NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Moderator: GH Moderators
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Hot tip Zim, it'll end up ****
- hrundi89
- Brett Mullins
- Posts: 1817
- Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
- Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
- Location: Sydney
Re: Jack Wighton pleads guilty to assault charges
Perhaps she didn't want to press charges...?raiderskater wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:41 pm**** off, it's not only a disputed fact, the fact that he wasn't charged doesn't mean he's innocent at all.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:01 pmraiderskater wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 3:10 pmHe forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 2:13 pmYou can’t go around stating this sort of stuff. The whole damn police force would off seen this video and he was never charged with Sexual Assault -raiderskater wrote: ↑July 11, 2018, 11:23 am
I keep seeing people use this argument and it's annoying the **** out of me.
1. It wasn't just the dog photo. In the same video he sexually assaults a woman and urinates on her couch.
2. It was also not his first offence and just another entry in a long line of idiot behaviours for him.
3. Are we forgetting that Pearce was lauded as some kind of tragic redemption hero while Monaghan (clean rap sheet, no priors, etc, etc) was exiled to England because the NRL told the Raiders "he can jump or we'll push him"?
So no, Pearce wasn't suspended six weeks for "faking a dog photo".
I'm interested in Kent's remark, which seems polar opposite to everything else so far, and I wonder why. Kent doesn't generally mince words about idiots.
Do we want to split hairs here because I'm pretty sure that falls under the definition of sexual assault.
The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.
If anything the fact that he was never charged speaks to the eternal problems with getting sexual crimes charged in our justice system and not that he didn't do it
there's video evidence of him forcing himself on her. But apparently we can't call that what it is?
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
-
- Brett Mullins
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: February 25, 2013, 5:08 pm
- Favourite Player: laurie daley
Re: Jack Wighton pleads guilty to assault charges
If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?zim wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:37 pmWhat an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:01 pmraiderskater wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 3:10 pmHe forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 2:13 pmYou can’t go around stating this sort of stuff. The whole damn police force would off seen this video and he was never charged with Sexual Assault -raiderskater wrote: ↑July 11, 2018, 11:23 am
I keep seeing people use this argument and it's annoying the **** out of me.
1. It wasn't just the dog photo. In the same video he sexually assaults a woman and urinates on her couch.
2. It was also not his first offence and just another entry in a long line of idiot behaviours for him.
3. Are we forgetting that Pearce was lauded as some kind of tragic redemption hero while Monaghan (clean rap sheet, no priors, etc, etc) was exiled to England because the NRL told the Raiders "he can jump or we'll push him"?
So no, Pearce wasn't suspended six weeks for "faking a dog photo".
I'm interested in Kent's remark, which seems polar opposite to everything else so far, and I wonder why. Kent doesn't generally mince words about idiots.
Do we want to split hairs here because I'm pretty sure that falls under the definition of sexual assault.
The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.
Ill have a zzzz while you come up with an answer to that question.
I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.
Last edited by scotchberry on July 13, 2018, 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
You know who you have to justify your opinion to scotchberry? God.
-
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4923
- Joined: July 26, 2015, 8:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Croker, Cotric, Sezer
- Location: The Land of Lime Green
Re: Jack Wighton pleads guilty to assault charges
Gee, it's almost like the justice system has flaws or something.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:54 pmIf there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?zim wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:37 pmWhat an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 4:01 pmraiderskater wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 3:10 pmHe forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.scotchberry wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 2:13 pm
You can’t go around stating this sort of stuff. The whole damn police force would off seen this video and he was never charged with Sexual Assault -
Do we want to split hairs here because I'm pretty sure that falls under the definition of sexual assault.
The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.
I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.
You stated that if he wasn't charged then he was innocent - and that is patently untrue.
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
It would be nice if people had a better understanding of history.
Todd Carney was not sacked by the Raiders for his final indiscretions. He attended a meeting in 2010 where a punishment was determined including that he wouldn't play for the rest of the season and he would have to give up drinking. If he had accepted that punishment, he could well still be with the club. He chose not to accept that so the club was given no choice but to sack him.
