Stewart banned till rnd 5

[DaSuperHero2]

Extremely incorrect decision.


If this was your sister , a f**kwitt drunk of his nuts came outside your house tackled her and felt her up , you wouldnt let him get away , I know that if that was my sister I would make sure he eats out of straws for the rest of his life , the law may not agree , but put yourself in the families shoes , let alone her shoes ..

This is obviously still not the answer but just one look at a angle of looking at it , because all the underlieng that is being spoldged out is innuendo..

 

[Tommax25]

Correct decision and about time the NRL showed some balls, but the suspension should be until ALL court proceedings are over

Right, like they did with laffranchi and crocket....oh wait

 

[Tommax25]

I don't know if it has been mentioned but Joel Thompson is free to play until his court date. Can't remember if he was charged with assault but he definitely pleaded not guilty to it.

Oh, thats apparently not important as he isnt high profile.

 

[Pete Cash]

Don't be silly. If Stewart wasn't a high profile player he would have likely been sacked and de-registered.

 

[Tommax25]

But that's my point - the club shouldn't have to do anything until he is charged. Because the media can't report on it the game's image isn't tarred. It's strictly a matter between the girl, her father, and the player. It's nobody else's business. It wouldn't be on the news and me and you wouldn't be writing about this on forums.

On a basic level, I agree with Manly's stance to play him this weekend as a matter of principle because he is innocent until proven guilty, but in the current environment where the media can have a field day and taint the game's image from all angles, the NRL had no choice but to stand Stewart down as the bad publciity was doing damage to the game. The NRL is protecting the game's image so I agree with their decision to stand Stewart down given the current media frenzy.

Under the current circumstances the NRL have done the right thing, but if the media don't report on it then nobody knows about it and Stewart plays this weekend. If the media butted out of it, it doesn't stop the court case going ahead and it doesn't stop the girl seeking justice and it doesn't stop Brett Stewart being charged if he is in fact guilty. It just keeps the media out of it and it stays a private matter. The NRL then stands him down IF he is found guilty (and they won't have any choice anyway depending on the punishment handed down by the courts).

That environment didnt exist 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago?

 

[Tommax25]

The fact that he's been treated differently to Laffranchi and others is irrelevant.

Manly acted in a gutless manner by refusing to act themselves on the matter.

No its not irrelevant, and man how many people must I correct: manly, the warriors and the titans acted in a gutless manner ect ect.

 

[myanonymoususername]

They can not review a suspension and increase it for the same offence later down the track. At least that is what I thought.

I think you'll find they can pretty much do what they like.

 

[myanonymoususername]

No its not irrelevant, and man how many people must I correct: manly, the warriors and the titans acted in a gutless manner ect ect.

Well I would say yes to those.

You can't really criticise the NRL for saying enough is enough. They choose to make a stand now - they can't go back in time and suspend the other guys now.

The test is in what they do next time.

 

[Pete Cash]

Also the cases are vastly different.

Crockett and Lafranchi were caught up in a "he said" "she said" sexual assault matter, around consent of people they had met earlier. Stewart is accused of randomly sexually assaulting some teenage girl just *because*

 

[bartman]

I bet stewart, who has said he wants to play, and manly, who named him to play, sure as hell care when the line is drawn.

Maybe they should stop sooking, or the NRL will double the fine when they appeal it.

It has been drawn arbitrarily, for no other reason than the media have taken a hold of it and he was the face of their ad.

I would say it's been drawn simply because it needed to be drawn. Enough is enough. The game must rescue it's tarnished standing in the community. No better time than the present.

In saying that I will not have a problem with it if it is consistent but do you think the next bloke reported getting smashed at a pub will get 4 weeks? I have severe, severe doubts that they will. I cannot wait til the punishment the next player gets for getting hammered.

I should hope it will be. Don't forget bringing the game into disrepute for not being able to control yourself to the point of not remembering your actions and being charged with sexual assault is very different to getting drunk in a pub, ejected by bouncers and going home. It's just the NRL can't say anything other than Stewart being drunk, because everything else is yet to be agreed/proven beyond reasonable doubt. But the damage to the game is already there due to Stewart's actions (and regardless of verdict), hence the suspesion.

We should be prepared to give the league credit for their stance against violence and disrespect to women, rather than compare apples with oranges and only end up with a state of play escusing or perpetuating the status quo of incidents that smear our game.

 

[Dutchy]

Not sure if its been posted.

