Stewart banned till rnd 5

[HevyDevy]

That's right Bartman.

And can everyone please stop crapping on about Laffranchi, Crockett etc?

The past is the past. After a series of incidents over the years, the NRL has finally said 'enough is enough' and taken a hardline stance. It had to happen eventually.

I don't care that others in the past haven't been stood down. Stewart's situation happens to be the one that has set the precedent and I assume that this will continue from now on. This is a positive step by the NRL moving forward.

 

[herbert henry1908]

The fact that he has been charged for sexual assault.

Doesn't mean he is guilty but even being in a position to be accused is a problem.

yes , but you clearly said 'putting the assault aside'

what other actions are there if you put the assault aside?

and so anyone that is in a position to be accused of anything can bring the game into disrepute? thats utter garbage.

And we know that something has happened through neighbour testimony etc. What that something is will be determined over time but this should never have been allowed to happen.

ah no , we dont know what the testimony of the neighbour is at all. We dont know if their testimony relates to him being charged.

Anthony Laffranchi was charged without witnesses , this incident may be no different.

There is a massive difference between being drunk and being accused of sexual assault. You can't tell me that Stewart couldn't have avoided this situation.

offcoure there is a massive difference. Thats why i say putting the alledged assault aside he didnt do 'enormous' damage to rugby league.

what situatiuon exactly was stewart meant to avoid?

 

[Where Eagles Dare]

That's right Bartman.

And can everyone please stop crapping on about Laffranchi, Crockett etc?

The past is the past. After a series of incidents over the years, the NRL has finally said 'enough is enough' and taken a hardline stance. It had to happen eventually.

I don't care that others in the past haven't been stood down. Stewart's situation happens to be the one that has set the precedent and I assume that this will continue from now on. This is a positive step by the NRL moving forward.

That's not how precedents are supposed to work though, if you change them all the time the concept of a precedent becomes redundant. Had the NRL said in the off season that they were cracking down on unruly drunken behaviour this season and all instances would incur a four match ban, then it wouldn't be an issue, we can forget the precedents because a new law is in place. But this 'changing of precedent' in Stewart's case is a reactive one, reactive to the charges laid (despite claiming it isn't) and reactive to the media scrutiny it has placed the game under. I'm all for toughening up on player misbehaviour but the NRL have gone the wrong way about it by being reactive rather than proactive.

 

[bartman]

That's not how precedents are supposed to work though, if you change them all the time the concept of a precedent becomes redundant.

Exactly. The past is redundant.

The NRL - through it's actions when Manly failed in their responsibility as a member/employer - have just changed the precedent once.

So long as every player from now on who faces a sexual assualt charge like Stewart is stood down (on full pay) while that charge is heard, then what is the problem here?

 

[Kiki]

woah this thread is crazy.

how come Lafranchi played the whole time he was under a charge but Brett Stewart has been banned? anyone?

 

[herbert henry1908]

True, but isn't that even more reason for the bigger ones - the ones that end in charges - to face standing down (on full pay) when that happens?

I personally wouldnt support standing down but atleast everyone would know where they stand in such a situation.

The idea of standing someone down to 'concentrate' on their trial is a bit rich though. Unless they are stood down from all activities with the team i hardly think missing 80 mins every week is going to help them much.

Hence why you have to stand a player down so they can face charges first, the tribunal idea doesn't wash unless you want to have it happen after the courts have finished, in which case what's the point? And its equally obvious (to me) that the NRL couldn't say the suspension is related to the charges, for the same reason that it might prejudice the trial.

Im an criticising the NRL's response to all poor player behaviour here. As i said the tribunal would work for situations where a player is not charged. For ones that are charged ( even if they are stood down) why couldnt they still face charges of bringing the game into disrepute after a trial? even if they are found not guilty by the courts.

The idea would be to have everyone eventually treated the same way, especially so the lesser player ( dane tisle) dont end up being treated differently.

Um... they are on the front foot. That is why people are whinging! Their process from now on is that a player facing charges is stood down between the charge being made and their day in court. Cronulla did it to Bird last year, and then the parties mutually chose to drop the final year of the contract. Manly should have followed suit when the charge was laid - they didn't and the NRL did it for them. Simple, proper process, led by the NRL!

um no , They arent on the front foot.

They waited until after manly made their descion to do anything. If the NRL were on the front foot they would have taken it out on manly's hands.

 

[bartman]

woah this thread is crazy.

how come Lafranchi played the whole time he was under a charge but Brett Stewart has been banned? anyone?

Because this is 2009 and after a tarnished Centenary/World Cup year the NRL has had simply enough and drawn the line?

 

[MSIH]

woah this thread is crazy.

how come Lafranchi played the whole time he was under a charge but Brett Stewart has been banned? anyone?

Apparently because Laffranchi wasn't excessively boozed up.

 

[MSIH]

Because this is 2009 and after a tarnished Centenary/World Cup year the NRL has had simply enough and drawn the line?

Drawn the line at getting drunk?

4 week suspensions for everyone that gets drunk. I might lace the boots up again, I'll get a game in a few months.

 

[Kiki]

more like hardly anyone knows who he is and it wasn't a massive story like this one is.

anyway, i don't have a problem with the NRL doing this. but if i was a Manly fan or part of Stewarts camp i would feel it was a bit unfair. effectively he's being punished for being a big name.

