Stewart banned till rnd 5

[bartman]

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!!".

yeah, that'd pretty much be my response I'd imagine. Putting my hand up saying, yeah, my mistake and copping teh prescribed punishment. Probably spend time and energy beating up on myself for having acted like a c**k rather than getting pissed at others...

 

[Tommax25]

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.

Ok then, but in both those responses you bascially said yes and no.

I suppose precedent can change at some stage but imo you can feel hard done by to be the first on the receiving end of that change, ala stewart and the drunk and disorderly conduct punishment, as he is the first to be punished for that by the nrl. Fair enough, they are making a stand and putting a stop to it, but you wouldnt feel hard done by getting your license suspended for speeding because the judge declared "I am sick of speeding drivers. I am disregarding past precedent and puting a new one in place that all speeders get their license pulled as opposed to getting 3 demerit points deducted to act as a deterrent."? Thats all I am talking about at this stage, not the fairness or the guilt or innocence of stewart or booze bans or putting himslef in the wrong place. Purely him, who obviously wants to play, feeling like he got a raw deal.

EDIT: Just saw you post above, and you can still feel like an idiot for doing the wrong thing, blame yourself ect, accept that you did the wrong thing but surely still feel annoyed that your punishment was far more excessive than others?

 

[Tommax25]

yeh i would be pissed off too.

For the second time I applaud you Kiki

I just hope noone shoots you/me down like last time.

 

[bartman]

Ok then, but in both those responses you bascially said yes and no.

Because I'm trying to meet you halfway... but I doubt the points you've made thus far will change my opinion to match yours (and vice versa).

I suppose precedent can change at some stage but imo you can feel hard done by to be the first on the receiving end of that change, ala stewart and the drunk and disorderly conduct punishment, as he is the first to be punished for that by the nrl. Fair enough, they are making a stand and putting a stop to it, but you wouldnt feel hard done by getting your license suspended for speeding because the judge declared "I am sick of speeding drivers. I am disregarding past precedent and puting a new one in place that all speeders get their license pulled as opposed to getting 3 demerit points deducted to act as a deterrent."? Thats all I am talking about at this stage, not the fairness or the guilt or innocence of stewart or booze bans or putting himslef in the wrong place. Purely him, who obviously wants to play, feeling like he got a raw deal.

Hmmm. I can see your point. But can see - and prefer - the other side of the coin, which to me is that a greater good is served by taking this new direction. To me that outweighs any small feeling of unjustness compared to precedents, and in all honesty Brett Stewart has much bigger things to concern himself with at the moment.

To his credit he hasn't come out whinging about it, like Bird did. And neither have Manly since the the NRL stood Stewart down. Which helps me to believe that the point being made is pretty much a moot point.

 

[perverse]

it must suck to go through life with that kind of victim mentality, really. life isn't always fair mate... swallow some concrete and harden the f**k up.

 

[bartman]

For the second time I applaud you Kiki

I just hope noone shoots you/me down like last time.

You're both entitled to your opinion and your feelings. I'd hope no-one shoots anyone down (personal insults instead of discussion) just because people disagree... on hang on, I know this place too well :lol:.

 

[perverse]

You're both entitled to your opinion and your feelings. I'd hope no-one shoots anyone down (personal insults instead of discussion) just because people disagree... on hang on, I know this place too well :lol:.

lol, oops. you spoke too soon, or too late.. as it were.

 

[Kiki]

btw im not saying the NRL shouldnt have banned him, i understand their reasoning and im fine with it. i'm just saying that i feel a bit sorry for him considering what other players have gotten away with.

 

[skeepe]

I find all this bickering amazing. If I was Brett Stewart the last thing on my mind at the moment would be whether I get to play a game of football on the weekend. I'd be more worried about whether I'm going to be found guilty or not... especially if it's true that he can't remember anything.

 

[perverse]

I find all this bickering amazing. If I was Brett Stewart the last thing on my mind at the moment would be whether I get to play a game of football on the weekend. I'd be more worried about whether I'm going to be found guilty or not... especially if it's true that he can't remember anything.

well said skeepe. i'm sure the furthest thing from his mind right now is playing the next 4 weeks. i'd say his primary concern would, and SHOULD be whether he can keep himself out of gaol or not. by accepting the punishment without contest i would certainly say that his opinion on the matter is much closer to mine than it is to some of the bleeding heart fans on this matter.

