Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by emjaycee, Mar 20, 2013.
I think we clearly need an Integrity Unit Integrity Unit Ombudsman
That's why you should be running the show Gaz. I haven't found a problem yet that an infographic and an instructional video couldn't fix.
But who's going to keep the Integrity Unit Integrity Unit Ombudsman in check?
The righteousness unit
...and there we have it. Greenberg is satisfied with the Storm punishment.
So what happened here ? Not sure that I follow the procedures.
More than 20 NRL players tested positive to drugs after Mad Monday last year
Was Normans penalty imposed by us or the nrl or both?
I'll put my hand up for keeping Mavis in check.
NRL - They chose to turn a blind eye on these latest indiscretions though.
We didnt have a board at the time so the nrl made the decision for us. Do you think bernie and the current board would have given corey 8 weeks
OK this is pretty big.
That's pretty racist bro. Mops are hardworking, industrious people who don't deserve to be slandered based on their genetically selected hair traits....
Well, Norman actually got charged and convicted, and that was on the back of the warning for consorting and the dumbass photo stuff. Having said that, I would have thought that somewhere north of 2 weeks for Proctor / Bromwich was called for (e.g. 4).
The SKD case will be (potentially) a lot more of a direct comparison to that of Norman. That is, both were charged by police for possession of a small amount of an illicit substance.
I could probably understand a 4 week penalty for Bromwich and Proctor (even though I don't agree with it) because it could be argued 4 weeks for bringing the game into disrepute for the drugs and an additional 2 weeks each for Norman for the consorting and videos.
This is why they should have a schedule of sanctions for off field incidents like they do for on field incidents.
I'd be all for that, but the issue is how do you account for things like impact?
I don't think anyone will argue that the Bromwich thing or the Norman thing was anywhere near as high impact as the Pearce thing, for example. Norman was objectively the worst of them IMO but Pearce's incident had a much greater impact
The other point that raises questions is the sanction handed down to Pearce who wasn't charged and convicted. It would seem it's the act or behaviour that is bringing the game into disrepute rather than the conviction of a crime. Papalli's DUI is further evidence of this as he was charged and convicted and yet received a much lighter sentence.
That's a fair point but I guess they'd account for that in a similar way they do for on field incidents.
Separate names with a comma.