Stewart banned till rnd 5

[bartman]

Yep, ta. So he's currently under charge/awaiting verdict or resolution, and not been selected to play, so is effectively stood down? Just without the song and dance of the Stewart case.

 

[Non Terminator]

Yep, and I guess a great thing that this isn't highly noticeable. I definately don't condone what he did, I hate to see this sort of thing. I'd like to see us stand him down until he sorts his life out, but until then, football must be in the back for now.

 

[bartman]

Yeah. I think in the past a lot of clubs stood players down for 2-3 weeks when certain things happened in their lives, never made a big deal out of it, and it never usually made the media. Players simply had a muscle strain, or a bad back.

Different world now, which is why I think people are being hard on the NRL when they try and deal with this type of stuff, case by case in whichever way works best considering the club's attitude to matters as well.

If Sherrington has pleaded guilty, then he's got something more important than his footy coming his way for at least the short-term future.

 

[Lungfish]

Yep, ta. So he's currently under charge/awaiting verdict or resolution, and not been selected to play, so is effectively stood down? Just without the song and dance of the Stewart case.

'Injured' till Rnd 3 so maybe theyve stood him down till the court case.

'The Roosters are awaiting the judicial decision before imposing their own penalty. The NRL is also monitoring the case.' Thats the quote from Steve Noyce.The case is at the end of the month.

 

[bartman]

Cheers. That's seems similar to the type of approach that clubs used to keep this stuff out of the media in days gone by.

Not much chance of that with Stewart, given his standing in the game and media early on the scene, but also given the initial stance of the Manly club forcing the NRL's hand.

 

[Non Terminator]

Ah ta, I forgot he was injured. Saved us from that issue I guess.
I guess we'll hear about it anyway, highly doubt he'd be in First Grade beforehand.

 

[Timmah]

If that is the reason then why didnt the nrl step in on countless other drinking incidents that occured?

I can see why you've approached with that angle but can't you see that's a schoolyard-type viewpoint? What you're implying is that Manly should take a soft approach because they have in the past, rather than step up to the plate like they've been accused of NOT doing in the past, and actually punishing a player for bringing the game into serious disrepute. RE: Watmough not copping the same, I partially agree but see my last comment in this post - he's being punished internally by Manly according to reports.

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

Because you're a Manly fan with absolutely no impartiality?

For the second time I applaud you Kiki

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

:sleeper: She asks questions with easily negated answers. She has a self-confessed soft spot for players. Entitled to her opinion but on this one she's hardly been a voice of reason IMO.

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.

Can't agree. Good to see a new tough stance, regardless of past decisions.

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.

So each time a new bloke fuggs up we should let him off scot-free, teach him nothing and then come down him like a ton of bricks if he re-offends?? Nup, sorry. Stupid idea.

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.

No, it's related for his drunkeness....

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.

...and it has been reported than Manly will be exacting their own punishment on Watmough - whereas the club decided to do NOTHING about Stewart and let him play on.

 

[sass]

...and it has been reported than Manly will be exacting their own punishment on Watmough - whereas the club decided to do NOTHING about Stewart and let him play on.

that's true - but my point is the punishments aren't on a par. watmough's playing this weekend against the dogs.

if the issue really is just drunkenness - which applies to both of them - then five weeks compared to watmough playing on the weekend is just disproportionate. it's disproportionate even though stewart was in the nrl ad. don't you think?

 

[Garts]

Stewart was not "really" stood down for being pissed. If it was purely for being pissed 5 weeks is too much. imo what Watmough did (if the reports are correct) probably deserved the 5 weeks as it was much worse than being pissed and refused service.

 

[bartman]

I think with the Stewart suspension/punishment that people still aren't reading between the lines of what the NRL can't actually say about it... because there is a court case pending.

All the comparisons in the world seep away once you actually accept that the NRL can't be as specific answering questions on the Stewart decision as perhaps we - and they themselves - might like to be.

 

[Garts]

I can read between the lines on this issue, thats why I said he was not really stood down for being pissed. I understand why the NRL have explained the reason as him being pissed, of course they can not say the real reason.

 

[bartman]

Yep, not referring to you Garts, more backing up your last post.

 

[myanonymoususername]

I can read between the lines on this issue, thats why I said he was not really stood down for being pissed. I understand why the NRL have explained the reason as him being pissed, of course they can not say the real reason.

Its not even the getting pissed that is the reason for the penalty - its getting pissed AND embarassing the NRL by becoming the subject of a media circus.

He can get pissed all he likes, as long as he makes it home harmlessly and does nothing to embarass the NRL.

As has been said before, his guilt or innocence in the criminal matter is irrelevant to the NRL's suspension. By attracting a media circus he has embarassed the NRL, ie brought the game into disrepute. Irrespective of the outcome of his court case, his is still guilty of that.

 

[Timmah]

that's true - but my point is the punishments aren't on a par. watmough's playing this weekend against the dogs.

if the issue really is just drunkenness - which applies to both of them - then five weeks compared to watmough playing on the weekend is just disproportionate. it's disproportionate even though stewart was in the nrl ad. don't you think?