Similarly with Josh Dugan, after the breezers on the roof incident, he was asked to attend a meeting. He chose not to attend. Again the club had no choice but to sack him.
Blake Ferguson played again after his indecent assault charge. He then decided he wanted to leave the Raiders after Dave Furner was sacked as their was a clause in his contract. Except he leave at the end of the season, he didn't turn up from that point. Again, if someone doesn't turn up, you don't have much choice but to sack them.
I get the feeling the board has very different feelings about Wighton. They feel that he has generally been well behaved and this is a once off, despite the fact it is a very serious once off. They also feel that he will accept the punishment the courts and the club gives him. Probably most importantly, unlike the other 3, he is not considered a disruptive influence on the team and any decision to retain him, will not be met with any disagreement from the playing group.
Todd Carney was not sacked by the Raiders for his final indiscretions. He attended a meeting in 2010 where a punishment was determined including that he wouldn't play for the rest of the season and he would have to give up drinking. If he had accepted that punishment, he could well still be with the club. He chose not to accept that so the club was given no choice but to sack him.
Similarly with Josh Dugan, after the breezers on the roof incident, he was asked to attend a meeting. He chose not to attend. Again the club had no choice but to sack him.
Blake Ferguson played again after his indecent assault charge. He then decided he wanted to leave the Raiders after Dave Furner was sacked as their was a clause in his contract. Except he leave at the end of the season, he didn't turn up from that point. Again, if someone doesn't turn up, you don't have much choice but to sack them.
I get the feeling the board has very different feelings about Wighton. They feel that he has generally been well behaved and this is a once off, despite the fact it is a very serious once off. They also feel that he will accept the punishment the courts and the club gives him. Probably most importantly, unlike the other 3, he is not considered a disruptive influence on the team and any decision to retain him, will not be met with any disagreement from the playing group.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
So we can't really claim to take a hard line on players if in reality they walked out on us.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Carney and those other two jack asses had their chances to pull their heads in and chose not to. Wighton looks to be choosing a different path and I am more than happy to give him and the club the BOD.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:10 pm It would be nice if people had a better understanding of history.
Todd Carney was not sacked by the Raiders for his final indiscretions. He attended a meeting in 2010 where a punishment was determined including that he wouldn't play for the rest of the season and he would have to give up drinking. If he had accepted that punishment, he could well still be with the club. He chose not to accept that so the club was given no choice but to sack him.
Similarly with Josh Dugan, after the breezers on the roof incident, he was asked to attend a meeting. He chose not to attend. Again the club had no choice but to sack him.
Blake Ferguson played again after his indecent assault charge. He then decided he wanted to leave the Raiders after Dave Furner was sacked as their was a clause in his contract. Except he leave at the end of the season, he didn't turn up from that point. Again, if someone doesn't turn up, you don't have much choice but to sack them.
I get the feeling the board has very different feelings about Wighton. They feel that he has generally been well behaved and this is a once off, despite the fact it is a very serious once off. They also feel that he will accept the punishment the courts and the club gives him. Probably most importantly, unlike the other 3, he is not considered a disruptive influence on the team and any decision to retain him, will not be met with any disagreement from the playing group.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
You can't have a player playing once he admits guilt to multiple charges of assault and one of public urination. That's unfortunate for Jack, the club and the fans, but there would rightly be a huge public outcry if the club and NRL did not immediately stand him down. These are serious charges. The club and NRL shouldn't have made a final pronouncement until sentencing is over, as this prejudices the sentencing hearing, IMO. But they have... and frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the NRL wanted a ban for the rest of the season. Actually, it's a pretty good deal. The club looks like it has not taken the offences seriously by announcing a six week suspension and I'm disappointed in them for that. We have a good record of treating these things seriously, up to now.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:02 pm I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I think part of the reason the club in particular wanted this sorted now was so when the court dishes out punishment the club can point out how he has already been punished by his employer. It also now gives him an opportunity to do some community work, again to minimise the court punishment.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I dont know how i feel about it. I wanted him sacked but its not right that he would just get another jersey thrown at him.
I long for the day when the NRL just tells these bozos to **** off and don't come back, ever, after committing a serious crime. The game doesn't need them.
