Stewart banned till rnd 5

[Tommax25]

Is it that simple? You agree with the need for such penalties?

Ok, when a law or policy changes, I can admit then the first person to breach that policy probably thinks they are hard done by... (But by definition whenever something changes, someone is going to be first to face it, so long as they have done something wrong - which Stewart did, when you look at section 20c or whatever of the Code of Conduct - then I personally don't think they are hard done by.)

Yes but when a law or policy changes a person knows about that change. There is transparency. Technically they didnt need to introduce a law or policy as it is there in the code of conduct but they havent applied it before, they have arbitrarily chosen this incident, that is my issue.

 

[Tommax25]

But his behaviour was specifically against the text of the Code of Conduct for a start... claiming it's unfair is kind of like speeding 14kms over the limit, and trying to claim its unfair when you're pulled over, because cops never used to bother pulling you over unless you were going faster?

No, it would be like you getting your license suspended for going 14 k's over the limit when other drivers got 3 demerit points taken off for speeding.

 

[Brimmer]

Tommax...you need to move on mate. Rules change. The NRL is making a stance and he is going to be made an example of. Tough titties.

The first person to be done under DUI laws 'was hard done by'

The first person to get double demerit points over a holiday period 'was hard done by'

The first person to be done for copyright infringement was 'hard done by when everybody else is doing it'

Need any more examples?

I can't think of a better example to be made of than the 'face of rugby league'. The prat talked about recognising his obligations in an interview THE DAY of this alleged assault.

 

[Tommax25]

so are you saying that we should maintain our apathy regarding bad behaviour, as we have in the past, and allow it to continue?

No. Are you saying getting punished for something that others have done without punishment would not make you feel hard done by?

 

[bartman]

But when you have a Code of Conduct, you know it's there for a reason... you don't - or shouldn't - need to be cuaght out first before you try to follow it. And least of all when you are caught out not following it, you don't claim it is unfair.

In Brett STewart's credit, I haven't once seen him claim being stood down is unfair. I do recall however the grub Greg Bird getting all upset and quoted in the press about how unfair his club were being to him, even while they kept him on full pay...

 

[Brimmer]

On a lighter note....

The kid on the ad should now transform into Tina Turner.

 

[bartman]

No, it would be like you getting your license suspended for going 14 k's over the limit when other drivers got 3 demerit points taken off for speeding.

But when the handbook says that the penalty is suspension, does arguing that it is unfair help the person's case in any way? I would say not.

 

[bartman]

On a lighter note....

The kid on the ad should now transform into Tina Turner.

Probably safer that way... :lol:

 

[bartman]

Tommax...you need to move on mate. Rules change. The NRL is making a stance and he is going to be made an example of. Tough titties.

The first person to be done under DUI laws 'was hard done by'

The first person to get double demerit points over a holiday period 'was hard done by'

The first person to be done for copyright infringement was 'hard done by when everybody else is doing it'

Need any more examples?

I can't think of a better example to be made of than the 'face of rugby league'. The prat talked about recognising his obligations in an interview THE DAY of this alleged assault.

Points well made.

Odds are Stewart isn't thinking how unfair it is at the moment. He's more likely thinking "f**k, I hope this court case goes ok."

 

[CharlieF]

But his behaviour was specifically against the text of the Code of Conduct for a start... claiming it's unfair is kind of like speeding 14kms over the limit, and trying to claim its unfair when you're pulled over, because cops never used to bother pulling you over unless you were going faster?

In a court of law, past judgements are very relevent to the current case. Also if it is a first offence its taken into account.

You trying to say its fair is a cop out, especially if found not guilty.

Just remember SBW and his punishment, not for 1 or 2 drunken episodes, but multiples. Stewart's was a knee jerk reaction, not much different to a mob screaming for someones lynching. The NRL almost said as much. They certainly acted as such.

 

[perverse]

No. Are you saying getting punished for something that others have done without punishment would not make you feel hard done by?

yes, i am a bigger man than that. if i have broken rules that are set out in a code of conduct which i have personally signed, and am punished for it... then i will cop that, regardless of whoever else "got away with it".

i mean this is schoolyard kids stuff you're talking about. "oh, but miss! anthony just did it too and, and, and you didn't punish him!!".

 

[Tommax25]

But when the handbook says that the penalty is suspension, does arguing that it is unfair help the person's case in any way? I would say not.

No but they wouldnt use the argument "its unfair!", they would use the arguement of precedent ie: what goes for one goes for all. I know stewart should have known better and cant/hasnt complained as the rule is there to be followed but honestly you cant see how he could feel hard done by? Honestly?

 

[CharlieF]

Tommax...you need to move on mate. Rules change. The NRL is making a stance and he is going to be made an example of. Tough titties.

The first person to be done under DUI laws 'was hard done by'

The first person to get double demerit points over a holiday period 'was hard done by'

The first person to be done for copyright infringement was 'hard done by when everybody else is doing it'

Need any more examples?

I can't think of a better example to be made of than the 'face of rugby league'. The prat talked about recognising his obligations in an interview THE DAY of this alleged assault.

You can't say we are going to make an example of him. That in itself consistutes prejudice and there might be legal implications in saying and doing that. I bet the NRL would never say that.

 

[Brimmer]

*yawn*

 

[CharlieF]

*yawn*

Good night.

 

[bartman]

No but they wouldnt use the argument "its unfair!", they would use the arguement of precedent ie: what goes for one goes for all. I know stewart should have known better and cant/hasnt complained as the rule is there to be followed but honestly you cant see how he could feel hard done by? Honestly?

I think I've said in an earlier post (in reply to you) that I can see why he might see himself as hard done by... which we have no evidence that he actually does. But in admitting that, it actually doesn't win me over to thinking of him as hard done by in terms of the NRL's actions at all.

Is this all just about the basic principle that when something changes (sometimes seemingly in the moment like this, without a three-month lead-in period) then the previous precedent is out the window, and a new one applies from that point forward? That's not unfair really, that's just life imo.

 

[CharlieF]

I think I've said in an earlier post (in reply to you) that I can see why he might see himself as hard done by... which we have no evidence that he actually does. But in admitting that, it actually doesn't win me over to thinking of him as hard done by in terms of the NRL's actions at all.

Is this all just about the basic principle that when something changes (sometimes seemingly in the moment like this, without a three-month lead-in period) then the previous precedent is out the window, and a new one applies from that point forward? That's not unfair really, that's just life imo.

I just can't get the picture of a mob screaming for someones head, out of my mind. Why is that?

 

[Tommax25]

yes, i am a bigger man than that. if i have broken rules that are set out in a code of conduct which i have personally signed, and am punished for it... then i will cop that, regardless of whoever else "got away with it".

i mean this is schoolyard kids stuff you're talking about. "oh, but miss! anthony just did it too and, and, and you didn't punish him!!".

wow, ok then, good on you, I honestly would not think anyone would not care at all like that. I would be p*ssed, but thats me.

 

[bartman]

I just can't get the picture of a mob screaming for someones head, out of my mind. Why is that?

Your mind, your picture... you tell us.

All people were screaming for was for the player to be stood down while charges of this nature are pending. Not for his head, because he's still on full pay, and the NRL's action has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence of the charge, which can only be decided by court.

The NRL's stance should have happened years ago for the good of the game, but at least it is happening from now on.

 

[Kiki]

yeh i would be pissed off too.