 

[Kiki]

ill admit im a bit of a bleeding heart when it comes to footy players. unless they play for the storm.

 

[Tommax25]

Because I'm trying to meet you halfway... but I doubt the points you've made thus far will change my opinion to match yours (and vice versa).


Hmmm. I can see your point. But can see - and prefer - the other side of the coin, which to me is that a greater good is served by taking this new direction. To me that outweighs any small feeling of unjustness compared to precedents, and in all honesty Brett Stewart has much bigger things to concern himself with at the moment.

To his credit he hasn't come out whinging about it, like Bird did. And neither have Manly since the the NRL stood Stewart down. Which helps me to believe that the point being made is pretty much a moot point.

I can see its moot, it was nothing really, I just said he could feel hard done by and people kept saying no, he deserves it, who cares if he feels hard done by ect. I just responded to those. Ill willing to let it go.

Something more relevant, but not really in this thread I suppose, what (if any) punishment should cherrington from the roosters receive? Its a tricky one, because its sober (I think) assualt of a woman, obviously something the league doesnt want to be a part of, but it would be difficult to do suspend him ala stewart due to the non-drunk part. How do you think that will pan out?

 

[Tommax25]

it must suck to go through life with that kind of victim mentality, really. life isn't always fair mate... swallow some concrete and harden the f**k up.

Whatever.

 

[perverse]

lol, i didn't really mean that to be as harsh as it sounded. i'm just trying to illustrate that the "poor wittle bwett" mentality has no real basis in reality, or the world we actually live in.

 

[Kiki]

well for me personally, im prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't ever done anything dodgy before (that we know of). his good rep should speak for something....at least it does for me.

 

[perverse]

the thing is Kiki, it's not about whether he's guilty or not of sexual assault... it's about the disrepute he has brought to the game through his deliberate actions on the juice on the eve of launching our '09 season, with himself as the face of the new advertising campaign. whether he's guilty or not of the crime he's accused of is, by and large, a completely different matter to be dealt with by the courts in due time.

look, i really hope the bloke is innocent and it gets shoved out of court immediately in a months time, without even having to go further than that. he can then resume his place on the paddock and get on with the footy. his punishment from the NRL, however, is largely independant of this.

 

[Kiki]

but that makes no sense. should he really be banned for 5 rounds for what.... getting drunk?? i mean what else did he do apart from the incident with the girl? its obvious the ban is directly related to the alleged sexual assault.

 

[bartman]

Cherington? Tricky one Tommax. Has he been charged yet, or are the anger management classes preventative. Or are they the outcome of an allegation that has now been resolved - the punishment as some would say?

I'm pretty hardline when it comes to guys disrespecting women, through domestic violence and sexual assault. If it occurs, I think think it's despicable, one of the worst things any guy can do. I'm pretty much zero tolerance, no excuses, would dump a mate over stuff like that easily.

How do I think it will pan out? If he does his classes, and becomes a better person less likely to ever do sh*t like that, then that's a positive outcome. How does the code/game deal with it? If he's charged, I'd like to see them treat it the same as sexual assault charges - stand down until resolved.

But as we've discussed that would probably need a separate entry in this code of conduct, as there seems no intoxication aspect here that they could act upon. A grouped category of charges like sexual assualt, domestic violence (and maybe throw in a few others) that the code explains players would be automatically stood down from playing by the club/league (on full pay) until the charges are heard in court.

 

[sass]

but that makes no sense. should he really be banned for 5 rounds for what.... getting drunk?? i mean what else did he do apart from the incident with the girl? its obvious the ban is directly related to the alleged sexual assault.

that's the thing! gallop tried to say it was because he'd been picked as the nrl poster boy ... but I still think it's because of the sexual assault charges.

if it wasn't there should at least be some kind of suspension for watmough too.

 

[perverse]

allegedly (and i say allegedly, as i wasn't there) and by all reports he was refused more alcohol from the venue of the launch, and also refused entry at other establishments for being excessively intoxicated previous to making his way home for the night. this is not how the new face of rugby league should be conducting themselves on the eve of a new season. on mad monday i could almost excuse it... but we're talking professional athletes being paid to play football at an elite level, and like it or lump it, they are role models for thousands upon thousands of children who are potential future superstars of our game.

we need a positive image for our code. if we can't attain it then we simply cannot grow. if we cannot grow then we are doomed to failure as sponsors, and punters will leave the sport for greener pastures. sad, but true.