I long for the day when the NRL just tells these bozos to **** off and don't come back, ever, after committing a serious crime. The game doesn't need them.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
NRL bans Raiders fullback Jack Wighton for 10 weeks
The Canberra Raiders have slammed the NRL's decision to come over the top and effectively ban fullback Jack Wighton for the rest of the season.
Wighton will miss 10 games, which means he'll only play again if the Raiders make the finals, and he was fined $30,000. He has five days to respond to the punishment for his involvement in a late-night Civic brawl in February, but it's unlikely they will appeal the decision.
Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/ ... 4zrd7.html
NRL overrules Raiders with 10-match ban, $30,000 fine for Wighton: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/ ... 4zrdn.html
The Canberra Raiders have slammed the NRL's decision to come over the top and effectively ban fullback Jack Wighton for the rest of the season.
Wighton will miss 10 games, which means he'll only play again if the Raiders make the finals, and he was fined $30,000. He has five days to respond to the punishment for his involvement in a late-night Civic brawl in February, but it's unlikely they will appeal the decision.
Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/ ... 4zrd7.html
NRL overrules Raiders with 10-match ban, $30,000 fine for Wighton: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/ ... 4zrdn.html
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Well, they can slam the NRL all they want. Reality is Jack slammed his victims and when you act like a goose, you get punished.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I don't know what outcome the Raiders were seeking but from my perspective, things look to have worked out pretty well.
-
- David Furner
- Posts: 3764
- Joined: January 6, 2005, 9:42 pm
- Favourite Player: Hudson Young
- Location: Here
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Yeah. Me too.gergreg wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:48 pm I dont know how i feel about it. I wanted him sacked but its not right that he would just get another jersey thrown at him.
I long for the day when the NRL just tells these bozos to **** off and don't come back, ever, after committing a serious crime. The game doesn't need them.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is just the train that's about to hit you.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Very disappointed in all parties.
Bunch of morons all round.
Bunch of morons all round.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.gergreg wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:45 pm I think part of the reason the club in particular wanted this sorted now was so when the court dishes out punishment the club can point out how he has already been punished by his employer. It also now gives him an opportunity to do some community work, again to minimise the court punishment.
The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
That then means that someone who pleads not guilty and then if found guilty later on also has to be suspended for a minimum of 19 weeks. I agree it is never uncomplicated, clearly if a player admitted to murder he wouldn't be allowed to play before his sentencing (he would probably be remanded in custody anyway) but are we then going to say that anyone who has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge should be waiting until their court case is finished before playing. I don't think that is reasonable.greeneyed wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:38 pmYou can't have a player playing once he admits guilt to multiple charges of assault and one of public urination. That's unfortunate for Jack, the club and the fans, but there would rightly be a huge public outcry if the club and NRL did not immediately stand him down. These are serious charges. The club and NRL shouldn't have made a final pronouncement until sentencing is over, as this prejudices the sentencing hearing, IMO. But they have... and frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the NRL wanted a ban for the rest of the season. Actually, it's a pretty good deal. The club looks like it has not taken the offences seriously by announcing a six week suspension and I'm disappointed in them for that. We have a good record of treating these things seriously, up to now.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:02 pm I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
10 games is still pretty light for his disgusting behaviour IMO.
Club and Jack need to cop it on the chin.
Club and Jack need to cop it on the chin.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Agreed, they could have easily sat him for 2019 as wellafgtnk wrote:10 games is still pretty light for his disgusting behaviour IMO.
