Stewart banned till rnd 5

[perverse]

indeed. inconclusive wont help the police case, but it doesn't in any way harm it either.

 

[Tommax25]

Don't read the papers? As previously stated, he's been charged with a serious offence. Maybe if you take the lyrics of ice-T or N.W.A literally would you form the opinion that the cops are out to take people down for no reason.

If he's not guilty...he was a pissed idiot who's actions have put another smudge on our game's reputation.

Let's say he didn't do it...the players are educated not to put themselves in a situation where it could be perceived that there was any wrong doing. Again...innocent until proven guilty, but he has clearly damaged the game's reputation.

Laffranchi was charged with a serious offence. Lockyer was a pissed idiot whos actions put a smudge on our games reputation. I dont recall either getting suspended.

 

[perverse]

Laffranchi was charged with a serious offence. Lockyer was a pissed idiot whos actions put a smudge on our games reputation. I dont recall either getting suspended.

yes, but they were either not immediately before the start of the season... or they weren't the new face of a $1.5mill marketing campaign.

why can't anyone see that he is being punished for this fact? so he bloody should be.

 

[Tommax25]

Um... they are on the front foot. That is why people are whinging! Their process from now on is that a player facing charges is stood down between the charge being made and their day in court. Cronulla did it to Bird last year, and then the parties mutually chose to drop the final year of the contract. Manly should have followed suit when the charge was laid - they didn't and the NRL did it for them. Simple, proper process, led by the NRL!

Umm, no they are on the reactive foot. If they wanted to be on the front foot they should have drafted in rules to handle such a situation before said situation happened. People (admittidly myself included) are whinging for because they acted reactivly on this incident, this player, rather than at any stage before, among other reasons (I cant say why all are, but that is my main complaint).

 

[Tommax25]

If this is the case then i expect Manly to play him after the ban and so they should.They wont stand him down for a few months.

I think they will, but I have a question: does the nrl have the power to stand down stewart again for the same reason after the court date? I doubt they do, so if it gets pushes back I assume he will play, he will have down his time for bringing the game into disrepute. Then if he gets found guilty he will probably be in jail, regardless of sackings/deregisterings. That will be his punishment for that crime.

 

[The BigFella]

He has been suspended, every should accept that and move on. We as a game have drawn a line in the sand, like it or hate it, we have done it.
The test now is can the NRL maintain its stance in the future, if they can't then they are a disgrace!, if the can then they are The benchmark for other sports to follow!

 

[Tommax25]

woah this thread is crazy.

how come Lafranchi played the whole time he was under a charge but Brett Stewart has been banned? anyone?

I applaud you Kiki.

 

[Tommax25]

Ah, debating... You said the past is redundant if they change the precedent all the time. I said they've changed the precendent just once. So yes, they will have to follow this new precendent, because (hopefully) it won't be changing all the time.


Ok, I epxect players who are charged with seriou soffences to be stood down on the basis of the Code of Conduct (which was referenced in the decision on Stewart) for bringing the game into disrepute.

The NRL doesn't introduce laws... only government does that. The NRL as an organisation is entitled to shift policies in how it deals with matters under its responsibility - and when you compare your precedents to this year's stance, I think you'll find that is exactly what has happened?

It's not unfair at the moment - but it will be if the next footy guy up on sexual assualt charges is allowed to play until his court date.

Not to get involved in someone elses arguement but he did say the concept of precedent is redundant, never the past is redundant. You said that.

 

[Kiki]

hahahahah

*bows*

 

[perverse]

simple. laffranchi wasn't the face of a 1.5 million dollar advertising campaign.

next question?

 

[Tommax25]

What if, what if,

What if Brett Stewart has behaved like a drunk d1ckhead and brought the game of Rugby League into disrepute...What if that happened...???

Are you serious? What if other players have behaved like a drunk d*ckhead and brought the same into disrepute? Oh wait they have. Well they did their 4 weeks just like brett...oh wait.

 

[Tommax25]

simple. laffranchi wasn't the face of a 1.5 million dollar advertising campaign.

next question?

Ok, next question is who should stewart get a harsher punishment because he is more well-known? Irrespective of the damage it does stewart would have a right to feel hard done by.

 

[perverse]

Ok, next question is who should stewart get a harsher punishment because he is more well-known? Irrespective of the damage it does stewart would have a right to feel hard done by.

forget well known. the moment he became the face of the new advertising campaign, more responsibility to behave was placed on his shoulders. it's plain and simple mate. he even said as much himself in interview footage on the footy show tonight (mere hours before he got in trouble, no less).

 

[Tommax25]

Manly have f**ked up majorly on this one. They will be on the NRL sh*tlist for a long, long time. The new Bulldogs.

Its getting to be a big sh*tlist ay? You say manly and bulldogs and I add in the titans and warriors, which you forgot....hopefully thats where it ends.

