What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NRL IU Penalty v Court System

AlwaysGreen

Immortal
Messages
47,826
I thought the thread title said the 'LU penalty' - if that's the case, 4 weeks confined to the 4 corners forum for major offences, 4 weeks confined to the NRL forum for mid range stuff, 4 weeks with no ignore function for anything else.
 

Lebbo73

Bench
Messages
2,853
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.
No it doesn’t. Every case is different. Take Brett Stewart for instance. Anyone with half a fking brain knew he was innocent and Gallop suspended him. Now Gallop is fking Football in Australia.
 

madunit

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
62,358
B.

However all players should have their contracts with the NRL and not clubs, which would take vested interest out of the equation.

It would also help better manage salary caps.

Each club has a set cap to utilise for buying their squad with. Once the club agrees to a salary and term with the player, it is sent to the NRL who then process it and adjust the remaining cap accordingly.

Regarding off-field drama, as they are an NRL employee, the NRL should stand them down until the matter is ajudicated upon. A guilty verdict would mean a suspension of game via a pre-determined scale.

Ie - speeding charges are not equivalent to domestic assault, so they have different penalties.
 
Messages
13,797
I suspect that option B is in vogue with the NRL as if the player is punished by the club and the NRL before the courts deal with the matter you could wind up with either: (a) the player being found not guilty, which might make the club/NRL punishment seem heavy handed (e.g. Brett Stewart); or (b) the player let off lightly by the courts as they plead they have been heavily punished by their club and the NRL already (I suggest people think about that last part and look no further than the comments made by the magistrate who presided over Greg Inglis' drink driving case).

I will raise the case of Shaun Kenny-Dowall. He was accused of assaulting his then partner Jessica Peris and was facing 11 criminal charges. Many people wanted the book thrown at home when he was charged. The Roosters stood him down, not as punishment, but so he could deal with the matters, before he resumed playing. He was found not guilty on all counts with the magistrate saying Peris was not an "entirely truthful witness". People who knew Peris had said around the traps she'd has a past history of making crap up. If you left it to the NRL Integrity Unit, they might not have been able to get to the bottom of the matter as they don't have the powers of a court over non-NRL registered people. hence SKD would have been punished for something he didn't do. (Just for a reminder of the court case summation - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02...-cleared-of-domestic-violence-charges/7206850)
 

Valheru

Coach
Messages
17,513
B.

However all players should have their contracts with the NRL and not clubs, which would take vested interest out of the equation.

It would also help better manage salary caps.

Each club has a set cap to utilise for buying their squad with. Once the club agrees to a salary and term with the player, it is sent to the NRL who then process it and adjust the remaining cap accordingly.

Regarding off-field drama, as they are an NRL employee, the NRL should stand them down until the matter is ajudicated upon. A guilty verdict would mean a suspension of game via a pre-determined scale.

Ie - speeding charges are not equivalent to domestic assault, so they have different penalties.

And what compensation would you give a player found not guilty or factually innocent as in the case of SKD?

You can't possibly stand the player down prior to completion of judicial process just because an allegation has been levelled against them.
 

madunit

Super Moderator
Staff member
Messages
62,358
NRL can do that if it's part of their company policy.

Player will be stood down from playing but still receive their salary.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,420
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

Not to be pedantic but every player that signs for SL from NRL has been deregistered by the NRL. It just means the player is no longer registered to play in the NRL anymore. Of course in some cases that deregistration is forced on the player, but that does not stop them from signing for a SL club. Todd Carney classic example. However if a player is banned he cant play in SL until his ban is up ie Ben Barba last year. There was nothing to stop a SL club signing Ben Barba following this deregistration, except SL have uniquely come out and said they wont support his registration in SL. Nothing to stop Shane Flanagan taking up coaching in SL tomorrow if he gets an offer.
 

Valheru

Coach
Messages
17,513
NRL can do that if it's part of their company policy.

Player will be stood down from playing but still receive their salary.

Paying the player their salary would mitigate some risk but i don't see how you can have a situation where players are stood down on charges alone especially in the case of DV. It wouldn't take long until an allegation is made up purely to hurt their career.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,420
That is a much trickier one for NRL and clubs. Especially if the evidence isn't clear cut like a video and given how long it can take for these things to get resolved in court. No one wants to see someone accused of rape running around in their clubs jersey but we have a notion of innocent until proven guilty. Its a hard one for a business who is very public and whose value can be severely effected by bad publicity.
 

Cactus

Juniors
Messages
677
Of course in some cases that deregistration is forced on the player, but that does not stop them from signing for a SL club.

It does if the English RFL choose to not register him there. They can do that based on a ban, on a deregiatration, or maybe even just a phone call from Tod. In this Barba case, the English RFL seems to have said as much in the press here yesterday, prior to the actual announcement of T Greenburgs ban.

So I dont disagree with much of what you say in that post, however all am simply trying to point out is that the deregistration can potentially be exactly the same thing in practice as a ban.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
65,420
It does if the English RFL choose to not register him there. They can do that based on a ban, on a deregiatration, or maybe even just a phone call from Tod. In this Barba case, the English RFL seems to have said as much in the press here yesterday, prior to the actual announcement of T Greenburgs ban.

So I dont disagree with much of what you say in that post, however all am simply trying to point out is that the deregistration can potentially be exactly the same thing in practice as a ban.

Yep like I said it is discretionary, where as a ban is not. In fact this is the first time the SL have announced they wont register a deregistered NRL player, ever. Better to take the discretion out of it and for the NRL to impose a ban, be it time limited or eternal, then SL clubs/RFL wont have a choice and the player punishment will be more impacting.
 

firechild

First Grade
Messages
7,704
Paying the player their salary would mitigate some risk but i don't see how you can have a situation where players are stood down on charges alone especially in the case of DV. It wouldn't take long until an allegation is made up purely to hurt their career.
I'll have a look tonight but I recall an incident where a person was stood down from their job because they had resigned but had to stay until the end of a rather long contract period They were still being paid. A court ruled that this would significantly impact their future employment because they would lose experience that allowed them to remain relevant in a highly dynamic industry. I suspect the same argument could be made for a player stood down for an extended period while a court case played out. Stewart for example would have been out of the game for 18 months if this was put in place. It sounds good in theory when people get their day in court quickly but these things can drag out and it would not be fair on someone ultimately found not guilty.
 

Spot On

Coach
Messages
13,897
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?

So over 10 million being spent on the IU and education for players.

Partners in the game costs a hell of a lot of money.

They'd all be a lot wealthier if they could all behave!
 
Top