Why Friend and Seymour should be allowed to play
Roar Rookie
By benicio, 19 Mar 2009 benicio is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- NRL, Rugby League
In the media today there will be much debate about the presence of Jake Friend and Brett Seymour on their respective team sheets for this weekend’s game.
For those who have been living under a stone, the issue here is the absence of Brett Stewart’s name on the Manly team sheet, ostensibly for drunk and disorderly behaviour.
The sole reason why Friend and Seymour should be allowed to play is the fact they were not the face of the NRL marketing campaign.
Without having a seat at the NRL board table, it is difficult to know the full reasons behind their decision to suspend Stewart. However, my belief is that the marketing campaign was central to their decision.
Whilst I am not condoning the behaviour of Friend and Seymour, it must be viewed in perspective to the position of responsibility that Stewart found himself in.
You will hear cries of double standards from the Manly hierachy and certain media commentators, but the right decision has been made in regard to Stewart.
And the right decision in regard to Friend and Seymour would be to let the clubs deal with it and let the players play.
If the clubs decide that the players shouldn’t play, I don’t have an issue with that. My concern is from an NRL point of view.
We have not heard from Stewart, and nor will we until the outcome of the alleged assualt is decided by a court.
However, being put in such a lofty position by the league and then to abuse that position is the single reason for his ban by the NRL.
For the NRL to become over-bearing on the decision made by clubs and their boards would not be healthy for the game.
For Friend, a $10,000 fine has been slated by the Roosters. That penalty is definitely harsh enough for a 19 year-old first offender.
However, Seymour has a track record with a bottle in his hand, and the ball is in the Sharks court to handle that one first.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- Gallop and some of his precious Sydney NRL clubs must go (101)
- The NRL is back baby! (65)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- Bulldogs setting benchmark for Sydney’s NRL clubs (46)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (24)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (49)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (109)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Explore:
- NRL, Rugby League
sheek said | March 19th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Benicio,
The clubs are incapable of effectively policing their own players. If they paid a lot of money for a player to help them win a premiership, they are hardly going to suspend him. These matters must be controlled by the NRL, not the clubs.
What hurts a player is missing game time. Being fined is like having a mosquito bite. Missing games is like losing a limb. That’s what needs to happen – be suspended from playing ‘x’ number of matches.
Obviously players are not getting the message on drinking behaviour. I’m all for players being allowed to drink, & I think Fittler’s decision for the Roosters to have a bonding drink session was fine also. But this is where the clubs, coaches & senior players need to set the boundaries, & they’re not doing it.
Once the matter becomes public, it then becomes the property of the NRL to act. No sportsmen in any other sport in Australia behave to the same extent as the leagueies. It’s simply unacceptable.
If tough love isn’t administered, the players & the game will be the losers. Sponsors will walk & the lifeblood of the game will be lost. Making excuses is past, accept responsibility for your own behaviour & that of your players.
benicio said | March 19th 2009 @ 9:04am | Report comment
Sheek – I trust you have read of the Sharks decision to stand down Brett Seymour.
It comes down to an individual’s decision. No matter what the leadership was like from the Roosters, nothing can stop Jake Friend if he chose to walk out the back door of the pub and jump into his car. He wouldn’t be the first person in the world to do it. And for him then, as a 19yo., be fined $10,000 – that is substantial. A club may be in a far better position to judge what it will take to deter a player from similar behaviour in the future. A club may know that a financial penalty will hurt a player much more than not playing on the weekend. They will certainly be in a better position than the NRL too.
I completely disagree with your suggestion that once the matter becomes public it is the property of the NRL. When does it not become public? The media, and those with tall poppy syndrome in society, prey on incidents like this occurring. Incidents like this are able to justify the positions that media & social commentators hold. The whole issue in this process is that the media become aware of it before the clubs and the NRL do, and then the balance of power is always guilty until proven innocent, and even if the player is proven innocent, they carry the stigma around with them for some time.
We are not talking about people walking away free here…
John Ryan said | March 19th 2009 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Both should be stood down if the clubs don’t do it the NRL should
sheek said | March 19th 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Well Benicio,
With being in the public eye comes responsibility. It’s the same with promotion. If people don’t want to accept responsibility, then don’t become a boss or public figure.
The media are always going to twist things, we know that. To them, it’s all about selling newspapers. Maximise the story. At the end of the day, the NRL is responsible for administering the game. They are well within their rights.
If the latest challenge by Stewart’s lawyer is successful, & I were Gallop, I might say out of sheer frustration & bloody mindedness -
“Okay, nobody, the players, clubs, officials, agents, lawyers, anybody, wants to accept responsibility for anything. It’s always somebody else’s fault, whether the media, society or whoever. Fine, do what you want. Run amok. Show no discipline. But when the sponsors desert you, & the money dries up for developing the game & paying the players, don’t come running to me”.
