Time to get tough: Tongue

All the news on the Canberra Raiders NRL team, all in one place

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145112
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by greeneyed »

Former Canberra Raiders captain Alan Tongue says it’s time to get tough with players convicted of sexual assault and domestic violence

NRL players convicted of serious offences such as sexual assault should be banned for life, the league’s gender advisor, Catherine Lumby, says. Former Canberra Raiders captain Alan Tongue said the NRL needed to consider increasing fines and decreasing the salary cap across the board.

“It’s one in all in, everyone is being tarred by the same brush,” he said.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... c-violence
Image
User avatar
roneel78
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1366
Joined: June 28, 2010, 9:23 pm
Favourite Player: Campese

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by roneel78 »

YES. 100% behind this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cranky Old Man
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1202
Joined: February 12, 2013, 11:11 pm
Favourite Player: Sam Backo

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Cranky Old Man »

I'm all in favour of rubbing out offenders, but I have serious doubts about reducing the money available for the non offending majority. However, the result of continued offending by players is a reduction in sponsorship dollars available to clubs which will ultimately cause a reduction in payments generally.
Coastalraider
David Furner
Posts: 3860
Joined: May 31, 2015, 7:25 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Coastalraider »

100% behind stricter punishments, lifetime bans and sitting out players while under charge.

Not sure about reduction in salary cap, but I see the reasoning.

These guys are in the public eye, and receive significantly above average wage to perform their duties as an employee of each club. One of those duties is to represent the club, fans, the league and high paying corporate sponsors. If players bring that into disrepute, they should be dealt with harshley.

Sport is such a bizzarre industry where they allow there brand to be constantly tarnished, but they support those doing it. Look at the story with Telstra that gregerg linked in the Dragons topic- it was as simple as saying that the employees behaviours does not match the company’s image, so sit yourself down until this is all sorted.
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13407
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Green eyed Mick »

Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7695
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by BJ »

Green eyed Mick wrote:Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
I think that’s a good approach GEM. I presume Wighton still got paid for the 10 matches he missed (minus the fine).

Players definitely shouldn’t be earning money for missing games when they are clearly at fault. But I agree with paying them until they are formerly found guilty.
cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12445
Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
Location: Sydney

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by cat »

Danny Wielder wrote about this today, and it was the first time in a long time he has written something worth reading.

He pretty much says that the current cases are the worse he has ever seen in the NRL by a long shot. He also points out these guys receive more training in how to interact with women than anyone else. And he is right. How many of you on here have had training at work (or anywhere) on how to be respectful to woman and not get yourself into situations where you are accused of rape? My guess is none of you. But you all manage not to do it!

And another thing, maybe its cause i am a female or because i am over 35 but what "normal" bloke goes around doing what these guys are accused of?

As far as i am concerned they should be kicked out end of story. What Jack did wasn't great but it was "normal" drunken behaviour, same with Dylan Walker in a sense. What he is accused of isn't nice and should also be suspended for however it was by all reports "normal domestic violence" . Not good but not completely crazy stuff.

The other guys at the moment, how is that normal bad stuff? And is this a problem that is emerging? Do we have these young players with god complexes thinking that kind of stuff is "normal"?

As a female that worries me, and I strongly believe Hayne and co need to never come back
Vaccinated
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by The Nickman »

God I love Alan Tongue, he's 100% spot on.

The NRL either needs to STFU about being an advocate to stopping domestic violence while they turn a blind eye to their players doing it, or they need to actually step up and start punishing blokes for life who perpetrate this ****.

Because right now they just look like a big bunch of hypocrites and it makes me angry every time I see the NRL speaking up about domestic violence. Either stand up and make a difference or go the **** back to the 20th Century.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by The Nickman »

Pigman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:36 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
Life, mate. The NRL wants to make big their tough talk on this matter? It needs to be life.
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13407
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Green eyed Mick »

The Nickman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:38 pm
Pigman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:36 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
Life, mate. The NRL wants to make big their tough talk on this matter? It needs to be life.
You would have rubbed Joel Thompson out of the game? What about Inglis?

