Pascoe sanctioned by the NRL

Darcy has it very correct there.

Whether true or not, very strong perception that NRL is expending excessive energy on crushing admin errors and letting the player behaviour issues slip through the cracks. Whether or not they should specifically be standing De Bellend down, NRL are being destroyed in the PR war this offseason. It's all strength and swift action on the issues that nobody is fussed about, and near silence on the ones that appear to matter most.
 
No, but they can put in blanket rules to stand down players undergoing a court proceeding at a certain seriousness level. Then it's clear cut. They don't get into muddy waters of letting possible rapists play or making judgement calls outside of court.

I know people say that well, that might bring about false charges, but usually, there has to be evidence to prosecute
 
I don't know how anyone would jump to the conclusion that the NRL letting us sign Jennings has anything to do with Pascoe's situation whatsoever.

If it did have anything to do with you would think it would only be positive as it demonstrates the NRL is backtracking from it's original penalties despite their 'in depth' investigation.
 
I think they will end up doing this due to public pressure, but this is the wrong thing to do.
The Police / prosecution will be very upset that the NRL is going to stand down JDB as it severely hurts their prosecution.. ask any copper/ prosecutor. We think we are doing the right thing by the victim, but we are not, we must make sure we do everything to ensure that the investigation is not tampered with to give the defence no avenue to claim prejudice.
 
If he is guilty then he goes to prison for a long time.
It will be a very GOOD look for the NRL that it did not interfere with this process.
 
I don't understand. How is it prejudice if it's a blanket rule across all players? Regardless of innocence or guilt, a player with a pending charge is stood down.
 
That's a fair point and to be fair (and honest) you made me stop and think..
These are complex situations and I don't think there is an easy answer for the NRL. It may take him 2 years to go through the court process… standing him down for that period with a not guilty verdict (sadly only about 1 in 10 are convicted) is massively problematic for the NRL.
But I do concede you have given me pause and softened my view.
Some of the press and forum comments are ludicrously simple, especially the view that the NRL is soft or weak on DV or sexual assault as its not in their commercial interests to be so given the sensitivity of sponsors etc. Above all else, if he is found guilty, he goes to prison for a long time so his judgment will come.
 
@HateForums said:
The Police / prosecution will be very upset that the NRL is going to stand down JDB as it severely hurts their prosecution… ask any copper/ prosecutor.
Click to expand...

Sure, ask me - I would not be very upset as the prosecutor if he were stood down by the application of a blanket rule that people charged with serious offences were suspended from playing until the charges were resolved. I'd be upset if they interfered with the evidence or tried to question the complainant or force JDB to give an account, but not if they just adopted a neutral position by relying upon the charges themselves as a trigger for suspension.
 
Simple i know but stand them down on half pay until court decision. Not guilty free to play and back pay of outstanding pay, guilty, thats it boyoh, pack you gear and not allowed to play league again.
 
I agree mate. It's a tough call as some are complex. But at the moment I see the NRL not being impartial or consistent which is a real problem and jeopardises the notion of prejudice more. Barba case being the prime example, even if the evidence is black and white.

Also, give players 1 chance to make retribution. If they're dismissed from the game, they'll be offered support and counciling for rehabilitation and will then be assessed by a board to determine if they are fit to return.
 
It looks average when that blanket rule is introduced midway through a legal process and applied retrospectively.

Go ahead and introduce it for anyone charged from that point onwards, but otherwise it is another knee jerk reaction to bad media publicity
 
You are right.At the moment anything Toddles does will be classified as a reaction because of his complete lack of accountability over the years.It all comes down to his inept management, if he had put his foot down at the dogs (Barba) and been consistent much of the current fiasco may have been averted.
To use the old adage "You reap what you sow" and Toddles has just planted weeds
 
I thought the conviction rate versus overall sexual assualts was down around the 3% mark for a myriad of reasons, with a bunch of former mates being amongst the 97% that walk away scot free, or at least, with very little baggage compared to the victims.

For mine, if charges are laid and proceedings commenced, those charged are much more than just likely to have committed the offence, rather, almost certain to have done so. They then ride on the coat tails of the right of the innocent few of a reasonable doubt, even if it is only on one point.

On topic, really hope we hear from the NRL shortly so that the club can move forward.
 
Get yourself down to the family court. Once a relationship turns toxic people spurned will make all sorts of allegations to try and discredit former partners.

Any form of violence is wrong, but people may make false allegations for their own benefit or to punish someone.
 
Though I have never been a party to proceedings, I have spent enough time representing at the Family Court bar to understand it fairly well. Not that they don't exist, but wrongful accusations in that theatre are merely a drop in the ocean when compared to actual attacks in everyday life and the judges are very astute at separating facts from fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 386 (members: 1, guests: 385)
Back
Top