Who should be in the Kangaroos Four Nations Squad

[betcats]

Fifita does have a case to take them to court. Most players have clauses in their contracts to increase their salaries if selected in rep teams, so theirs the monetary loss. Couple that with clear correlation of a players earning potential increasing when selected in rep teams etc... And as per the Fair Work Act and Anti Discrimination Act he is being 'victimized' and 'discriminated' against (note there are players in the team selected with recent criminal convictions, far more serious than his). Pretty easy case for hi to win if he wants to go there...

But as someone else pointed out, he is a fckwit, so hopefully he doesnt get any $ out of this classic NRL f**k up...

The NRL would just say those players were punished and have met whatever criteria the NRL and their clubs set for them to be back playing. Fifitas issues are still current and are still being investigated or they could spin it as him not being selected is the punishment, either way it seems an easy accusation for the NRL to contest.

 

[NGR]

I doubt he has a case at all. The NRL could just say this is a punishment for "bringing the game into disrepute". They own the game and make the rules (generally make them up as they go).

On a sidenote does Semi have a case to sue as well. Todd apparently said along the lines of, he is presumed innocent until found guilty but dont want this matter hanging over his head for the tour. Seriously, who are the NRL to decide his mental state if they do consider him "innocent until proven guilty". They would probably just use the old "bringing the game into disrepute" again.

Just because they own the game doesnt mean they are not obliged to follow the FWA and ADA. thats akin to saying they can murder a player because they own the game, the rule of law still applies regardless... Yeah semi will too if the NRL has stated he isnt being picked due to disciplinary reasons that have not been proven yet. It is textbook victimisation and in semi's case, not affording natural justice...

 

[NGR]

The NRL would just say those players were punished and have met whatever criteria the NRL and their clubs set for them to be back playing. Fifitas issues are still current and are still being investigated.

they can try that, but any Industrial lawyer would be salivating at the prospect of such an easy case to win... If they were smart they would have concluded there case and made recommendations in their findings that he shouldnt be selected, or docked $ etc...

 

[kbw]

Investigation hasn't concluded though, yet they are proceeding with discipline. That is the problem

Anyway is it as bad as Friend physically assaulting people on 2 occasions? Or Inglis - don't remember him getting stood down from international duty for that? Its problematic when you get on the moral high horse.

Remember Inglis was just protecting her from herself ....

I can't remember Friend on 2 assault charges, there was one charge (the ice throwing incident) where he was found not guilty and it was shown that the other parties were the trouble makers.

 

[thorson1987]

Not a fan of semi originally being picked, but the reason given for not picking him is a complete load of shit imo.

 

[Surely]

the only thing fafita is guilty of is being the target of a journos witch hunt

 

[Basil Brush]

Just because they own the game doesnt mean they are not obliged to follow the FWA and ADA. thats akin to saying they can murder a player because they own the game, the rule of law still applies regardless..

Say what? Comparing it to murder?

If it went to a court of law, i assume the NRL would use the whole punishment theme, as the Australian team are part of the NRL and they decide who gets selected and who doesnt. Then again, i am no lawyer

 

[Edwahu]

Fifita does have a case to take them to court. Most players have clauses in their contracts to increase their salaries if selected in rep teams, so theirs the monetary loss. Couple that with clear correlation of a players earning potential increasing when selected in rep teams etc... And as per the Fair Work Act and Anti Discrimination Act he is being 'victimized' and 'discriminated' against (note there are players in the team selected with recent criminal convictions, far more serious than his). Pretty easy case for hi to win if he wants to go there...

But as someone else pointed out, he is a fckwit, so hopefully he doesnt get any $ out of this classic NRL f**k up...

What about a correlation to an employee not receiving a bonus or some other merit based recognition as he has behaved like a massive peanut and is undergoing a disciplinary investigation. That's pretty stock standard performance management that occurs in every major corporation in the country. To be honest he would be marched a long time ago in most of them.

True that other players have history but the NRL would say that have already been dealt with.

 

[Basil Brush]

the only thing fafita is guilty of is being the target of a journos witch hunt

That is a bit naive!!!

 

[betcats]

they can try that, but any Industrial lawyer would be salivating at the prospect of such an easy case to win... If they were smart they would have concluded there case and made recommendations in their findings that he shouldnt be selected, or docked $ etc...

Why? Its not being victimised if it is the same rules for everyone. It was made clear publicly that off field behaviour would be a factor in this teams selection. Anyone with criminal convictions who is in the team the NRL will be able to show how they were punished and how they have 'redeemed' or 'rehabilitated' themselves with community service, therapy etc its not clear cut at all. They can even go into how other players have been stood down from rep teams for poor behaviour.

 

[NGR]

Say what? Comparing it to murder?

If it went to a court of law, i assume the NRL would use the whole punishment theme, as the Australian team are part of the NRL and they decide who gets selected and who doesnt. Then again, i am no lawyer

just trying to highlight how the rule of law will always win out over a corporations 'rules'. They do have the right to pick the team, and should have just said it was a form issue or something. Alas,the NRL are run by blazer wearing fckwits...

 

[NGR]

Why? Its not being victimised if it is the same rules for everyone. It was made clear publicly that off field behaviour would be a factor in this teams selection. Anyone with criminal convictions who is in the team the NRL will be able to show how they were punished and how they have 'redeemed' or 'rehabilitated' themselves with community service, therapy etc

As i noted above, the rule of law wins out over the 'rules' of a corporation.

 

[betcats]

As i noted above, the rule of law wins out over the 'rules' of a corporation.

So you don't really know why, gotcha.

 

[NGR]

So you don't really know why, gotcha.

lol thats what you got from that? I could go into detail about case history that hold precedents and a detailed run down of victimisation in the context of FWA and ADA, but as you noted above, you are no legal expert, so it would be lost on you (and i cbf)...

I guess the internet really is full of fckwits...

 

[jim_57]

I fully support the Kangaroos taking in to account recent off-field behaviour and general attitude/demeanor when selecting players. Fifita might be the form prop in the World but if they have genuine concerns his presence may be disruptive to team culture they have every right not to pick him, or any other player in a similar situation.

 

[Surely]

That is a bit naive!!!

Its not actually would you have had any idea unless some journo got outraged

 

[Basil Brush]

Its not actually would you have had any idea unless some journo got outraged

So he is not guilty of the penrith junior incident as well?

Isnt the whole point of journalists to bring things to our attention? What people take from that is up to them (and i believe the vast majority of people think Fifita is an idiot for publicly supporting a murderer)

 

[betcats]

lol thats what you got from that? I could go into detail about case history that hold precedents and a detailed run down of victimisation in the context of FWA and ADA, but as you noted above, you are no legal expert, so it would be lost on you (and i cbf)...

I guess the internet really is full of fckwits...

Yes that's exactly what I take from it. The same as you threatening to go into legal precedents lol you wanker.

 

[Pete Cash]

Surely this is a ludicrous argument. You get outraged by things all the time in 4c and guess what if you didn't know about these things....you wouldn't get outraged.

What a weird argument.

Anyways I feel like Shannon Boyd is a bit out of left field. I love the bloke but I don't think he is at this level yet.

 

[myrrh ken]

Is anyone against Mal being coach even though he publicly supports his brother?