A great Pontius Pilate example!
Ian Jessup said | March 20th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Benicio, another apologist for little boys with low IQs acting like idiots.
The clubs are the LAST people who should decide punishment – they have proven themselves hopelessly compromised time and again. Their sole interest is winning games – and if that means picking rapists, thugs and serial drunks then that’s what they’ll do.
Stewart was not suspended for the assault allegation but for the fact he went on a bender in public just hours after telling Channel Nine that players had to be good role models and watch themselves when out and about.
It’s the total rugby league culture that must change. I fear we won’t be able to because of the large percentage of d*ckheads who spoil it for those people of all backgrounds and ethnicities and IQs and suburbs who just want to watch elite athletes play a fast, clean, skilful game.
That is why week to week thr NRL is a cricus but Origin is the showcase – no one can afford to mess up or drop their guard even 5% in the big ones.
Hoy said | March 20th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
What happened to Freddie’s drinking ban from last year? Didn’t it work, so he threw in the towel and allowed them to drink?
Double standards are no good for anyone. What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. I don’t care if Stewart was the face of whatever, if he is gone, so is anyone up on the same charge, and by charge, I mean the NRL reason, whatever that was (eg. bringing the game into disrepute).
If that was the charge, then anyone boozed should be done for the same thing, and sent for 4 games. Have it in an NRL contract, when you register a player. Black and white. IF you bring the game into disrepute, then you are gone minimum 4 games.
Then the grey area is disrepute. Brett Seymour didn’t really do anything wrong except have a big night, and possibly wet his pants. Yet some asshole has film of it, and so everyone screams foul. What exactly did he do wrong legally? Does that then constitute disrepute?
Ian Jessup said | March 20th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
The scene … the Cronulla season launch at Miranda’s …
Hoy, here at Cronulla we are most grateful to have you on board as a major sponsor. Times are tough but your generosity will help us get through and hopefully improve on our top four placing last year.
We take great pride in being the club of the Shire and the boys are a great bunch of blokes.
Now, I’d like you to meet our big signing Brett Seymour. He was here a minute ago … oh there he is .. outside on the footpath, passed out with no shirt on and covered in vomit.
I’d call that disrepute.
Hoy said | March 20th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Then that is all you need to squash the grey area. I am just playing Devil’s advocate here. It is not as simple as people think I don’t reckon.
I am not excusing the behaviour, I am saying that people will push the limits, and when caught with their pants down and covered in vomit, they will squeal and say that what they did does not constitute disrepute because no laws were broken etc.
What will happen then about those that are boozed but don’t make the papers? Is that then disrepute? And by charging them, it then makes the papers, so a catch 22 happens.
Brendo said | March 20th 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Benicio
I don’t agree with your assessment of Friend’s punishment, I believe he got off lightly with only a 2 match ban. He was charged with a high range DUI offence, this is a criminal matter! Very different from Seymour’s stupidity in Cronulla.
Sure he is 19 yrs old but having had that much to drink he would have know that he was over the legal limit and getting a taxi, or a friend to pick him was the sensible course of action.
benicio said | March 20th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Gents,
Some of the comments make me laugh. Let me address them one by one…
Ian – I am not an apologist – at no stage did I excuse their actions. I merely stated why I believe that they should be allowed to play football this weekend.
Your second comment is null and void seeing that Cronulla decided on a punishment for Seymour that the NRL agreed with. Along with this, the Roosters released a statement in response to the NRL’s ban of Friend saying ‘we thought the $10,000 fine was the right way to deal with the player.’ That is my whole point on that one. The NRL don’t know a player, his psyche or anything – so how do they know what will act as a deterrent?? If a club is too light with their punishment – fine, the NRL can overrule. But a $10,000 fine for a 19yo. is definitely enough for his offence.
Hoy – are you serious?? You completely contradict yourself in your first comment…
And as for your second one, these cases always make the papers. It is the whole tall poppy syndrome. If a person in society sees someone of note these things are always going to be in the papers, on the internet, wherever. Ben Cousins was charged by the AFL with bringing the game into disrepute and hasn’t broken a law? For god sake, he still hasn’t even returned a positive sample to a test – so give me a break.
Brendo – ‘lightly’ – with a two match ban? it is the blokes first offence. It is of minimal consequence that it is a criminal offence. He will face that side of punishment in a court of law. My opinion is that should be left out of it. $10,000 was enough. He is probably on a contract of $50-$60k a year – so he has lost 15-20% of that. And since when does anyone think that clearly when they are drunk?