Yeah as I said, the way the whole C Scott saga played out changed the way I perceived early news of Starling completely. Prior experience shapes the way we perceive and react to events- that's human nature.gergreg wrote: ↑February 20, 2021, 10:02 am
You've been riding Curtis since day one. Interesting to read that you have given Starling the benefit of the doubt with his incident but haven't afforded the same for Curtis - despite both cases being thrown out of court and absolutely no proof of what occurred leading up to the police arriving on the scene for either case.
Part of the point I'm trying to make (and we are just expressing opinions here, not arguing) why should the Raiders be the the 'line in sand' moments where we accept punishment from the NRL, yet six months later the NRL punishes players with a feather.
Sure it is difficult to compare different incidents that these boofheads get themselves into but the NRL clearly needs to be better. I remember saying quite a few years ago that the NRL needs to have some clear guides on what sort of penalty applies to different incidents. Like I said it is difficult because everything is different but fans, clubs and players need something to help understand how these decisions/punishments are decided upon. I think they were heading in the right direction with the 'no fault' stand down but needed to go a bit further.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
I do have to balance that I'm not that excited about Scott's potential as a player- just what I've seen I think Timoko or HSS have shown more in very limited games than Scott shown in quite a few opportunities. That's not disdain though, playing talent is a separate issue for mine.
Perhaps the NRL could grade off field similar to foul play. Disrepute to the game; damage to the game, something like that. It'll always get murky though as each case gets raked over.