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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- NRL, Rugby League
March 20th 2009 @ 1:23pm
Brendo said | March 20th 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Look it may be Friend’s 1st offence but it is certainly a big one he has committed and he is only 19. If he was 29 and it was his 1st offence at least you could make the argument that he has a good track record!
You can’t be flippant with people who get behind the wheel when they are drunk. They are a danger not only to themselves but more importantly other road users, pedestrians etc. Monetary fines have been shown to be an ineffective deterrent to players in the past, so I can’t see how $10K fine is enough punishment in this instance.
IF he isn’t able to think clearly all the more reason not to attempt driving!
March 20th 2009 @ 1:30pm
benicio said | March 20th 2009 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
I’m not being flippant at all – but how many times do you have to pay for the one crime…???
Instance A – $10,000 fine by his club – finished? just getting started.
Instance B – 2 game suspension by NRL – finished? not in the least.
Presumably….
Instance C – court fine – finished? just about.
Instance D – driving suspension – finished? yep, that should do it.
Enough said.
March 20th 2009 @ 1:45pm
Hoy said | March 20th 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
Steady on, Benicio. I was trying to see both sides, and obviously failed seeing either in your eyes.
I don’t think I contradicted myself in my first comment, thank you very much. I was seeing both the positives and negatives of the blanket policy I for one, would like to see the NRL adopt with these cases now coming thick and fast.
“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.” What difference does that make?
IF they bring in the blanket policy of charging and banning miscreants for disrepute, then players will no doubt try to slime out of it, and be supported by people such as yourself, by possibly saying your worst ever excuse of “I am not the face of the NRL, therefore I cannot be charged with disrepute.”, or whatever.
My second one came from say when a player is done with a breathalyser at training, and is stood down, and then makes the papers because he was stood down. Is that disrepute? That is the catch 22 I was thinking of.
March 20th 2009 @ 2:41pm
benicio said | March 20th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
The difference it makes is in a monetary cost to the NRL for one. Think if you had spent a substantial amount of money promoting your product or service, only for the face of that campaigns to be splashed all over the papers for the wrong reasons. And then you have to go and re-cut the whole campaign. You wouldn’t be a happy camper, would you? So I saw the Stewart suspension as the NRL’s show of frustration after going through that process.
There shouldn’t be a blanket policy for anything. Note that Brett Seymour was not punished by the NRL, as they saw Cronulla’s punishment as suitable. The game will be in a much worse state if the clubs do not feel empowered to do anything. That is the last thing I want to see.
I did not offer that as an excuse. That is the point of differentiation in the cases, the finer points of the behaviour (without knowing the specifics) potentially aren’t that different.
If a player is breath tested at training and stood down – the media will find out why. The club will then impose some sort of sanction on the player for breaking club rules. The NRL should NOT touch that. It is a club sanction for breaking a club rule. The only damage has been to the training performance of that player and potentially, the club. In no way shape or form is that bringing the game into disrepute.
I haven’t read the specifics, but if Jake Friend was charged with bringing the game into disrepute – that is wrong. Ask the average joe in the street who Jake Friend is? No one knows. Ask the average joe in the street who Brett Stewart is? In Sydney, the vast majority will know. That is the difference. That is why Stewart was suspended by the NRL with bringing the game into disrepute and why the NRL has erred in adding a sanction to Jake Friend’s club penalty.
March 20th 2009 @ 3:07pm
Hoy said | March 20th 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
I think you tread a very very fine line in only adding sanction to the important players.
As you say, the finer points of behaviour potentially aren’t that different. So the sanction shouldn’t be that different.
March 21st 2009 @ 6:00pm
brad turner said | March 21st 2009 @ 6:00pm | Report comment
how many players does it take to get a point, a shit load it seems.
boys wake up and realise no matter what you think or whish, you are role models.
every thing comes at a price,and thats the way the cooky crumbles.