 

[bartman]

woah this thread is crazy.

how come Lafranchi played the whole time he was under a charge but Brett Stewart has been banned? anyone?

And also the Lafranchi issue (where he was between two clubs) presents similar difficulties for the NRL as teh Benji issue, where he was seeking to take a paid holiday playing another code in Japan inbetween clubs as well.

Lafranchi is so not the best example to compare with Stewart on the basis of equivalence.

 

[MSIH]

Ohh wait, he's getting suspended because his reputation was so good he was made the face of the game. Suspended because he's been a great ambassador for the game for the last 6 years. Makes sense.

 

[Where Eagles Dare]

Exactly. The past is redundant.

The NRL - through it's actions when Manly failed in their responsibility as a member/employer - have just changed the precedent once.

So long as every player from now on who faces a sexual assualt charge like Stewart is stood down (on full pay) while that charge is heard, then what is the problem here?

That's not what I said. You have contradicted yourself, players facing sexual assault charges from now on won't have to follow the 'precedent' set by Stewart's case if "the past is redundant" will they? Furthermore, he officially isn't being stood down because of the charges so no, I don't expect players on these charges to be stood down in the future.
The problem is that the past precedents SHOULD apply until such time that the NRL introduce new laws stating what will happen in the future. Otherwise Stewart is being unfairly made an example of.

 

[bartman]

Drawn the line at getting drunk?

4 week suspensions for everyone that gets drunk. I might lace the boots up again, I'll get a game in a few months.

4 week ssuspension for gettiung drunk and bringing the game into disrepute. There is a difference...

If he knew his limit, and stuck to it, this week's rugby league headlines would have been very different. And we wouldn't have to try and stick up for the game - again - to all our mates.

 

[MSIH]

That's not what I said. You have contradicted yourself, players facing sexual assault charges from now on won't have to follow the 'precedent' set by Stewart's case if "the past is redundant" will they? Furthermore, he officially isn't being stood down because of the charges so no, I don't expect players on these charges to be stood down in the future.
The problem is that the past precedents SHOULD apply until such time that the NRL introduce new laws stating what will happen in the future. Otherwise Stewart is being unfairly made an example of.

Got him, yes.

 

[green eyed mike]

I think Manly should have stood him down until an initial hearing. If he pleads not guilty at this hearing then the presumption of innocence stands until his trial has been resolved and he can play until then. If he pleads guilty he should be rubbed out for good.

This has been a reaction to circumstances but obviously one of the new faces of the NRL in the week before the season kicks off being accused of sexual assault is not the image the NRL or any of its fans want presented. Manly could have prevented this drama by dealing with it in house but IMO they left the NRL no choice.

 

[bartman]

That's not what I said. You have contradicted yourself, players facing sexual assault charges from now on won't have to follow the 'precedent' set by Stewart's case if "the past is redundant" will they?

Ah, debating... You said the past is redundant if they change the precedent all the time. I said they've changed the precendent just once. So yes, they will have to follow this new precendent, because (hopefully) it won't be changing all the time.

Furthermore, he officially isn't being stood down because of the charges so no, I don't expect players on these charges to be stood down in the future.

Ok, I epxect players who are charged with seriou soffences to be stood down on the basis of the Code of Conduct (which was referenced in the decision on Stewart) for bringing the game into disrepute.

The problem is that the past precedents SHOULD apply until such time that the NRL introduce new laws stating what will happen in the future. Otherwise Stewart is being unfairly made an example of.

The NRL doesn't introduce laws... only government does that. The NRL as an organisation is entitled to shift policies in how it deals with matters under its responsibility - and when you compare your precedents to this year's stance, I think you'll find that is exactly what has happened?

It's not unfair at the moment - but it will be if the next footy guy up on sexual assualt charges is allowed to play until his court date.

 

[bartman]

This has been a reaction to circumstances but obviously one of the new faces of the NRL in the week before the season kicks off being accused of sexual assault is not the image the NRL or any of its fans want presented.

Apparently some fans here have no problem with it... :crazy:

 

[bartman]

Got him, yes.

:lol: Read the reply in #337.

 

[Where Eagles Dare]

Ah, debating... You said the past is redundant if they change the precedent all the time. I said they've changed the precendent just once. So yes, they will have to follow this new precendent, because (hopefully) it won't be changing all the time.


Ok, I epxect players who are charged with seriou soffences to be stood down on the basis of the Code of Conduct (which was referenced in the decision on Stewart) for bringing the game into disrepute.

The NRL doesn't introduce laws... only government does that. The NRL as an organisation is entitled to shift policies in how it deals with matters under its responsibility - and when you compare your precedents to this year's stance, I think you'll find that is exactly what has happened?

It's not unfair at the moment - but it will be if the next footy guy up on sexual assualt charges is allowed to play until his court date.

Your points all hinge on whether the NRL are consistent with their decision in the future. I stand by my original point that the NRL should have cracked down on unruly behaviour by players long before now by changing their laws/rules/policies (same thing) to be uniform across the board, not in reaction to the one that has received the most media scrutiny. What's done is done I suppose, but I have serious doubts they will be consistent with this ruling. The one thing now that would make me feel more comfortable with their decision would be to retract their previous statement that the ban had nothing to do with the charges and announce from now on all players facing criminal charges will be stood down until at least their initial court hearing. Otherwise who is to say they won't change the 'precedent' tomorrow?