There has to be room for second chances, however given the money and access these players have to counselling and other supports, there should be no more chances after the first strike for crimes against women and children.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145112
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by greeneyed »

I don't think anyone is talking about banning players found not guilty of domestic violence. Inglis and Thompson were found not guilty. Any player found guilty... more than happy to see them banned from the game for two years to life.

I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.

There probably are deficiencies in the way the law handles cases of rape and domestic violence, but I'm not sure the NRL can deal with those. That has to be handled by the legal system and framework.
Image
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by The Nickman »

Green eyed Mick wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:06 pm
The Nickman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:38 pm
Pigman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:36 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
Life, mate. The NRL wants to make big their tough talk on this matter? It needs to be life.
You would have rubbed Joel Thompson out of the game? What about Inglis?

There has to be room for second chances, however given the money and access these players have to counselling and other supports, there should be no more chances after the first strike for crimes against women and children.
Yep, absolutely. If those blokes had been proven guilty of domestic violence they should absolutely have been wiped out for life.

I don't have biases when it comes to things like this. I wouldn't care if it was my favourite Raiders player, it's hypocritical of the NRL to talk such a touch stance and then deliver absolutely nothing.
User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Beejay »

Pigman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:36 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
How can you have a policy, whereby just an allegation gets you a ban... ?
That's outrageous.
It's also dangerous to put that out there so the public know what will happen. Someone just needs to allege something and a player gets stood down. Puts players at risk of blackmail way more than they already would be.
As we've discussed many times, players career's are very short on average. Imagine being out of the game for a year on a false allegation.
It hasn't been that long since the Brett Stewart saga, and I think we should remember the lessons learnt in that one. One of the worst possible examples of false allegation.

Secondly, most of the worst offenders we have in our game right at the moment were let back in. Most weren't playing NRL first grade while a case was in the courts. If we give life bans or longer term punishments, and make that policy known to the public and to players, then almost all of this issue is resolved.
The only one it wouldn't solve is Jack De Belin. And from the stories I have recently heard about him, he has been extremely reckless for a long time, and a charge like he has received has been a risk for a while. If there's a life ban on the table, I think that alone might change the culture and decision making.
User avatar
Beejay
John Ferguson
Posts: 2589
Joined: April 4, 2007, 4:47 pm
Location: Shellharbour

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Beejay »

The Nickman wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:29 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:06 pm
The Nickman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:38 pm
Pigman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:36 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
Life, mate. The NRL wants to make big their tough talk on this matter? It needs to be life.
You would have rubbed Joel Thompson out of the game? What about Inglis?

There has to be room for second chances, however given the money and access these players have to counselling and other supports, there should be no more chances after the first strike for crimes against women and children.
Yep, absolutely. If those blokes had been proven guilty of domestic violence they should absolutely have been wiped out for life.

I don't have biases when it comes to things like this. I wouldn't care if it was my favourite Raiders player, it's hypocritical of the NRL to talk such a touch stance and then deliver absolutely nothing.
I agree that domestic violence should get a life ban. We need to have a standard. If you hit a female I don't want to waste my time defending you.

HOWEVER, an argument I would have against it. One that has been hinted to by Greenburg in the past, is that we need to treat each case on it's merits.

The reason I say that is Kenny Edwards was found guilty of "common assault" of his partner. By definition Domestic Violence.
However him and his partner broke up and she went to the police about something that happened prior to their break up and they charged him with; "spraying his ex-partner with water and pouring alcohol over her last December".
"He was handed a six-month good behaviour bond, but no conviction, for the incident."


Now if you have a hard and fast rule to give life bans for domestic violence, he goes. For that.
And if you don't have a hard and fast rule, and you leave it up to being subjective, then what?
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by The Nickman »

Beejay wrote: December 17, 2018, 2:52 pm I agree that domestic violence should get a life ban. We need to have a standard. If you hit a female I don't want to waste my time defending you.

HOWEVER, an argument I would have against it. One that has been hinted to by Greenburg in the past, is that we need to treat each case on it's merits.

The reason I say that is Kenny Edwards was found guilty of "common assault" of his partner. By definition Domestic Violence.
However him and his partner broke up and she went to the police about something that happened prior to their break up and they charged him with; "spraying his ex-partner with water and pouring alcohol over her last December".
"He was handed a six-month good behaviour bond, but no conviction, for the incident."