Club and Jack need to cop it on the chin.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
That’s unfortunate but the lesson is... if you want to play NRL, don’t get yourself involved in incidents like this. In any event, the NRL and club don’t agree and have decided on a punishment already. And it is the same outcome as waiting for sentencing. I think he’s been treated pretty favourably by the NRL really and the club should be considering themselves fortunate.Bay53 wrote:That then means that someone who pleads not guilty and then if found guilty later on also has to be suspended for a minimum of 19 weeks. I agree it is never uncomplicated, clearly if a player admitted to murder he wouldn't be allowed to play before his sentencing (he would probably be remanded in custody anyway) but are we then going to say that anyone who has pleaded guilty to a lesser charge should be waiting until their court case is finished before playing. I don't think that is reasonable.greeneyed wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:38 pmYou can't have a player playing once he admits guilt to multiple charges of assault and one of public urination. That's unfortunate for Jack, the club and the fans, but there would rightly be a huge public outcry if the club and NRL did not immediately stand him down. These are serious charges. The club and NRL shouldn't have made a final pronouncement until sentencing is over, as this prejudices the sentencing hearing, IMO. But they have... and frankly, I'm not at all surprised that the NRL wanted a ban for the rest of the season. Actually, it's a pretty good deal. The club looks like it has not taken the offences seriously by announcing a six week suspension and I'm disappointed in them for that. We have a good record of treating these things seriously, up to now.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:02 pm I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I just wish you held yourself to the same standard you expect from others. You act like a goose every day and never get punished.Captain Punish wrote:Well, they can slam the NRL all they want. Reality is Jack slammed his victims and when you act like a goose, you get punished.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I don't go around punching people unprovoked. I am an adult and respect people too much. Unlike Jack. And if I did, I'd expect to be punished accordingly.BJ wrote:I just wish you held yourself to the same standard you expect from others. You act like a goose every day and never get punished.Captain Punish wrote:Well, they can slam the NRL all they want. Reality is Jack slammed his victims and when you act like a goose, you get punished.
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
Our legal system should and will take into account what Jack has done and is doing between now and his sentencing, for better or worse.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 6:33 pmI highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.gergreg wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:45 pm I think part of the reason the club in particular wanted this sorted now was so when the court dishes out punishment the club can point out how he has already been punished by his employer. It also now gives him an opportunity to do some community work, again to minimise the court punishment.
The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.
IMO this has worked out well for the Raiders. The sentencing will barely raise an eyebrow if everything goes to plan and everyone will have moved on well before kick-off in 2019.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
That is an extraordinarily heavy financial penalty. I'd like to knew a single other case of assault where someone was fined 30k? The courts might give you 3k. I'd say 30k is considerable mount ON TOP of any court penalty still to come.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:02 pm I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
You might think it's all play money but smart players will have a lot of that money promised or intended. Yes they are wealthy but 30k will change most peoples year.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 12475
- Joined: April 1, 2008, 5:19 pm
- Favourite Player: Dane Tilse
- Location: Sydney
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
This whole episode in raiders history has bought out the worst and i mean in the fans not the club.
Please respect each others opinion, we all have strong opinions on this matter but the "high almighty and if you dont agree with me i will belittle you" approach from many members on this forum has been truly shocking and has made me embarrassed to be associated with this fan group.
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Please respect each others opinion, we all have strong opinions on this matter but the "high almighty and if you dont agree with me i will belittle you" approach from many members on this forum has been truly shocking and has made me embarrassed to be associated with this fan group.
Sent from my SM-G950F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Vaccinated
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
I can't help but think that Sticky's love for Jack has swayed the Board in its comments. First there was the obvious low end penalty the Board came up with. Now defiance of the NRL when they are the final arbiters of any Rugby League imposed penalty.
This has all the immature petulance of Sticky calling the Ref a cheat after losing a World Cup final.
At this point I agree with GEM. From a Raiders point of view to take 10 weeks in a season going nowhere fast is not such a bad deal. Depending on what the Courts decide we may well have Jack to start 2019. I would not be challenging this. The Club and its senior office holders should contemplate what a failed challenge may mean. Accept it and move on, preferably silently.
This has all the immature petulance of Sticky calling the Ref a cheat after losing a World Cup final.
At this point I agree with GEM. From a Raiders point of view to take 10 weeks in a season going nowhere fast is not such a bad deal. Depending on what the Courts decide we may well have Jack to start 2019. I would not be challenging this. The Club and its senior office holders should contemplate what a failed challenge may mean. Accept it and move on, preferably silently.
