Trial by media

[Syko]

all hatred & jokes aside, if we stand down players because of allegations, this opens up a big ugly door. If he goes to court and is found guilty, that is a different story. This should be the case everytime an allegation is made.

 

[bartman]

The allegation comes first. Media tend to react to allegations in relation to public figures, rather than waiting for a charge.

Allegations are invested by police, which results in either a charge, or no charge. If a player is charged with a serious crime like this, he should be stood down (on full pay) in my opinion.

What we need to ensure is that police act as swiftly as they can to resolve allegations, into either charges or not. In Stewart's case the action was swift, not drawn out, and not even waiting for the DNA results to come in. So no complaints there.

After someone is charged, the media rightly should be open slather in reporting it, so long as they don't break the laws about prejudicing the case when it comes to trial. Innocent until proven guilty, but if there is enough evidence for police to swiftly turn an allegation into a charge, then the game has already been brought into disrepute by the player's actions, and the NRL is right to have them stood down.

The charge is then heard by a court. If the court finds the charge proved and the player guilty, he should be deregistered. If the court finds the charge not proved and returns a not guilty verdict, the player returns to the field.

All that has been lost is the club's use of the player for that period of time. Now that the clubs know the deal on this, you watch how seriously they take their responsibilities from now on, in supervising players at/after functions, in educating and mentoring players about responsible levels of alcohol, in educating players about respect for women and people from other cultures, and in expecting the best out of their well paid employee's off-field behaviour - just as it should be, for the good of the club and the game.

if this process is followed, the media won't have as much or any things to drag our game through the dirt about in relation to player behaviour. It's a myth that players aren't responsible for allegations that might lead to charges and not guilty verdicts - they should have put themselves in that position of risk to start with.

 

[mongoose]

Sorry but if the player is found not guilty, he doesn't just "return to the field". He is forever stigmatised and the game has been dragged through the mud once again for no reason other than because it sells papers. And now more than ever journalists are under more and more pressure to come up with stories that will sell no matter how truthful they are.

And when has it been the clubs responsibility to supervise their players outside of playing and club functions?

Honestly do work for News?

 

[BPS]

AND what about this scenario

It is week 4 of the finals and team A is playing team B in the final. Meanwhile team C are waiting in the wings to see who they will play in the Grand Final.
Team A are very confident of beating team B and have done so 2 times this year so they hatch a plan against team C for next weeks grand Final.
The sister of one of team A's girlfriend makes a pass at the "most significant player" of team C on the Fri night before the Final.
She has a few drinks with the "most significant player" of team C before luring him back to her place.
As she approaches the front door she yells and screams and runs out into the courtyard of her Units, where she screams "rape rape rape"
The police are called, she lays a charge, he is drunk, very drunk, and can't remember a thing.
The media get a hold of it and demand the "most significant player" be stood down from the Grand Final on the following week.
The club refuses, but the NRL step in and over rule the club and "the most significant" player is stood down from the Grand Final.
Team A go on to win the grand final and 4 months later "the most significant" player is found innocent by the court system!

This may sound far fetched but it definitely IS NOT!

 

[Parra]

"
He (Gallop) said Stewart was banned not because of the charge but because he ignored his duty to the game when he was refused service and later thrown out of the Manly Wharf Hotel two days after launching the new season.


Stewart's agent, George Mimis, released a statement on behalf of his client last night maintaining the 24-year-old hoped to return to the playing field immediately after his suspension despite the court action.


"[The] allegations form no part whatsoever of the basis of the suspension which has been imposed," Mr Mimis said. "In the circumstances, Brett looks forward to again being available for selection in the Manly team to play in round 5 of the NRL competition."


http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/03/11/1236447305491.html

 

[butchmcdick]

AND what about this scenario

It is week 4 of the finals and team A is playing team B in the final. Meanwhile team C are waiting in the wings to see who they will play in the Grand Final.
Team A are very confident of beating team B and have done so 2 times this year so they hatch a plan against team C for next weeks grand Final.
The sister of one of team A's girlfriend makes a pass at the "most significant player" of team C on the Fri night before the Final.
She has a few drinks with the "most significant player" of team C before luring him back to her place.
As she approaches the front door she yells and screams and runs out into the courtyard of her Units, where she screams "rape rape rape"
The police are called, she lays a charge, he is drunk, very drunk, and can't remember a thing.


The media get a hold of it and demand the "most significant player" be stood down from the Grand Final on the following week.
The club refuses, but the NRL step in and over rule the club and "the most significant" player is stood down from the Grand Final.
Team A go on to win the grand final and 4 months later "the most significant" player is found innocent by the court system!

This may sound far fetched but it definitely IS NOT!

See you on the grassy knoll.

I will be there next to Elvis and Kurt Cobain

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Looks like the nrl are not going to accept any alcohol related incidents whether it involves alleged criminal behaviour or not. If you are a nrl registered player and you come under notice for anything deemed anti social you are out.

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

See you on the grassy knoll.

I will be there next to Elvis and Kurt Cobain

Is Kurt Cobain still alive somewhere.. it wasn't his head splattered all over his greenhouse wall?? Whoopieeeee love live grunge!!!!!!! :crazy:

 

[HevyDevy]

Sorry but if the player is found not guilty, he doesn't just "return to the field". He is forever stigmatised and the game has been dragged through the mud once again for no reason other than because it sells papers. And now more than ever journalists are under more and more pressure to come up with stories that will sell no matter how truthful they are.

And when has it been the clubs responsibility to supervise their players outside of playing and club functions?

