By Gabriel Knowles
June 10th 2009 @ 2:33am
Related coverage
Are they soap stars or footy stars?
Michael Ennis in his usual position at the centre of a brawl during NRL Round 5, Bulldogs v Rabbitohs at Sydney Olympic Stadium, Monday, April 13, 2009. (AAP Image/Action Photographics, Colin Whelan)
To the outsider, it must often appear that rugby league is little more than a soap opera that just happens to contain some scenes in it where men in different coloured jerseys run around on a field.
Such is the apparent enthusiasm that many sectors of the media and fans have for the seemingly never ending stream of off-field dramas, it can be hard at times to remember it’s just a game.
It’s become so popular in Sydney that when an actual soapie in Home & Away star Jodi Gordon got herself in some trouble last week, it had nothing on the reaction that league scandals have received recently.
Already this week we’ve had the ongoing saga of the Tony Zappia story line, which seems to just keep rolling with more and more sensational sources and sensationalist reporting.
There are obviously some inconsistencies from both sides of the fence with this issue, but it isn’t being helped by the headline grabbing attempts of the Sydney media.
You have to feel for the Sharks players. They finally turn it around on the field, but the heat is still on the club thanks to those that should know better.
You also have to feel for Joel Clinton.
All the guy wanted to do was meet a women he met online for the first time in the privacy of his hotel room. Unfortunately for Clinton, that happens to be against club policy and now he finds himself $50,000 poorer for the experience.
Apparently Clinton’s misdemeanor attracts a far bigger fine than bringing the game into disrepute, as Darius Boyd, Karmichael Hunt and Sam Thaiday did last year after their toilet cubicle sex scandal.
In any case, it has to be asked if we really needed to know about why Clinton had been dropped?
Then there’s the swine flu panic that’s spreading faster than the actual virus itself around the NRL.
So far we’ve had the threat of matches being called off on game day, players being stood down from actually playing, despite being at the match, and what threat there has been appears to have been exacerbated by slow quarantine measures.
In amongst it all, the one player who does have the virus has been selected to play this Friday night.
Perhaps they should just call all the games off as a precaution.
It’s not as if anyone would notice.
Get Australia's best NRL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(18)
Andrew said | June 10th 2009 @ 8:29am | Report comment
It’s getting to be a bit of a joke. It’s not like other codes (ie AFL) don’t have the same amount of dramas with individual players though what is happening at Cronulla seems to be a spin off Soap Opera in itself, and Cronulla should be thankful that it is all being dragged up, because the change at that club needs to start at the top.
That said, all this focus has to be getting through to the players, as they come to grips that there high profile will be targeted in the media, and they will be held to higher moral standards than the rest of the population. A high price to pay for being a good player some would say, but they should feel privileged that the sport they play allows them to earn a living, and they have a responsibility to pay back the code for providing this to them, by acting sensibly and with discretion.
Redb said | June 10th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Zappia is a moron.
Clinton’s timing unfortunate (womens week, Matty Johns issue), 50 grand is way over the top.
At least the media aren’t totally biased against footballers, Gordon F^#$ing Ramsay is copping his fair share of ‘the treatment” taking the pressure off Richmond and Cronulla.
Redb
Michael C said | June 10th 2009 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Redb -
Gordon Ramsay just smells too much of a publicity stunt beat up by channel 9 – - this morning on the today show they just happened to have all this footage of him swearing his away through and around the station. Convenient really.
re community standards and the like – - I’m jsut waiting to see if people boycott the Chasers en mass, or, whether 2 weeks is enough time to forgive, forget and move on to the next ‘rent a scandal’.
Redb said | June 10th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
MC,
the difference is the Chasers stunt was unforgiveable the outrage real.
Redb
Finno said | June 10th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I really only have a passing interest in league but I have been a little more interested since the well published off field dramas. It is indeed a soap opera there seems to be an ever increasing amount of assults, rape charges, drug misuse and generally unacceptable behaviour . Just about every club has got a history of such things and it seem to infect every level, from CEOs to run of the mill players, to commentators of the game. Whilst im sure its an entertaining game on the field, off field dramas are far more interesting.
Andrew said | June 10th 2009 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I don’t know about Clinton’s fine being over the top. The club sets out regulations, which obviously in light of what occurred the season previous, meant they wanted to come down hard on players who can’t follow simple rules. If it has the right effect at the club, you will see less incidents as players start thinking about the possible results of there actions.