 

[Timmah]

Laffranchi was charged with a serious offence. Lockyer was a pissed idiot whos actions put a smudge on our games reputation. I dont recall either getting suspended.

Laffranchi's alleged offence occured in a private place IIRC, with no relation to anything NRL. Stewart's alleged offence occurred perhaps as a result of intoxication at an official club function. It might have happened after he went home, but it was a result of his drinking if it happened.

I applaud you Kiki.

For what, asking a question that draws an irrelevant comparison?

He has been suspended, every should accept that and move on. We as a game have drawn a line in the sand, like it or hate it, we have done it.
The test now is can the NRL maintain its stance in the future, if they can't then they are a disgrace!, if the can then they are The benchmark for other sports to follow!

Absolutely 100% spot on buddy, very well said.

Ok, next question is who should stewart get a harsher punishment because he is more well-known? Irrespective of the damage it does stewart would have a right to feel hard done by.

Umm, no they are on the reactive foot. If they wanted to be on the front foot they should have drafted in rules to handle such a situation before said situation happened. People (admittidly myself included) are whinging for because they acted reactivly on this incident, this player, rather than at any stage before, among other reasons (I cant say why all are, but that is my main complaint).

So what you're saying is they've reacted softly-softly to previous player indiscretions, and you expect them to do that, rather than live up to the public expectation of coming down hard on it? Do you suggest retrospective punishment?

Public opinion is far stronger on the side of 'stand him down' - and with good reason. Enough is enough - the NRL has acted on player misbehaviour.

 

[Tommax25]

yes, but they were either not immediately before the start of the season... or they weren't the new face of a $1.5mill marketing campaign.

why can't anyone see that he is being punished for this fact? so he bloody should be.

Irrelevant surely. The second point has more relevance but I still dont see why he should be punished more harshly for the same offence because of that.

 

[perverse]

Irrelevant surely. The second point has more relevance but I still dont see why he should be punished more harshly for the same offence because of that.

it's slightly less relevant, but relevant all the same as instead of celebrating the start of the season.. we are putting up with this sh*t instead. the start of the '09 has been completely lost to this drama. very sad.

if you can't see why these 2 points warrant a harsher penalty, then there's nothing more i can say really. it's pretty obvious to me, and to other logical thinkers that exist in the real world (which isn't always fair) why this penalty is necessary. brett made his bed, and thankfully is being forced to lay in it at the moment. if he is found not guilty then he will continue playing. might i add that the only reason brett is not in lockup at this very moment is that he.. or his club.. or whoever else was willing to pay.. can afford the bail to allow him to walk a free man at the moment.

i honestly believe that not only is it in the NRL's best interest to have stewart off the field at the moment, but in manly's and brett himself's best interest too.

 

[Tommax25]

Laffranchi's alleged offence occured in a private place IIRC, with no relation to anything NRL. Stewart's alleged offence occurred perhaps as a result of intoxication at an official club function.

Laffranchi plays in the nrl, so it has all the relation in the world to the nrl. Also, the code of conduct article that Stewart was charged with states, without going and finding it for exact wording, a player whether or not at an nrl function ect ect ect. So ok dont suspend laffranchi for 4 weeks then, fair enough if thats the rule, but lockyer, the three bronocs players ect ect all had drunken incidents that brought the game into disrepute and they were not fined.

So what you're saying is they've reacted softly-softly to previous player indiscretions, and you expect them to do that, rather than live up to the public expectation of coming down hard on it? Do you suggest retrospective punishment?

No I dont support retrospective punishment, dont put words in my mouth. I think there should be equality. Manly made the call to play him and that call should have stood imo. The nrl are punishing someone after an offence with a new punishment, how is that fair?

 

[Timmah]

Irrelevant surely. The second point has more relevance but I still dont see why he should be punished more harshly for the same offence because of that.

Being the star of the ad irrelevant? What world do you live in? #-o

 

[bartman]

then I would say why did they not draft in rules after laffranchi or crocket or even at any time since then stating that any player charged with a serious crime or sexual assualt. But then I expect us to start going in circles so meh.

p.s. would those have been your responses? I just assumed, feel free to correct me.

Yeah, you got me pretty right down to this bit.

Here I would say that yes they should have come down with a rule early than this year, and it might have seen some changes come into the game earlier than they will now.

Perhaps there has always been an NRL player with open charges waiting to be resolved, stopping them coming out with such a statement/rule officially, without prejudicing their trials. Or perhaps it's legally icky to do so, I don't know.

But I personally don't think Stewart has been treated unfairly - so long as consistency carries on from this point forward. And I don't think Laffranchi (or any case of a charged player in the last 100 years of league) is particularly relevant to what the league decides to do in these situations from this point forwards.

Bottom line, there is no player or club out there tonight who hasn't had a wake up call about the impact of their behaviour (on themself and their club, and hopefully a realisation about the impacts on the game and others), and who won't pull themselves into line a little bit more. And that's good for the game.