Now if you have a hard and fast rule to give life bans for domestic violence, he goes. For that.
And if you don't have a hard and fast rule, and you leave it up to being subjective, then what?
Look, I honestly don't know, mate. All I know is that the NRL's public stance on this versus their actions is absolutely pathetic and disgraceful.

I do agree on your point about suspensions before anyone is proven guilty.
Gingerboy Dan
Gerry De La Cruz
Posts: 1
Joined: December 17, 2018, 3:27 pm

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Gingerboy Dan »

The Nickman wrote:God I love Alan Tongue, he's 100% spot on.

The NRL either needs to STFU about being an advocate to stopping domestic violence while they turn a blind eye to their players doing it, or they need to actually step up and start punishing blokes for life who perpetrate this ****.

Because right now they just look like a big bunch of hypocrites and it makes me angry every time I see the NRL speaking up about domestic violence. Either stand up and make a difference or go the **** back to the 20th Century.
I love the Tongue
Every team should have 17 of them?
And yes ban them losers for life.

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

HAPPY DAYZ TO YOU ALL

BLEED GREEN 4 LIFE
The Nickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 51016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by The Nickman »

Gingerboy Dan wrote: December 17, 2018, 3:35 pm
The Nickman wrote:God I love Alan Tongue, he's 100% spot on.

The NRL either needs to STFU about being an advocate to stopping domestic violence while they turn a blind eye to their players doing it, or they need to actually step up and start punishing blokes for life who perpetrate this ****.

Because right now they just look like a big bunch of hypocrites and it makes me angry every time I see the NRL speaking up about domestic violence. Either stand up and make a difference or go the **** back to the 20th Century.
I love the Tongue
Every team should have 17 of them?
And yes ban them losers for life.

Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
GBD!!!!!
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by T_R »

greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:23 pm
I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.
I'd be very comfortable challenging it in court.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16592
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by gangrenous »

The Nickman wrote:God I love Alan Tongue, he's 100% spot on.

The NRL either needs to STFU about being an advocate to stopping domestic violence while they turn a blind eye to their players doing it, or they need to actually step up and start punishing blokes for life who perpetrate this ****.

Because right now they just look like a big bunch of hypocrites and it makes me angry every time I see the NRL speaking up about domestic violence. Either stand up and make a difference or go the **** back to the 20th Century.
Hear, hear
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13407
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Green eyed Mick »

greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:23 pm I don't think anyone is talking about banning players found not guilty of domestic violence. Inglis and Thompson were found not guilty. Any player found guilty... more than happy to see them banned from the game for two years to life.

I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.

There probably are deficiencies in the way the law handles cases of rape and domestic violence, but I'm not sure the NRL can deal with those. That has to be handled by the legal system and framework.
Being stood down with pay is pretty common across lots of industries when employees face serious criminal charges.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by T_R »

Green eyed Mick wrote:
greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:23 pm I don't think anyone is talking about banning players found not guilty of domestic violence. Inglis and Thompson were found not guilty. Any player found guilty... more than happy to see them banned from the game for two years to life.

I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.

There probably are deficiencies in the way the law handles cases of rape and domestic violence, but I'm not sure the NRL can deal with those. That has to be handled by the legal system and framework.
Being stood down with pay is pretty common across lots of industries when employees face serious criminal charges.
Have a look at the case law on it. If there's no material impact on your work, courts will rule with the employee.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

Beejay wrote: December 17, 2018, 2:37 pm
Pigman wrote: December 17, 2018, 12:36 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote: December 16, 2018, 11:04 am Paid suspension while the justice system does it's thing but after that suspensions and even life time bans need to be on the cards.
Agreed. Think this is the way to go.
Paid suspension, allow the clubs to a % of their salary to spend on a replacement for the duration of the legal proceedings, and if found guilty, minimum 2 year ban, to life ban pending severity of the incident.
How can you have a policy, whereby just an allegation gets you a ban... ?
That's outrageous.
It's not, they'll be getting paid, if the claim is proven to be false, they've done nothing but miss out on some footy, they'll have all their money.
Im not a guy who gives the faintest **** players who are wrongly accused missing some FOOTBALL games... the important issue and message here is to support the victims. So you can miss me with your outrage.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

T_R wrote: December 17, 2018, 4:57 pm
greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:23 pm
I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.
I'd be very comfortable challenging it in court.
Pretty rare that courts interfere with competitions like this policies. Granted they dont get challenged often. But other codes have figured this out, the NFL as an example... it may need some altering of standard contract language, and there for require 4-5 years to really take full effect...

