Stewart banned till rnd 5

[clipser]

:lol: So because some clubs were too spineless to actually punish someone, we should allow a weak-as-water precedent to continue?

Punish stewart for being drunken ? or the alleged sexual assault ?
which do you think the NRL has done?

clubs standing players down compared to nrl standing them down.. :sarcasm:

 

[HevyDevy]

Correct decision by the NRL. Stewart was the face of the NRL this season and he let the game down.

Whether he is inocent or guilty of sexual assaulty, he is definitely guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

More importantly, he has been charged by the police so this is no tiny issue we're dealing with.

I don't care about inconsistency from the past - this is absolutely the correct decision.

 

[typicalfan]

The right outcome has happened. Manly should have stood him down in the first place

 

[petetheileet]

i got a feeling once round 5 comes around it could be longer

 

[Timmah]

The point is you were saying others have had the same punishment, which is clearly false.

the clubs suspending someone as the NRL doing it are entirely different.

The NRL stepped in because they believe Manly's decision was erroneous given the circumstances. Who stands them down isn't really relevant. Bottom line is that there appears to be an end to the weak as piss punishments for stupid behaviour. Would you rather they go soft on everyone and let the inmates run the asylum?

 

[851]

What I find most ironic,or maybe moronic about the whole Manly saga is,the father of the girl Watmough was abusing,sponsors Brett Stewart.He said this would not affect his sponsorship of Stewart.
So what I can gather is his stance ,is the players can talk down to and downgrade any woman or girl except his daughter.
Doesn't make sense,he should have been more cranky at Stewart then Watmough if that is his argument.
Double standards or hypocrisy?,very confusing messages this man is sending out.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Maybe I can't, but at the same time people are carrying on like porkchops about something that is not their decision to make, and those people are far less informed about the matter than the Manly club and the NRL are.

your supporting the descion knowing as much as us. Going off your argument you cant support or go against the descion unless you know all the intimate details.

 

[_Johnsy]

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

If this is so why is watmough not being stood down until round 5.

 

[herbert henry1908]

The NRL stepped in because they believe Manly's decision was erroneous given the circumstances. Who stands them down isn't really relevant. Bottom line is that there appears to be an end to the weak as piss punishments for stupid behaviour. Would you rather they go soft on everyone and let the inmates run the asylum?

what circumstances? what has stewart done worse than anyone else that has behaved poorly while drunk before?

and who stands them down is 100% relevant. Clearly Manly dont think he breached any of their rules , what NRL rules has he breached?

you would have to be simple mined not to see the NRL have only suspended him as a PR move.

 

[GC_Gladiator]

So will all drunken indiscretions now get a 4 week ban?

I agree with Stewart being stood down, and believe all players facing criminal charges should have the same thing done to them. But lets call a spade a spade, its not for him being smashed, but the fact he has a court hearing coming up. Whether his guilty or not he 'reportedly' put himself into a silly situation and if he has to sit out the season pending a criminal investigation then so be it.

But why the 100k fine for Manly? They are already losing there star player. He could be out indefinitely. The player had too much to drink but made it to his apartment block. Was Peter Peters meant to take Brett up to his room, tuck him in, and give him a kiss on the forehead goodnight? I realize it was at a club event where he got smashed, but don't see where Brett's burden of personal responsibility gets moved onto the club.

I think Manly have done the right thing. Stood by their player and supported him.

 

[drake]

Knee jerk reaction.

If Stewart is proven guilty by a jury of his peers, I hope he has an awful stay in Long Bay. As he has not been proven guilty, nor held by the courts as a threat to society, he should be able to ply his trade, as the rest of us should be.

Also, the NRL has petitioned the IRLC & the English Super League to have Jason Ryles banned for life because of this terrible debacle.

 

[NGR]

Seems the NRL are treating its fans with compempt yet again...

as mentioned earlier, 3 players including an Aussie international are allowed to keep playing with the same offence, yet suddenly they do an about turn and suspend Stewart...

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? If he is guilty hopefully he will be locked up for the rest of his playing career, if not he will not be punished for media hype!

When are we going to lynch gallop and his cronies?

 

[_Johnsy]

Manly should have stood him down in the first place

Well said, manly have shown they have no integrity, none what so ever. Lets see what the club does with watmough, maybe a monetary fine they'll do sweet FA.

 

[coolumsharkie]

If this is so why is watmough not being stood down until round 5.

Yes I mentioned that previously.

Be consistant and ban Whatmough also, and anyone else from now on that gets smashed and makes a goose of himself.

As a RL fan I'm sick of it.

 

[Terry-Randal]

i was planning to go watch the game but to hell with giving my money to the nrl . they should not mix sport with peoples lives. they let some clubs off and some clubs not. Im going fishing this weekend.

 

[HevyDevy]

I repeat - Brett Stewart: Face of the NRL

 

[Jake the snake]

Peter Peters :nwave:

 

[GC_Gladiator]

and who stands them down is 100% relevant. Clearly Manly dont think he breached any of their rules , what NRL rules has he breached?

you would have to be simple mined not to see the NRL have only suspended him as a PR move.

I agree in that it was a PR move.. but i think its a necessary one- which should be uniform for players facing charges. And i think its better that the NRL handle it than the clubs.

I see Manlys' responsibility in all of this to be to look after the player and provide a support base for him. This includes taking his word for what happened. With that in mind i can see why they'd play him. Why drop him if his innocent?

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

I think the right outcome has occurred, even tho im shattered!

I think manly made the right decision to play him based on the innocent until yadda yadda

And i think the nrl made the right decision to stand him down until after the court hearing as it went from an allegation to a charge.

This must be the precident for such charges from now on and it must be upto the nrl to make the decision following a charge.

 

[HevyDevy]

Hope this helps:

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

MEDIA RELEASE​

The National Rugby League has suspended Brett Stewart from playing Rugby League until round five and has fined the Manly club $100,000.

The NRL makes no judgment in relation to any matter being investigated by police and stresses that these actions do not cast any view in relation to their outcome.

Stewart will be suspended under the NRL Code of Conduct in a decision that was given the full support of an angry NRL Board when they discussed the issue via a phone hook-up this morning and expressed dismay at recent events.

“Brett could not have been in a more high profile position of trust for the game on the eve of a season than he was last week and we believe he should have recognized the honour that he was given and the responsibility that went with it,” NRL Chief Executive, Mr David Gallop, said today.

“By any estimation there was an abuse of alcohol in the aftermath of a club function that has led in some part to the game being placed under enormous pressure.

“The players and the clubs need to know that we are not going to accept that.

“The Manly club has today delivered its report into the function and the measures simply weren’t sufficient to stop drinking getting out of hand in the case of some of the players. Brett was both refused service of alcohol and asked leave the premises.

“This should serve as a warning to all clubs going forward and we note that Manly has already flagged a new policy around future events.

“Manly has also undertaken to review its on-going stance in relation to Brett playing after round five on the basis of any new information that may come to light.”


Note:

The Breach notices of this type are issued under section 20 (2) of the NRL Code of Conduct which states:

“Every person bound by this Code shall, whether or not he is attending an official function arranged for the NRL, the NRL Competition, the Related Competitions, Representative Matches, the ARL Competitions or a Club, conduct himself at all times in public in a sober, courteous and professional manner.”

A club or player has five business days in which to respond after receiving the formal breach notice at which time the penalty will either be confirmed or varied. Disputed matters can be taken to The NRL Appeals Committee comprises a Chairman who has served for or qualified as a judge, a nominee of the Rugby League Players Association, and Nominee of the Chairman of the NRL Club Council.