RLPA Release in response to the NRL Suspension

11/03/2009 - By RLPA

The Rugby League Players Association (RLPA) is disappointed with the NRL Board’s decision to suspend Manly Player Brett Stewart under the NRL Code of Conduct.
“It appears now that the NRL Board have drawn a line in the sand in regards to alcohol consumption by each person bound by the code”, Matt Rodwell said.
“The Players are extremely frustrated and angry that the application of the rules have been applied in this situation but were not applied on previous occasions”.
The RLPA, who has spent the afternoon consulting with Players, can convey that many believe Stewart has been ‘hung out to dry’ due to mounting pressure on the NRL from various sectors.
The Players cannot comprehend that Stewart has been found guilty of a breach under the code of conduct when many Players (and Officials) have previously been ignored for perceived breaches.
“I have a very angry Playing group, particularly those at Manly, who are confused at the lack of consistency in the application of the rules which apply in this case” Rodwell explained.
“All the Players are seeking is consistency across the board”.
“ The RLPA strongly supports the game wide strategy to promote responsible drinking and behaviour, but it is clear the time has arrived for an independent body to be established to deal with matters relating to indiscretions as referred to in the NRL Code of Conduct . The RLPA believes this would help alleviate pressure from the NRL and the Clubs and create consistency when dealing with the sanctioning of code breaches”.
“Transparent and consistent rules need to be applied across the game . Players, Administrators and Officials are entitled to prior knowledge of the consequences for any breach of the code.”
“The NRL must ensure that any future breach of the Code, particularly when it involves alcohol by Players, Administrators or Officials is dealt with in a consistent manner to avoid any future inconsistencies that often plague the game” Rodwell added.

http://www.manlyseaeagles.com.au/news.asp?newsid=4207&Mth=3&Yr=2009

 

[bartman]

:lol: At people that are hung up on the past much? Lafranchi, Crocket etc. You could just as easily look at Tilse as your precedent...

Things change as time moves on. Otherwise we'd still be stuck in John Howard's utopian vision of the 1950s...

The league is allowed to change how it deals with things. Guess what - there are two refs this year! Just because there was only one ref last year doesn't mean it has to stay the same.

 

[DaSuperHero2]

What would happen if the ban were to be lifted

 

[bartman]

If the charges are dropped before the court date, I expect the ban would be lifted. He's on full pay so no dramas, this is just what you have to do or go through if you put yourself in a position where a charge like sexual assault is hanging over your head because of your drunken misbehaviour.

 

[Pete Cash]

I do feel sorry for Manly, I really do. As a Raiders supporter I got to live through the Todd Carney yearly alcohol powered crime spree.

We did stand him down though on the last two occasions. (at least the last two occasions that made the media) and sacked him by the end of it.

 

[Bluebags1908]

That environment didnt exist 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago?

Yes of course it existed 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago. I agree there is an inconsistency from the NRL here compared to their non-stance in not standing down players for other incidents - and only because the media have grabbed hold of this incident and flogged it to death moreso that the previous Crockett and Laffranchi incidents.

The NRL is only reacting to the media frenzy this incident has attracted which unfortunately is damaging the game - even though the bloke could be innocent the damage is done and the NRL have acted so they can be seen to be doing something about it.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

No..but he cant suspend someone for being drunk. How many players have been suspended for being drunk in a public place???
This is ridiculous...

Exactly. So at the end of round 4 he will be eligible to come back. There is almost no chance that his charges will be dropped any time soon. A 4 match suspension for being drunk when really he is dropped for the allegation only means he will be eligible to play before his situation is resolved.

I don't understand why people think this is the right decision?

btw, this is the comparsion I was drawing to Lockyer earlier. I read an article on this on fox news before I posted.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Yes of course it existed 6 months ago, 1 year ago, 2 years ago. I agree there is an inconsistency from the NRL here compared to their non-stance in not standing down players for other incidents - and only because the media have grabbed hold of this incident and flogged it to death moreso that the previous Crockett and Laffranchi incidents.

The NRL is only reacting to the media frenzy this incident has attracted which unfortunately is damaging the game - even though the bloke could be innocent the damage is done and the NRL have acted so they can be seen to be doing something about it.

The NRL could be leaving themselves open to litegation on this. If Stewart is innocent, or had his drink spiked through no action of his own, both the player and the club may have grounds to take this to court. Especially if Manly lose a lot of game while he is out.

 

[Jonesy]

If the charges are dropped before the court date, I expect the ban would be lifted. He's on full pay so no dramas, this is just what you have to do or go through if you put yourself in a position where a charge like sexual assault is hanging over your head because of your drunken misbehaviour.

'

Considering Glalop has suspended him for being "Drunk" and not the pending court case i don't ever see this happening.

 

[bartman]

Exactly. So at the end of round 4 he will be eligible to come back. There is almost no chance that his charges will be dropped any time soon. A 4 match suspension for being drunk when really he is dropped for the allegation only means he will be eligible to play before his situation is resolved.

Um, court date is on 7 April - that's between round 4 and 5. So a 4 match suspension takes things to the next stage in proceedings. A lot can happen between now and then... DNA results are due back to name one.

I don't understand why people think this is the right decision?

btw, this is the comparsion I was drawing to Lockyer earlier. I read an article on this on fox news before I posted.

It's the right decision because we don't want any more Lockyer incidents, Lafranchi incidents, Crockett incidents, Tilse incidents (why doesn't anyone look at Tilse as the precedent?)... We're sick to death of it tarnishing our game, and this decision is the start of a way where we can eventually stop it.

Players have a right to be paid while being investigated for potential breaches of their contract and code of conduct (through virtue of when serious charges are laid). But they don't have a right to keep playing attending work until it is resolved. Same as it is in many industries, regardless of eventual innocence or guilt.