-
- Alan Tongue
- Posts: 680
- Joined: February 10, 2016, 2:45 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
The thing that really ticks me off ( and yes I may be biased ) is that the raiders have been by far and away the leaders when it comes to punishment through off field drama ( obviously unfortunately we have to )
We have released Monaghan, Dugan, Carney and fergo who all at the time were representative quality players. Not only that but several of those players released played AGAINST US THAT SAME YEAR !!! most notably Dugan for the dragons. Now the where the **** was the NRL then !!! We as a club were essentially being punished for having a strong stance on player behaviour and other clubs benefited from it.
If there was one club in this competition that should hold there head up high in regards to player punishment then it’s us.
YET - the nrl come over the top and to the best of my memory the only other time they have done this is with Brett Stewart and they were made to look like idiots ( more so ).
I understand that the circumstances are different in the sense that wighton has pleaded guilty and Stewart did not, however I do believe the fact that the nrl has come over the top of our club ( when we have IMO set the benchmark for what our club stands for ) is discusting !!!
The same competition banned the sharks players for less then half of that amount of time for peptides and don’t get me started on Matt lodge !!
We have released Monaghan, Dugan, Carney and fergo who all at the time were representative quality players. Not only that but several of those players released played AGAINST US THAT SAME YEAR !!! most notably Dugan for the dragons. Now the where the **** was the NRL then !!! We as a club were essentially being punished for having a strong stance on player behaviour and other clubs benefited from it.
If there was one club in this competition that should hold there head up high in regards to player punishment then it’s us.
YET - the nrl come over the top and to the best of my memory the only other time they have done this is with Brett Stewart and they were made to look like idiots ( more so ).
I understand that the circumstances are different in the sense that wighton has pleaded guilty and Stewart did not, however I do believe the fact that the nrl has come over the top of our club ( when we have IMO set the benchmark for what our club stands for ) is discusting !!!
The same competition banned the sharks players for less then half of that amount of time for peptides and don’t get me started on Matt lodge !!
Last edited by Westsydneyraider on July 13, 2018, 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
There's disagreeing with an opinion and there's calling out factual untruths..
There's a big difference
There's a big difference
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16706
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
The Sharks got less for peptides! they cheated to try and win games of football. Wighton assaulted 5 members of the public.
You’re right cat, there have been quite a lot of embarrassing things said by fans. They’ve pretty well all been in support of Wighton and the Raiders.
The handling of this is more likely to see me not renew my membership than even the diabolical madness that is Stuart’s coaching strategy.
You’re right cat, there have been quite a lot of embarrassing things said by fans. They’ve pretty well all been in support of Wighton and the Raiders.
The handling of this is more likely to see me not renew my membership than even the diabolical madness that is Stuart’s coaching strategy.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
They won’t take into account whether he got six or 10 weeks suspension. Agree they will take account Jack’s other actions, and it seems they have generally been pretty good which is the reason the club is determined to stand by him.Green eyed Mick wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 7:40 pmOur legal system should and will take into account what Jack has done and is doing between now and his sentencing, for better or worse.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 6:33 pmI highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.gergreg wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:45 pm I think part of the reason the club in particular wanted this sorted now was so when the court dishes out punishment the club can point out how he has already been punished by his employer. It also now gives him an opportunity to do some community work, again to minimise the court punishment.
The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.
IMO this has worked out well for the Raiders. The sentencing will barely raise an eyebrow if everything goes to plan and everyone will have moved on well before kick-off in 2019.
Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine
My question is does he still get paid his contract money during his suspension. At $15k a week he is still getting paid $150k (before tax obviously) for that period. Yes, he still has to go to work (training) but he is still well ahead for that period, despite that due to his actions he is not adding any value for the team. Of course he could be injured but we accept that is part of the game.BadnMean wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 8:44 pmThat is an extraordinarily heavy financial penalty. I'd like to knew a single other case of assault where someone was fined 30k? The courts might give you 3k. I'd say 30k is considerable mount ON TOP of any court penalty still to come.Bay53 wrote: ↑July 13, 2018, 5:02 pm I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.
I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.
The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.
In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.
I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?
I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?
On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.
You might think it's all play money but smart players will have a lot of that money promised or intended. Yes they are wealthy but 30k will change most peoples year.
I agree the courts would never impose that sort of monetary penalty.