Rumours and Stuff

[Happy MEel]

If he's accused of rape then no, wouldn't want him anywhere near my kids. Even if I didn't think he was any danger of raping children. Who would want their kids looked after by such a person? But it's another flawed analogy. Children learn a great deal from their elders. Adults less so.

I’d argue that high profile celebrities absolutely have influence over other adults. Just ask De Belin’s Co-accused.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

And their heroes...

I've watched a few Dragons games and if kids are learning anything from those guys it's how to choke when the pressure is on, not that it's OK to rape people.

 

[Noise]

I’d argue that high profile celebrities absolutely have influence over other adults. Just ask De Belin’s Co-accused.

He said adults less so.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

"Now Get Out! You're banned from this historical society! You and your children, and your children's children..... For 3 months..."

Ah you're right, it was 3 months.

 

[Happy MEel]

If they are seen as a genuine risk to society by the courts/judicial system then they should be remanded in custody. It is all about the risk they present to society. That is determined by the courts.

...and similarly if the governing body deem that a player charged with an offence is a genuine risk to their brand they should have the ability to prevent them from playing in their own league. Playing rugby league is a priviledge, not a right and so you play by the governing body’s rules (even if they are applied retrospectively)

 

[Happy MEel]

He said adults less so.

But still influenceable so my point stands.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I think it would be best if we got back on topic, and determined exactly how overpaid is Jane Evans.

 

[Happy MEel]

The Walker situation is strange. They came up with this 11 year sentencing rule (obviously for the De Belin case) but on the same day came up with another rule that says Todd Greenburg can stand players down if the sentence is under 11 years at his own discretion? Why come up with this 11 year sentence rule at all if he can just make it up as he goes along? It's a farce

This I can agree with.

 

[Eelogical]

I just read the last two pages.............my head hurts real bad.

 

[Noise]

...and similarly if the governing body deem that a player charged with an offence is a genuine risk to their brand they should have the ability to prevent them from playing in their own league. Playing rugby league is a priviledge, not a right and so you play by the governing body’s rules (even if they are applied retrospectively)

Rules? They don't have clear rules.

Governing body's new rule as of today that can be applied retrospectively:

a)Potential 11 year + jail sentence you are stood down regardless of guilt/innocence

b) < 11 year jail sentence you can play regardless of guilt/innocence unless of course we decide you can't and we will let you know at a later date.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Bazal]

I've watched a few Dragons games and if kids are learning anything from those guys it's how to choke when the pressure is on, not that it's OK to rape people.

Lol. I just hope no kids are watching Matt Dufty, they'll turn out French.

In seriousness though, it's not that they learn it's OK to rape people. It's more about shaping attitudes. It's always been clear that our heroes and our role models have an influence on our character, that's all. JDB won't be teaching kids to rape any more than playing GTA teaches them to run over prostitutes, it's smaller and more subtle than that.

If anyone is a psychiatrist or something I'm sure they could explain it better than me

 

[Happy MEel]

Rules? They don't have clear rules.

Governing body's new rule as of today that can be applied retrospectively:
Potential 11 year + jail sentence you are stood down regardless of guilt/innocence
< 11 year jail sentence you can play regardless of guilt/innocence unless of course we decide you can't and we will let you know at a later date.

As I said, I agree with you on the threshold/discretionary ambiguity but the principle is fine as far as I’m concerned. If law enforcement have investigated the matter and deemed there to be sufficient evidence to press charges then you are stood down from playing, although continue to get paid. Contrary to the conspiracy theorists, Police are not in the business of making up charges for shits and giggles. The evidence usually has to go to a prosecutor to determine if it is sufficient to gain a conviction.

Interestingly 15/16 club chairman’s supported this. If the clubs themselves back the idea then I give little weight to public outcry of unfairness. The general public are usually ill-informed and react on emotion.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...down-of-players-charged-with-serious-offences

 

[Noise]

If law enforcement have investigated the matter and deemed there to be sufficient evidence to press charges then you are stood down from playing, although continue to get paid.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...down-of-players-charged-with-serious-offences

So you think if the police investigate and have enough evidence to press charges then stand them down regardless of guilt? Where do you draw the line? Drink driving? Possession of an ecstacy pill? Common assault? Sexual Assault? Manslaughter (10 years)?

 

[Happy MEel]

So you think if the police investigate and have enough evidence to press charges then stand them down regardless of guilt? Where do you draw the line? Drink driving? Possession of an ecstacy pill? Common assault? Sexual Assault? Manslaughter (10 years)?

Yep. I think you draw the line by naming the offences rather than the sentences that enact the no fault policy.

But let’s not clog this thread up any more. We can debate this over the game tomorrow night.

 

[Noise]

Police are not in the business of making up charges for shits and giggles. The evidence usually has to go to a prosecutor to determine if it is sufficient to gain a conviction.

I always thought this until the SKD case. Now I'm not always so sure. The judge flat out told the chick she was a liar. How do the police and prosecutor miss this?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Lol. I just hope no kids are watching Matt Dufty, they'll turn out French.

In seriousness though, it's not that they learn it's OK to rape people. It's more about shaping attitudes. It's always been clear that our heroes and our role models have an influence on our character, that's all. JDB won't be teaching kids to rape any more than playing GTA teaches them to run over prostitutes, it's smaller and more subtle than that.

If anyone is a psychiatrist or something I'm sure they could explain it better than me

I don't believe that letting a guy continue to play footy until he's had his day in court teaches children that the seriousness of what he's accused of is in any way diminished. OTOH I think that punishing someone before they've had a chance to defend themselves does send the message that our legal system is unimportant and gossip is what really matters.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It's not as if the media is suddenly going to forget that a man is an NRL player just because he's been stood down. At best the new policy buys the NRL a few minutes respite for having appeased Mrs Lovejoy and being seen to 'do something', but it doesn't last and they're just painting themselves into a corner. Take a stand for once and get off the slippery slope. Most of the critics don't give a toss about league in the first place, so placating them is a fool's errand. And I don't believe you'll ever stop young superfit wealthy male celebrities from entanglements with young women.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

At what level though merkin? Your elite halves and hookers like C.Smith, Cronk, JT when he was killing it could easily command high price 4 year deals at age 28 ... McInnes ain't elite and I doubt a club apart from those desperate (like us) would offer him a long term at 28....IF he was 28. But he ain't which I've acknowledged... At current skills and output level, is McInnes the sort of player you'd offer a 4 year deal to at the age of 28?? Of course not.

We could always sign him for depth... FFS

The length of the deal has nothing to do with price. It is a separate factor, and long contracts are used to keep the price down. As for the player's age, the signing club factors it into price (and likely rises in the cap). So if the club decides he is worth 5% (for example) at age 29 they might decide he will only be worth 3% (though of a bigger cap) at age 32. You act like they're unaware of how old the player will be through the various years of a contract.

 

[IFR33K]

I guess the lesson here is to always video your sexual encounters.

Dylan Napa thinks that’s a brilliant idea