Why do the punishments have to be on a par. The situation Stewart found himself in was far more damaging to the club and the game than Watmough's bitchslap. I don't see any reason for punishments necessarily being similar. I do agree that Watmough should've perhaps copped a week or two maybe, but his actions didn't put him in a criminal allegation position from what I can see, at least not to the extent Brett did.

Its not even the getting pissed that is the reason for the penalty - its getting pissed AND embarassing the NRL by becoming the subject of a media circus.

He can get pissed all he likes, as long as he makes it home harmlessly and does nothing to embarass the NRL.

As has been said before, his guilt or innocence in the criminal matter is irrelevant to the NRL's suspension. By attracting a media circus he has embarassed the NRL, ie brought the game into disrepute. Irrespective of the outcome of his court case, his is still guilty of that.

Perfect. Well said.

 

[Banana Peel]

Rewind the tape.......

Just to accuse someone means squat. They have to be charged with something by the Police and the Police only charge if there is evidence against the accused.

for once i agree with gallop, stewart was given the honour of being the face of our great game and he made a concious decision to write himself off, bring the game into disrepute a week before kick off and hes been charged with sexual assault, 4 weeks is getting off lightly. bravo david gallop, good to see a pair on you for once!

I cant believe how many of you gooses think he was stood down just for getting drunk, they have proof enough to charge that he sexually assaulted a 17 year old girl, pull your heads out of your arse, he's lucky 4 weeks paid vacation is all he's copped

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty???????????????????

Sadly, the game is being run by the media and it's sensationalism.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. That is the law of the land!

I don't agree with what he was supposed to have done, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and therefore he should be allowed to play.

sh*t decision. At least its only til round 5 and not indefinite.

It has finally happened. Footballers careers are now decided by the Daily Telegraph. Presumption of innocence has no meaning in the NRL, and penalties are handed out to look good in the public eye rather than be actually fair and just.

See now this i take issue with.

You dont know what happened.

For example, he may well have been sober. He caught a cab home. He got out of the cab. Was approached by a person who attacked him for reasons unknown. In that scenario he isnt responsible for being in that position, is he ?

Just as in the scenario you put forward, I dont know the above to be the truth and neither do you.

:lol:

Yeah, that's what police charged him with ...

i dont know why people are taking stewarts side, if he quote 'was too drunk to remember' then id say he doesnt have a leg to stand on, its her word and countless witnesses words against his whole not remembering a thing defence, which one do u think will hold up in court?

people are taking the side of basic rules of procedure.

just because he cant remember something doesnt mean he did it either. And who the hell are these coutless witnesses?

Some people need to realise as a code (and as sport in general), we're copping it from the outside world in relation to player behaviour. The NRL has been repeatedly accussed upon news of past indiscretions that they are too soft and need to deal with the player/s doing the wrong thing. This decision is the correct one, and should not be based on previous cases because soft punishments were issued then.

If the NRL didn't do this, they'd face outrage, if they do they face outrage. At least they've acted.

By the way, I don't see anywhere where it says they're docking his pay or stopping him training. Just no playing.

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

Innocent or guilty, Stewart has single-handedly failed to live up to the standards expected of one of the games marquee players and role models.

Its deeply disturbing how he could get it so wrong. He is obviously mindless.

"Too drunk to remember" is not a defence either. Its bullsh*t.

His conduct was apalling. The charges are very serious.

He should never darken this game again.

Gallop isnt doing enough to nail this guy.

he's a complete twat for being charged? tell me , in your eyes does anyone thats innocent actually ever get charged by police? are these people twats aswell?

Also, let us not forget Herbert Henry there is a big difference between being not guilty (the state could not establish that a person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) and innocent (you didn't commit a crime)

Brett Stewart obviously did "something" to put himself into that position in the first place. It may or may not have been sexual assault, but he has certainly brought the game into disrepute.

this is something ive heard discussed here quite a bit. The fact is though you are innocent until proven guilty , it stands to reason then if your never proved guilty you dont somehow lose your presumption of innocence. To do otherwise would be ridiculous.

This 'Something' you are talking about is a pretty broad term and without knowing the facts ( just like the NRL dont) im amazed people can just make a presumption that he did this 'something'. Besides the issue of my above response was that if stewart hadnt of been charged with sexual assault ther woud be no 'enormous' damage to rugby league. It would possibly just be another pissed footy player , hardly enormous news at all.

How about we wait for the full facts to come forward before we make these kinds of judgements? If stewart admits to things or is found guilty of things that bring the game into disrepute i'll be right there with most other demanding he is punished properly by the NRL.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

Too much time on your hands mate.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

That's some next level butt-hurt.

 

[Danish]

Is your butt so hurt because it had a run in with Snake in a stairwell?

 

[some11]

Daddy would you like some sausages?

 

[Nice Beaver]

Is your butt so hurt because it had a run in with Snake in a stairwell?

Strange reference to a stairwell.

Your sexual fantasies are creeping through I guess.