Not to mention that as it was a club sanctioned lodging, they would be held partly accountable for the actions of a player, and thats something no club needs.
Brett McKay said | June 10th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment
Andrew, i think Clinton’s fine is only being viewed as OTT when viewed alongside the Hunt/Thaiday/Boyd pub cubicle tryst last year (where the Broncos went ‘in-house’). Obviously since then, Brisbane have had a policy change, and have now made a very public statement.
Mind you, if the early rumours of Clinton being sacked eventuated, that would have been over the top!!
Terry Kidd said | June 10th 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
I’m happy for clubs to have policies but it has to be remembered that no policy can cover every possible circumstance. The policies should be seen as guidelines for player behaviour. In Clinton’s case there was no suggestion of bad behaviour, he and the lady just wanted to meet in private. I wonder what the Bronco’s stance would have been if Clinton had asked permission before the event? If it was ‘player free time’ with no club committments scheduled and Clinton had met her somewhere else, just as private, what then would have been their stance.
The players need guidelines but they also need a life. I foresee a very unhappy environment developing at the Broncos if they persist along these lines.
El Capitan said | June 10th 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Tezza,
It was more that Clinton was doing this the night before the game. a bit unprofessional you think?
Redb said | June 10th 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
I think it was OTT as a counter balance to the previous toilet tryst last year and the off field sex scandals this year. Clinton is being hung out to dry – it’s poor management made based on knee jerk decisions. it’s the price being paid for not properly dealing problems in the past.
Redb
Tom Alexander. said | June 10th 2009 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Nobody cares about this stuff anymore sections of the Print Media still fixated on this crap need to move on to other news this scandal ran out of steam a few weeks ago there’s now too much good footy happening to keep flogging this dead horse.
Terry Kidd said | June 10th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
Yeah, EC it was the night before the game but he wasn’t drinking and it wasn’t late. Where is the harm? Would the same be said if he had dinner in his room with his Mum? What was the rest of the squad doing …. having a beer in the bar? Which is the most unprofessional?
Ok, he broke the Bronco’s code but he didn’t bring the game into disrepute …… the reaction is a long way over the top for the Bronco’s.
Justin said | June 10th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Surely he can appeal the 50k, its bloody ridiculous to have to wear that. Its Cullen and the Broncos saying “see, look at me, I am doing the right thing” when it should have been a warning (if a clean record) or 5k. 50 thousand farking dollars is obscene.
Perhaps the Broncos are going to put it towards a legitimate womans charity
Andrew said | June 10th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Need a strong players association, but the NRL doesn’t have one, with the clubs really supplying the funds for it now (each club gives them $20K), there is a conflict of interest involved now.
If they had a strong players association, they could sit down and organise nominal penalties for infractions that would then be seen to be consistent across the league no matter who you are.
Timmypig said | June 10th 2009 @ 1:20pm | Report comment
Shame the bloke doesn’t have a fall back position. I’d have been tempted to tell them to ‘go @$&% themselves’ and torn up my contract.
He’s pretty quick for a big bloke …. you reckon the Waratahs would like him as a winger
?
OldManEmu said | June 10th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
$50,000.00 is a massive fine for a breach of employment contract; which is what this is at its heart. I think in the grand scheme of RL atrocities what Clinton is supposed to have done is right at the very minor end of the scale and the level of the fine is an obsolute and utter injustice. He is definitely being made to walk the plank for the atrocities of his club mates. I would be astounded if Clinton takes the fine lying down as it were. Bit hard to see him at the Broncos after this contract expires as well. All in all I would have to say, very poorly done Broncos.
Rob said | June 10th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Maybe I’m still seeing the smoke on the grassy knoll, but could there be other agendas at play? Better or more knowledgeable minds than mine would help but some things that spring to mind : are any TV or sponsorship deals up for grabs at the moment? is there a ploy to drive down the price? is any publicity good publicity? does this exposure(excuse the pun) generate interest? is it a way of damaging a code in the hope that a rival code gets a boost. Given how pathetic the whole coverage has been I can’t come up with any other plausible reasons.
Billo said | June 10th 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
I would never sign a contract with anyone that infringed my human rights to meet whoever I liked whenever I liked outside the period when I was actually serving the interests of my employer.
Everyone needs time away from the job, and meeting a member of the opposite sex is one rather nice way of spending your free time, as opposed to sitting in your room alone.
The fine is utterly outrageous, and brings shame upon the Broncos, rather than Clinton. What is the RLPA doing about this?