I dont know much about the law, maybe there is something in australian law that prohibits the NRL doing things the way the NFL has done, but the NFL have it collectively bargained and written in their contract that the governing body of the sport holds the right to discipline, which has been challenged a number of times in high profile circumstances and the courts have always favoured the NFL based on their right being collectively bargained and as part of the... i guess... terms and conditions of being an NFL employee...
and if the NRL can legally do that, I'd think they should.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by T_R »

I look forward to The Pigman Defence, the only time in the history of the British Empire and what it became that corporate policies over-rode legislation, and that people could contract away their legislative responsibilities.

I hope they get Tom Cruise to play you in the Disney movie, but the Tom Cruise from A Few Good Men, not the weird one who jumps on couches and talks about aliens.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

T_R wrote: December 17, 2018, 7:31 pm I look forward to The Pigman Defence, the only time in the history of the British Empire and what it became that corporate policies over-rode legislation, and that people could contract away their legislative responsibilities.

I hope they get Tom Cruise to play you in the Disney movie, but the Tom Cruise from A Few Good Men, not the weird one who jumps on couches and talks about aliens.
MEEEEEEEEEOW!
Retract your claws, if you dont mind!

Haha! I said i dont know. Im not pretending to be some expert here, im just i am painfully aware that another code has managed to figure this out and allow the code to essentially be Judge, Jury and Executioner in relation to discipline.
If the NRL is able to do that, and again, maybe they can't, the laws of this country are obviously different to the USA, but if they can legally do that, it's what they should be working towards IMO.
If they can't, they can't. They'll have to figure something else out.
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by T_R »

I'd have settled for Brad Pitt, but I feel he lacks the intensity the role would require.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13407
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Green eyed Mick »

T_R wrote: December 17, 2018, 6:58 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote:
greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:23 pm I don't think anyone is talking about banning players found not guilty of domestic violence. Inglis and Thompson were found not guilty. Any player found guilty... more than happy to see them banned from the game for two years to life.

I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.

There probably are deficiencies in the way the law handles cases of rape and domestic violence, but I'm not sure the NRL can deal with those. That has to be handled by the legal system and framework.
Being stood down with pay is pretty common across lots of industries when employees face serious criminal charges.
Have a look at the case law on it. If there's no material impact on your work, courts will rule with the employee.
How do you define material?

If the other players refuse to play with a player due to the nature of criminal allegations, would that be material?

What if you couldn't send a player within 100metres of a school due to alleged criminal conduct?

What if the female physio and doctor refuse to be in the same room alone with a player because of multiple allegations of violent sexual assault?

Personally, I think it all depends on the nature of the charges and what the NRL and the club is willing to tolerate.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

T_R wrote: December 17, 2018, 7:46 pm I'd have settled for Brad Pitt, but I feel he lacks the intensity the role would require.
Tiriel Mora or Karl Pilkington would be my desired options.
You're role can be played by Rob Schneider
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145112
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by greeneyed »

I was going to ask what is the NFL's policy? But I googled it and came up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... uct_policy

Some of the suspensions for the crimes seem laughably light.

I see (assuming Wikipedia is correct) that the NFL has a policy of six weeks suspension for a first case of domestic violence and a life ban for a second. But that the average suspension for domestic violence is 1.5 matches. Has any NFL player been banned for life? Couldn't see an example from my quick scan. I'm also not clear if suspension hangs on a conviction or not.
Image
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 7:57 pm I was going to ask what is the NFL's policy? But I googled it and came up with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... uct_policy

Some of the suspensions for the crimes seem laughably light.