Honestly do work for News?

A high profile player was accused of sexual assault and the media reported it.

This high profile player was later charged and the media reported it.

This high profile player was stood down for 5 weeks and the media reported it.

Please point out at which point the media said he was guilty or did anything other than the job that is expected of them?

 

[BPS]

The media IS allowed to report the incident. It is not that they can or cannot report the incident, it is the way that the incident is splattered all over the papers, and the lead story for days and days throughout the media.

I believe strongly that a man is innocent until proven guilty. It is the very basic tenet of our system of law and justice.
The media shamed Gallop and the NRL into standing Stewart down.

Laffranchi, and the Warriors winger were allowed the justice that this country provides, Stewart is not.
I hate Manly and am happy if the NRL stands down the entire club. But imo the NRL should not supercede the justice of the land.
Therefore, Stewart should be allowed to play until he is proven guilty.

 

[bartman]

Sorry but if the player is found not guilty, he doesn't just "return to the field". He is forever stigmatised and the game has been dragged through the mud once again for no reason other than because it sells papers. And now more than ever journalists are under more and more pressure to come up with stories that will sell no matter how truthful they are.

Well people get charged all the time, and it impacts on their life/employment/image in that way even when they are found not guilty. Why should league players be protected any more than you or I?

And when has it been the clubs responsibility to supervise their players outside of playing and club functions?

When the NRL tells them it is. CLubs have the choice of not accepting invitation to play under teh NRLs rules if that's such a problem for them.

Siunce the Stewart incident, Manly have put in place (new) guidelines about behaviour, so obviously they don't have a probelm with it. They have accepted Stewart's suspension as well. The only thing they are fighting baout is the $100K fine, and a report today alleges that's because they would be under the pump to find teh spare money to pay it.

Honestly do work for News?

no. Not a fan of News Ltd myself. But you don't have to be a Telecrap lover to come to the conclusion it's time the game got serious about its image in the community, and the impact that has on crowds, ratings, broadcast rights, sponsors, revenue, and the game's long term survival.

 

[bartman]

The media IS allowed to report the incident. It is not that they can or cannot report the incident, it is the way that the incident is splattered all over the papers, and the lead story for days and days throughout the media.

I believe strongly that a man is innocent until proven guilty. It is the very basic tenet of our system of law and justice.
The media shamed Gallop and the NRL into standing Stewart down.

Laffranchi, and the Warriors winger were allowed the justice that this country provides, Stewart is not.
I hate Manly and am happy if the NRL stands down the entire club. But imo the NRL should not supercede the justice of the land.
Therefore, Stewart should be allowed to play until he is proven guilty.

Stewart went outside the players NRL Code of Conduct. Therefore he forfeits his right to play - but he is still under full pay while the court investigates.

The right to play is not "justice". His right to still be paid on the assumption he is innocent until proven guilty is justice - and that has not been taken away.

Cases that pre-date 2009 may have followed under a different approach in terms of being allowed to play while under sexual assault charges, but our game has rightfully copped a bagging for it - and probably copped it in the bottom line for the previous approach to serious incidents as well.

 

[The Colonel]

The whole thing is the NRL have tried, time and again, to educate the players in the dangers of excessive drinking. The game continues to be tarnished because the lesson is not being learnt. They have had no other choice but to increase the punishment. It is harsh but the lesson may actually sink in to the players and the clubs that it will not be tolerated any more. The leashes may well be shortened and with some stroke of luck the players will learn what is acceptable and what isn't.

 

[bartman]

AND what about this scenario

It is week 4 of the finals and team A is playing team B in the final. Meanwhile team C are waiting in the wings to see who they will play in the Grand Final.
Team A are very confident of beating team B and have done so 2 times this year so they hatch a plan against team C for next weeks grand Final.
The sister of one of team A's girlfriend makes a pass at the "most significant player" of team C on the Fri night before the Final.
She has a few drinks with the "most significant player" of team C before luring him back to her place.
As she approaches the front door she yells and screams and runs out into the courtyard of her Units, where she screams "rape rape rape"
The police are called, she lays a charge, he is drunk, very drunk, and can't remember a thing.

Then he should have known better than to be out drinking until he was "very drunk" and to have been "on the pull" the night before the 2nd most important game of the season!

Stand him down while it's investigated, and make him wear a dunces hat in the corner!!

Seriously, players should be allowed to drink during the season if they can handle it - but having a drink or two if you go out doesn't mean the same as getting absolutely maggotted so you can't remember a thing.

This may sound far fetched but it definitely IS NOT!

In this situation it would still be the player's fault for his choice of behaviour - just as being stood down is Brett Stewart's fault.

Under this new approach of standing down players while charges are resolved, you will find suddenly that clubs start to take education, support, supervision and mentoring a lot more seriously than before - to avoid incidents such as your scenario even being possible.

 

[Pass the Ball]

Bartman - You are posting like there is no tomorrow, but I think you have missed the point. He has not been stood down because he has been charged with sexual assault as this would set a dangerous precident..

The NRL can not start judging criminal offences before the courts do..

He has been stood down because he acted like a d!ckhead and brought the game into disrepute...

Is there anyone on this forum who does not agree that Brett Stewart has brought the game into disrepute..???

 

[sting]

my friend just told me his sister got attacked by c.smith, g.ingliss and b.slater last night and they were pretty tanked.

i expect them to be stood down for round 1 against the dragons.

i mean, now that the precedent has been set and all....

in all seriousness, what's to stop clubs from creating elaborate schemes such as this now