

[Timmah]

Every case on its merits just leads to massive inconsistency and stinks of favouritism to certain players or clubs.

Blanket rules will gain the fans ire very quickly. Whether you like it or not, almost all cases are unique on their merits, with their own circumstances etc. To think otherwise and that we can fit every incident inside a framework is more foolish again

 

[Cactus]

Option A is definitely an option, as players are bound by the NRL National Code of Conduct.



And failure to do so


Furthermore, under the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed at the end of 2017, players under the RLPA umbrella are partners in the game. Along with the pay and benefits received by the players, they also agreed to "increased integrity safeguards", and are directly accountable for bringing the game (and their club) into disrepute.


I don't necessarily think that Option A should be the hard and fast rule, but in cases where the transgression is obvious, and has evidence to back it up - then it should be applied, irrespective of any police/judicial outcomes.

Option A as described by the OP, was to specifically "REPLACE"police/judicial systems. Big difference to what I think you mean there, which is to act alongside any police/judicial outcomes

 

[Perth Red]

Why?
DUI equals += X amount of games
Drunken and disorderly behaviour = X amount of games
Serious criminal charge = life ban
etc

By all means have a right of appeal but have some grading system, it wont be perfect but it will be better than BS we have right now where someone like GI not only isnt severely punished but gets a reference from the NRL CEO to get him off a conviction, or a serious crim like Lodge gets back in because he did some courses whilst someone like Pearce or Carney gets hammered for stupid non criminal behavior whilst on the turps

The games spending $3.4million a year on the IU, surely they can do better than we have at the moment?

 

[Cactus]

B, and do away with this "deregistered" BS. Impose a ban, be it time related or for life.

No need to do away with deregistering. It's simply the mechanism to achieve the ban (and irrespective of period of time of ban)

Lets have some really clear (lol) framework with penalties accordingly. Every case on its merits just leads to massive inconsistency and stinks of favouritism to certain players or clubs.

Lets go with this idea. We could use the vastly successful and uncontroversial On Field penalty system as a benchmark lol.

 

[Perth Red]

De-registering means the player can still go and play in England. A ban would mean they could not.

 

[Cactus]

De-registering means the player can still go and play in England. A ban would mean they could not.

I do not see any line of deliniation. Deregistering is a clear sign to English to act in concert with the NRL & disallow that person to play

 

[Perth Red]

Hasn't been the case so far, only when a player has been banned has he had to serve that ban in NRL and SL. If NRL deregisters a player he can, and has, signed for a SL club. More often than not the club sacks the plaer and the NRL say he is deregistered and if he wants to register as player in the future they will assess his suitability. They are two very different things.

 

[firechild]

Hasn't been the case so far, only when a player has been banned has he had to serve that ban in NRL and SL. If NRL deregisters a player he can, and has, signed for a SL club. More often than not the club sacks the plaer and the NRL say he is deregistered and if he wants to register as player in the future they will assess his suitability. They are two very different things.

And the reality is, any time a de-registered player has applied to be registered by another club the NRL has allowed it. All it has effectively done in the past is stop someone from signing with another club for the current season.

 

[Valheru]

Why?
DUI equals += X amount of games
Drunken and disorderly behaviour = X amount of games
Serious criminal charge = life ban
etc

By all means have a right of appeal but have some grading system, it wont be perfect but it will be better than BS we have right now where someone like GI not only isnt severely punished but gets a reference from the NRL CEO to get him off a conviction, or a serious crim like Lodge gets back in because he did some courses whilst someone like Pearce or Carney gets hammered for stupid non criminal behavior whilst on the turps

The games spending $3.4million a year on the IU, surely they can do better than we have at the moment?

Because there are different levels within each offence and that is written in law.

0.06 the next day is completely different to 0.40 after 12 hours on the piss for example. I don't think any reasonable person would want to see the former cop the same punishment as the latter.

Same with assault. An open hand slap as opposed to brutally beating someone to within an inch of their life. You can't possibly give both the same punishment.

 

[Cactus]

only when a player has been banned has he had to serve that ban in NRL and SL. If NRL deregisters a player he can, and has, signed for a SL club.

Not that i disbelieve, but somehow I doubt that is a documented thing.

It would seem somewhat of an unwritten law as once a player is deregistered all the NRL has to do is let SL know that that player is persona non grata & that is enough to thwart the subversion.

Is there a case in point example of a "deregistered" player signing OS while a "banned" player has not ?

 

[siv]

I would like to see a framework put in place

Grade 1 - Fine - say $20k Stood down for 4 games

Grade 2 - Half Season 12 games plus 1 month community service & course

Grade 3 - 12 months 1 season plus 2 months community service & multiple courses

Grade 4 - 3 years

Grade 5 - life ban

Any Gaol term equates to 1 year gaol = 3 year ban ratio

50% 100% or 200% Loading applies to repeat offenders

But Drugs Match Fixing etc is outside of this

 

[Saxon]

B. As @Cactus said, the other three aren't an option.

B.
With a couple of additions:
1. that a player can be stood down if the alleged offence is serious enough and is deemed to damage the reputation of the NRL - for example; whether he did it or not, how bad would it look having Merkin Biter playing while waiting for a court date?
2. that a player can be stood down if the offence is obvious and caught on cctv - e.g. Wighton swinging punches in Civic or (allegedly) Barba chucking rocks at his girlfriend. And.
3. that a player can be stood down if the offence is proven (e.g. cctv again) but not subject to criminal charges for whatever reason.

 

[typicalfan]

NRL left it too late and now they are going to over compensate to make up for it. I wouldn't like a set framework each case is individual and there is the victim (if there is one) and players welfare to consider. I am happy for something like, this is your last chance and we will remove you from the competition if you mess it up.

I think its time to review its education model as well.