Stewart banned till rnd 5

[Lungfish]

welcome to the NRL - the land of incosistency....

crockett and laffranchi wer eboth allowed to keep playing, why the knee jerk to stewert or is it his profile?

if they make a blanket ruling, say anyone charged with a serious offence is stood down then i ahve no probs with it, but in this case ti seems stewart is being banned cos of his profile

Well said!

 

[butchmcdick]

welcome to the NRL - the land of incosistency....

crockett and laffranchi wer eboth allowed to keep playing, why the knee jerk to stewert or is it his profile?

if they make a blanket ruling, say anyone charged with a serious offence is stood down then i ahve no probs with it, but in this case ti seems stewart is being banned cos of his profile

Nobody is saying that was the right decision either. Maybe the NRL has learnt from that and isn't making the same mistake this time

 

[coolumsharkie]

Actually till Rnd 5 is only 4 games.

You get more for lifting :lol:

 

[Shorty]

People are still forgeting that Stewart was the face of the 2009 campaign.
You cannot have someone who has been charged of sexual assault playing after his face has been plastered all over television screens.

 

[Broncobuster]

I thought it was up 2 clubs as the employers to make the decision. Unless there is a conviction?

That was my understanding too .... odd!

I agree with the NRLs stance as its for the betterment of the game, however it's new attitude is not consistant with previous offenders.

Stewart has been stupid and if proven guilty will be punished. That's fine. Others previous can consider themselves very lucky.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Classic response by gallop , clearly having a bob each way.

what the hell is a ban till his court date supposed to achieve? and what difference is there playing now compared to then?

Nothing more than a PR stunt.

 

[Twizzle]

Brett Stewart banned from playing: NRL overrules Manly

17 minutes ago. | LIVENEWS.com.au

Brett Stewart banned from playing: NRL overrules Manly


Manly fullback Brett Stewart has been suspended for four matches by the NRL, overruling the Sea Eagles' decision to retain him in the starting line-up.
The NRL says the ban is due to drunken irresponsible behaviour, and not in relation to the sexual assault charges laid against the player this week.

clicky

 

[coolumsharkie]

Manly has 5 days to appeal, Gallop says it has nothing to do with the police charges, rather the misuse of alcohol.

 

[Twizzle]

The NRL says the ban is due to drunken irresponsible behaviour, and not in relation to the sexual assault charges laid against the player this week.

sure

 

[herbert henry1908]

People are still forgeting that Stewart was the face of the 2009 campaign.
You cannot have someone who has been charged of sexual assault playing after his face has been plastered all over television screens.

so becuase he was the face of the Tv adverts his punishment should be worse?!

sorry thats laughable.

 

[Dutchy]

The NRL says the ban is due to drunken irresponsible behaviour

Broncos last year?
Lockyer that year?

 

[sting]

so after he has it adjourned he can play?

exactly. everyone seems to assume the case will be over in a few weeks.

it's not gonna happen this could drag on for years.

bullsh*t decision imo

 

[herbert henry1908]

The NRL says the ban is due to drunken irresponsible behaviour, and not in relation to the sexual assault charges laid against the player this week.

:lol:

other than the charges levelled against him what irresponsible behaviour was there?

if it was just getting drunk half the NRL would get suspended.

Pathetic stuff gallop , you are incapable of leadership.

 

[Prodigiousman]

If this is the new standard punishment for an off-field incident like this which involves the police pressing charges - then so be it. And if the club cops it too (fine etc) then maybe it makes the punishment tougher sure but I guess the tradition of covering up 'minor' incidents by clubs could get into the 'major' incidents category if the club is facing a fine as well as losing their player for X amount of games.

But the NRL has to treat every player the same if the offence is in the same category - Stewart (if he is innocent as we must presume I guess) shouldn't be hammered harder simply because he was the face of the NRL's campaign.

 

[Perth Red]

WTF are the NRL playing at? They are such a knee jerk organisation it isn't funny. No wonder they can't develop the game beyond its current limitations. Set a policy, set clear guidelines and punishment and lets have some consistency and clarity around punishment for player indiscretions. Who do they think they are kidding saying it is for drunkeness? Where's the ban for Watmough if that is truly the reason?

 

[coolumsharkie]

Broncos last year?
Lockyer that year?

Stewart sets the example, so Watmough should also receive a ban in that case.. If the NRL is going to be fair about it.

I like the decision, it might make these meat heads think twice from now on.

 

[abpanther]

NRL has set a dangerous precendent here

 

[macavity]

Stewart sets the example, so Watmough should also receive a ban in that case.. If the NRL is going to be fair about it.

I like the decision, it might make these meat heads think twice from now on.

4 games for cawkmough sounds about right too.... :whistle

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

The least Gallop could of done was ban him until the round after Souths play them.

 

[CharlieF]

Does Drunken irresponsible behaviour that could probably kill people, like drink driving, qualify for a suspension too?

These guys make their own rules. Worse than what we had before.