Todd Greenberg has got to go!

[Quicksilver]

The NRL should probably handing out all disciplinary punishments so that there is some consistency.

 

[mave]

The NRL should probably handing out all disciplinary punishments so that there is some consistency.

Consistency ?
Like it is now ?

 

[Timmah]

The NRL should probably handing out all disciplinary punishments so that there is some consistency.

So the NRL need to take over the courts?

 

[Quicksilver]

So the NRL need to take over the courts?

Yeah mate.

 

[AJB1102]

it's easy to forget he was suspended for two test matches. Given rep appearances are comparitively rare (let alone being stripped of captaincy), it's a significant punishment.

Fair point but considering the judiciary sees no difference in suspension being from a round 6 game, SoO, GF or rep game it's essentially a 2 game suspension. The fact it was an International and he was captain doesn't matter.

 

[firechild]

The NRL and court punishment are completely separate. The court doesnt take into account that he missed two Tests.

Actually:

"Inglis pleaded guilty to drink driving in November and on Monday NSW chief magistrate Graeme Henson handed Inglis an 18-month conditional release order noting his loss of the captaincy, driving and playing suspensions, and substantial charity work."

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/g...g/news-story/49b1f98486050307f56b8763df603892

 

[unforgiven]

Actually:

"Inglis pleaded guilty to drink driving in November and on Monday NSW chief magistrate Graeme Henson handed Inglis an 18-month conditional release order noting his loss of the captaincy, driving and playing suspensions, and substantial charity work."

https://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/g...g/news-story/49b1f98486050307f56b8763df603892

100% courts quite often take into account outside consequences, such as loss of employement etc, when deciding punishments

 

[AJB1102]

100% courts quite often take into account outside consequences, such as loss of employement etc, when deciding punishments

He didn't lose his livelihood though.

Inglis missing 2 random Internationals is nothing like the average bloke no longer being able to get to work. Johnny Labourer's boss writing a character reference probably doesn't hold weight like one from NRL CEO either.

 

[madunit]

But, but, but ... according to some there's not a human on earth capable of taking control and LEADING this sport better than Greenburger..

Who said that?

Provide links please, if you know how.

 

[Perth Red]

But the courts and the NRL are separate I just got told. Why are they now connected?

He’s referring to the inconsistency in Todd’s behaviour, not the nrlvcourt punishments, as you well know!

 

[Spot On]

Who said that?

Provide links please, if you know how.

No f**king way.

Too hard ya flog.

I'm taking the Greenburger leadership approach on this one - all talk, no action.

Can you and Timtam cope with that???

 

[madunit]

No f**king way.

Too hard ya flog.

I'm taking the Greenburger leadership approach on this one - all talk, no action.

Can you and Timtam cope with that???

f**k you carry on like a childish idiot.

Full of shit too.

 

[Last Week]

He didn't lose his livelihood though.

Inglis missing 2 random Internationals is nothing like the average bloke no longer being able to get to work. Johnny Labourer's boss writing a character reference probably doesn't hold weight like one from NRL CEO either.

Missing those two matches for Inglis cost him $40k. Nothing to baulk at and bigger than any fine the courts give out for that charge.

 

[Timmah]

Missing those two matches for Inglis cost him $40k. Nothing to baulk at and bigger than any fine the courts give out for that charge.

The fact that this punishment has already happened as well, I think, makes it easy for everyone to minimise the fact. There's no further punishment to look forward to for those who believe he deserves more (self included)

 

[Valheru]

Missing those two matches for Inglis cost him $40k. Nothing to baulk at and bigger than any fine the courts give out for that charge.

That isn't a guarantee of his employment though.

He is employed by souths and suffered no financial punishment from them.

 

[unforgiven]

That isn't a guarantee of his employment though.

He is employed by souths and suffered no financial punishment from them.

Courts often take into account outside consequences when making judgements and handing down sentences.

 

[Valheru]

Courts often take into account outside consequences when making judgements and handing down sentences.

Yes I know

I am saying the outside consequences in this case were negligible. They will argue stripping of the national captaincy is severe but in the grand scheme of things it isn't.

He hasn't been restricted in his ability to make a living nor would a conviction have resulted in that which is generally why section 10s are awarded.

 

[Timmah]

Yes I know

I am saying the outside consequences in this case were negligible. They will argue stripping of the national captaincy is severe but in the grand scheme of things it isn't.

He hasn't been restricted in his ability to make a living nor would a conviction have resulted in that which is generally why section 10s are awarded.

The captaincy thing comes down to opinion and despite his lenient sentencing I'd side with the judge tbh, it's certainly a factor.

As for his ability to make a living, if you can dismiss not being able to make 40,000 bucks being a restriction then you're a very lucky man.

That isn't a guarantee of his employment though.

He is employed by souths and suffered no financial punishment from them.

This is where I partly agree. I don't think the Kangaroos stuff was insignificant as you've implied, but I believe there should've been more action at either club or All Stars level.

 

[Vee]

Yes I know

I am saying the outside consequences in this case were negligible. They will argue stripping of the national captaincy is severe but in the grand scheme of things it isn't.

He hasn't been restricted in his ability to make a living nor would a conviction have resulted in that which is generally why section 10s are awarded.

The bit I can't get past is where his license wasn't disqualified. May have been part of the penalty but I didn't see it mentioned.

At least do that.

 

[Valheru]

As for his ability to make a living, if you can dismiss not being able to make 40,000 bucks being a restriction then you're a very lucky man.

I certainly cant dismiss it but he probably can.

Either way, he is still getting the value of his contract paid $500k plus?? his ability to earn wasn't restricted at all.