I see (assuming Wikipedia is correct) that the NFL has a policy of six weeks suspension for a first case of domestic violence and a life ban for a second. But that the average suspension for domestic violence is 1.5 matches. Has any NFL player been banned for life? Couldn't see an example from my quick scan. I'm also not clear if suspension hangs on a conviction or not.
My point isnt really the the length of the suspensions... more that they've figured out a way to make it that they are the sole arbitrators of it. They've been challenged in court recently by Tom Brady and Zeke Elliott and their punishments have been held up ultimately.
Again, no idea if there is something in Aus law that would prohibit this, case in point a draft, which ive been told would (as it was before by Terry Hill?) thrown out in australian courts but is totally legal in the US... but ultimately the NFL have figured out a way where they are able to do as they please... some view this as a negative, i see it as a positive
User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 17276
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by T_R »

Green eyed Mick wrote:
T_R wrote: December 17, 2018, 6:58 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote:
greeneyed wrote: December 17, 2018, 1:23 pm I don't think anyone is talking about banning players found not guilty of domestic violence. Inglis and Thompson were found not guilty. Any player found guilty... more than happy to see them banned from the game for two years to life.

I'm not sure how practical it is to suspend/ban players who are charged. Which offences would attract suspension, before a player stands trial? What happens if they are found not guilty? The NRL would have suspended a player found not guilty in the eyes of the law. And the legal system is supposed to have a presumption of innocence.

There probably are deficiencies in the way the law handles cases of rape and domestic violence, but I'm not sure the NRL can deal with those. That has to be handled by the legal system and framework.
Being stood down with pay is pretty common across lots of industries when employees face serious criminal charges.
Have a look at the case law on it. If there's no material impact on your work, courts will rule with the employee.
How do you define material?

If the other players refuse to play with a player due to the nature of criminal allegations, would that be material?

What if you couldn't send a player within 100metres of a school due to alleged criminal conduct?

What if the female physio and doctor refuse to be in the same room alone with a player because of multiple allegations of violent sexual assault?

Personally, I think it all depends on the nature of the charges and what the NRL and the club is willing to tolerate.
I dont define it; the courts do.

And yes, by definition it depends on the nature of the alleged offence.

Honestly, I don't know enough about it to speculate on the specific examples, but restrictions would be based on legalities rather the work prefrences of other employees...so, maybe in the case of a child sex offence if restrictions imposed as bail conditions limited contact with certain people or places, but not likely based on objections of team mates and support staff. But I'm very out of date on this stuff and you should seek independent legal advice before beating people up outside nightclubs.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

Re: NFL players banned for life

Ray Rice hasnt played a down of football since his suspension, but it was never a life ban by punishment. A lot of players have been cut for this kind of thing and never again seen the light of day on NFL rosters, most of them bums who probably didnt have a future in the sport anyways, but as it often said by Andrew Brandt, with greater talent comes greater tolerance...

Reuben Foster and Kareem Hunt are high profile players to keep an eye on in this front. But one thing is clear, as far as the courts go over there... they've ultimately sided with the NFL on all matters of discipline. Ultimately the courts have agreed the NFL, and Commissioner have a collectively bargained right to apply discipline as they see fit.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145112
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by greeneyed »

On the legality of a draft in Australia... we've gone through the academic literature on this and we know, in the right circumstances, a draft is legal. That's why the AFL has one. Restraint of trade is possible, if it can be proved that the restraints are reasonable and in the public interest - eg. for the proper running of a sporting code, which seeks to make all teams competitive.
Image
User avatar
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 42014
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Elliott Whitehead

Re: Time to get tough: Tongue

Post by Botman »

Hah, see this is what i mean... i know **** all about law, i dont pretend too
Im just a layperson who follows another code in another country who has figured out a few things i think the NRL DESPERATELY needs... and then there is the AFL too

I mean this earnestly, I dont understand why the NRL can't figure out a lot of the problems they have, be it TPA's, Salary Caps, Drafts, Discipline, Expansion, etc al.
Feels like this code can be run and administered way better, and this whole issue feels like just another example of it.
Post Reply