More bad behaviour

I think you're missing my point. If clubs are immune from penalty if their player misbehaves, they will have less incentive to invest in the activities that you speak of. There will also be less downward pressure on the wage of a 'dropkick' because clubs will be happier to take the risk.

You are right that players should not be protected or provided excuses.
 
It is another knee jerk reaction. What constitutes a serious criminal offence worthy of being stood down?
Are walker , musgrove, Chee kam also going to be stood down.
It is another line in the sand that will shift based on the club, media articles and public opinion.
DeBerlin may be a rapist or he might have picked up a bunny boiler. Let the courts decide.
 
@Harvey said:
It is another knee jerk reaction. What constitutes a serious criminal offence worthy of being stood down?
Click to expand...

Well aggravated sexual assault in company should in anyone's book, especially on those facts. If they've charged it as a s 61JA then it carries life imprisonment as a maximum penalty. By contrast I think Walker and Chee Kam are charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm which carries a 5 year max and can (and will) be dealt with in the Local Court. Musgrove I don't know how they charged it but at worst it's an aggravated indecent assault (or whatever they now call it) and would carry a 7 year max. Again, can and will be dealt with in the Local Court.

I don't think they should leave it open to interpretation - I've said before that they should just say that anyone charged with an offence carrying 14 years+ as a max should be stood down pending resolution of the charges. That's a clear and certain rule that leaves no room for favouritism towards certain clubs/players.

It shouldn't be that hard for these guys to make their way through life without attracting allegations of serious criminal offending…
 
So violent crimes alleged against players with a max sentence above 11 years will mean a player is automatically stood down but still allowed to train with the club.

They will stand down players with below 11 years if they think that it will give the NRL a bad image.

They call it a no fault stand down apparently its not admitting guilt but protecting the NRL's image.
 
NRL confirmed its standing JDB down as he is facing over 11 years for a violent offence.

Dylan Walker still to be decided.
 
It's not the criminal justice system, it's a sporting organisation. Just because the State is restrained from jeopardising the liberty of citizens unless and until they are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that every private individual and organisation has to apply the same approach. They are very different things.
If you had a cafe as a business and you employed a bloke who was alleged to have committed a heinous crime that had attracted a lot of publicity would you want him out making coffees for your customers?
 
You don’t think this is opening up for abuse. Blackmail anyone? I can just imagine the sort of accusations and following conversation that will be had. This is a very poor response to a very complex issue. To answer your question. If my employer stood me down just because I was charged with an offence because of an accusation by a third party and I knew I was innocent of that offence, I would be suing the arse off my employer.
 
They got it right. Also kept in the incentive for clubs to keep up their cultural programs by ensuring it's tied to the cap relief.

Now just to get Pascoe right!
 
Had to come and should have been regular practice long before the commission itself was formed.

Sure, it infringes somewhat on the overall presumption of innocence, but these are not willy nilly charges directly brought forward by an individual, or even a group. The accusations are vetted by a range of professions before the matters are taken to court and only get to that point when all of them believe there is a case to be answered and even then it won't go ahead if the state does not think there is a reasonable chance of conviction.
 
Agree mate. I would also argue that inconsistency actually damages the presumption of innocence more. A blanket rule takes away any debate in the media or any judgement.
 
However if they were willing and able to continue to pay me through this period, i would be more than grateful as i could dedicate 100% of my time getting off the charge.
 
@slm9 said:
However if they were willing and able to continue to pay me through this period, i would be more than grateful as i could dedicate 100% of my time getting off the charge
Click to expand...

I can't see De Belin poring over the legal books. And I can't see his value rising if he's out of the game for a year, even if he is eventually found innocent.
 
@mike said:
You don’t think this is opening up for abuse. Blackmail anyone? I can just imagine the sort of accusations and following conversation that will be had. This is a very poor response to a very complex issue. To answer your question. If my employer stood me down just because I was charged with an offence because of an accusation by a third party and I knew I was innocent of that offence, I would be suing the arse off my employer.
Click to expand...

No I don't think it's opening things up for abuse or blackmail. I just can't see a rash of people making false allegations against players in order to extort money from them because by people doing that they'd be exposing themselves to offences carrying 14 years. I have seen cases of fabricated or exaggerated allegations (where it was actually admitted and clearly established that they were fabrications) but they have always involved established relationships between the accuser and the accused. It has probably happened but it's not something I've come across and I can't see it becoming an epidemic just because the NRL changed a rule.

If your employer stood you down on full pay then I doubt you'd get far suing them. If they terminated your employment prior to any conviction you might succeed in an unfair dismissal claim but that would depend on the circumstances of the business and whether or not they gave you procedural fairness in resolving to sack you. Even if someone is innocent they can still inflict a lot of damage on a business by being charged and attracting negative publicity and they can cause all sorts of problems with other employees. I know it's very hard on the person accused but they're not the only person who needs to be considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,165 (members: 19, guests: 1,146)
Back
Top