NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

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

Moderator: GH Moderators

Locked
User avatar
Luffto
Sam Backo
Posts: 188
Joined: August 12, 2016, 2:45 pm
Favourite Player: Pigman

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Luffto »

Hot tip Zim, it'll end up ****
User avatar
zim
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10639
Joined: July 8, 2015, 3:38 pm
Favourite Player: NRL: Joseph Tapine
NRLW: Grace Kemp
Location: Sydney

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by zim »

Luffto wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:43 pm Hot tip Zim, it'll end up ****
Most likely :lol: .
We imposed proper penalties back when the NRL didn't really care then we decided to scale it all back when the NRL does care.
User avatar
hrundi89
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1811
Joined: January 25, 2007, 10:33 pm
Favourite Player: Jarrod Croker
Location: Sydney

Re: Jack Wighton pleads guilty to assault charges

Post by hrundi89 »

raiderskater wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:41 pm
scotchberry wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:01 pm
raiderskater wrote: July 13, 2018, 3:10 pm
scotchberry wrote: July 13, 2018, 2:13 pm
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.
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 -
He forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.

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.
**** off, it's not only a disputed fact, the fact that he wasn't charged doesn't mean he's innocent at all.

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?
Perhaps she didn't want to press charges...?
You may remember me from such forum usernames as hrundi99 and... hrundi99.
scotchberry
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1142
Joined: February 25, 2013, 5:08 pm
Favourite Player: laurie daley

Re: Jack Wighton pleads guilty to assault charges

Post by scotchberry »

zim wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:37 pm
scotchberry wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:01 pm
raiderskater wrote: July 13, 2018, 3:10 pm
scotchberry wrote: July 13, 2018, 2:13 pm
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.
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 -
He forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.

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.
What 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.
If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

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.
User avatar
Luffto
Sam Backo
Posts: 188
Joined: August 12, 2016, 2:45 pm
Favourite Player: Pigman

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Luffto »

You know who you have to justify your opinion to scotchberry? God.
raiderskater
Jason Croker
Posts: 4908
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

Post by raiderskater »

scotchberry wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:54 pm
zim wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:37 pm
scotchberry wrote: July 13, 2018, 4:01 pm
raiderskater wrote: July 13, 2018, 3:10 pm
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 -
He forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.

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.
What 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.
If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

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.
Gee, it's almost like the justice system has flaws or something.

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)
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

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.
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

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.
edwahu

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by edwahu »

So we can't really claim to take a hard line on players if in reality they walked out on us.
Green eyed Mick
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

Post by Green eyed Mick »

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.
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.
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by greeneyed »

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 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.
Image
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by gerg »

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
User avatar
gerg
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12613
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by gerg »

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.
Shoving it in your face since 2017
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by greeneyed »

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
Image
User avatar
Lucy
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1258
Joined: June 24, 2017, 8:47 pm
Favourite Player: Tarps

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Lucy »

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

Green eyed Mick
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

Post by Green eyed Mick »

I don't know what outcome the Raiders were seeking but from my perspective, things look to have worked out pretty well.
Timbo
David Furner
Posts: 3763
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

Post by Timbo »

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.
Yeah. Me too.
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is just the train that's about to hit you.
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by gangrenous »

Very disappointed in all parties.

Bunch of morons all round.
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

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.
I highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.

The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

edwahu wrote: July 13, 2018, 5:30 pm So we can't really claim to take a hard line on players if in reality they walked out on us.
I think there is some truth to that.
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

greeneyed wrote: July 13, 2018, 5:38 pm
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 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.
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.
User avatar
afgtnk
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10712
Joined: April 7, 2007, 1:45 am
Favourite Player: Crotic

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by afgtnk »

10 games is still pretty light for his disgusting behaviour IMO.

Club and Jack need to cop it on the chin.
User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by -TW- »

afgtnk wrote:10 games is still pretty light for his disgusting behaviour IMO.

Club and Jack need to cop it on the chin.
Agreed, they could have easily sat him for 2019 as well
User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 145095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by greeneyed »

Bay53 wrote:
greeneyed wrote: July 13, 2018, 5:38 pm
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 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.
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.
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.

Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Image
User avatar
BJ
Steve Walters
Posts: 7687
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by BJ »

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
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.
User avatar
Lucy
Brett Mullins
Posts: 1258
Joined: June 24, 2017, 8:47 pm
Favourite Player: Tarps

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Lucy »

BJ wrote:
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
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.
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.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Green eyed Mick
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

Post by Green eyed Mick »

Bay53 wrote: July 13, 2018, 6:33 pm
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.
I highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.

The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.
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.

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.
User avatar
BadnMean
Steve Walters
Posts: 7594
Joined: May 13, 2013, 5:30 pm
Favourite Player: chicka

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by BadnMean »

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.
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.

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.
cat
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12444
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

Post by cat »

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

Vaccinated
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by RedRaider »

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.
Westsydneyraider
Alan Tongue
Posts: 674
Joined: February 10, 2016, 2:45 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Westsydneyraider »

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 !!
Last edited by Westsydneyraider on July 13, 2018, 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by -TW- »

There's disagreeing with an opinion and there's calling out factual untruths..

There's a big difference
User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16586
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by gangrenous »

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.
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

Green eyed Mick wrote: July 13, 2018, 7:40 pm
Bay53 wrote: July 13, 2018, 6:33 pm
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.
I highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.

The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.
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.

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.
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.
Bay53
Steve Walters
Posts: 7533
Joined: March 11, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

Post by Bay53 »

BadnMean wrote: July 13, 2018, 8:44 pm
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.
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.

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.
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.

I agree the courts would never impose that sort of monetary penalty.
Locked