NRL domestic violence case differs between Lui and Inglis
In the past week we’ve heard a chorus of outrage from a number of media personalities, who are concerned the NRL has not taken strong enough action in the Robert Lui case.
Lui pleaded guilty in a Sydney Court last week to assaulting his pregnant partner during last year’s finals series while drunk.
The personalities, including Mark Geyer, Dan Ginnane, Paul Murray, Mia Freedman and Claire Harvey, have called for the NRL to de-register Lui for good; a measure necessary, they say, in order to take a stand against domestic violence, and maintain the NRL’s image with women.
Geyer, apparently with a straight face, referred to the opportunity for the NRL to stamp out domestic violence if not from society, then at least from the game.
Lui was sentenced to a fine and a good behaviour bond. He has been stood down indefinitely by the Cowboys, and is currently taking part in counselling. His partner continues to live with him and their child in Townsville.
The Cowboys stated that they will continue to monitor the situation and will provide support for his rehabilitation. The ARL Commission say he will not be allowed back into the game until they are satisfied of his rehabilitation.
The aforementioned chorus do not approve of that course of action. They want the Cowboys to provide no more support to Lui, and don’t want him to ever play again.
On account of his crime, they want to take away the brief opportunity for a young Aboriginal man from North Queensland to make the good money available to top grade players. It goes without saying that they also want to take away this income from his wife and child.
After he’s cut adrift from the Cowboys and the NRL for good, and sent back to whatever prospects he had before making it into the top grade, the chorus are then silent on their hopes for the success of his rehabilitation or for the positive growth of his relationship and family.
None appear to have made any enquiries into what kind of environments either Lui or his partner (also Aboriginal) grew up in, and what impact these have had on them.
In a rant that would have made Stan Zemanek proud, Ginnane declared his complete indifference to the consequences of Lui being banned for life, and dismissed the idea of rehabilitation altogether, saying that it was simply not possible for any domestic violence offender to rehabilitate. Word is Dan has already got the nod for the next spot that comes up at 2UE.
Murray said that Lui’s partner “bizarrely” decided to stay with him. Freedman said her decision was “tragic”, and that she hoped his partner was getting some help, but expressed no concern that Lui get help or that they make progress as a family.
Another recent case was that of Greg Inglis, who was charged with assaulting his partner in early 2010, and initially suspended by the Storm for two matches. A lawyer duly appeared at Court and declared the charges would be defended, that Inglis had been acting in defence of his partner who was attempting self harm, and that his partner had retracted her statement.
This declaration was enough for the Storm to put Inglis back on the field, and his 2010 season was then uninterrupted. On the date of his hearing, however, Inglis did not advance any argument that he was trying to prevent his partner from harming herself, and instead pleaded guilty to a less serious offence of assault as part of a plea bargain.
The Age reported:
‘…Inglis accepted the information provided in Ms Robinson’s initial statement to police that he had pushed her onto the bed with an open hand after she had ‘got into [Inglis's] face.’”
The magistrate recognised this incident was clearly at the less serious end of the spectrum, and declined to record a conviction, but did order he order that he attend a men’s behaviour change program and donate $3000 to a women’s health organisation.
Whether it was because the matter was heard in Melbourne, away from the glare of the Sydney media, the case disappeared without a trace. There were no calls, as far as I am aware, for the NRL to make an example out of Inglis, suspend him for any further matches or deregister him for the year or for life.
Perhaps those who might have made that call judged him too important to the game, and the professional interests that surround it. Perhaps the charge he plead guilty to was not considered serious enough domestic violence.
Inglis and his partner married later that year, and the following year he re-settled in Sydney. There have been no reports of what Inglis got out of the counselling program, but every indication since then suggests it could well have been successful.
One journalist, Jessica Halloran, in the Sunday Telegraph, wrote a very positive piece about Inglis and his partner in April 2011, referring to the redemption he had achieved, post-assault, with the loving support of his partner.
Reflecting on these two cases, I wonder what kind of cause the above-mentioned chorus think they are advancing with their calls for such extreme penalties to be imposed on Robert Lui?
Do they seriously think that such an outcome would affect the amount of domestic violence in the NRL or society?
Do they seriously think the women who support the NRL and consider having or do have their kids play the game want Lui to be expelled for life, with all its consequences?
If this concerned chorus were really serious about the problem of domestic violence, I suggest they would want men like Lui and Inglis to stop doing what they have done, to have them punished appropriately, but would also want to give them support and assistance to face up to themselves, and make themselves into better partners and fathers.
Why do they not think that in addition to court-imposed sentences, a period of club suspension combined with specific treatment and counselling for domestic violence offenders, the successful completion of which would determine their ability to play, would be an effective way of achieving these ends?
If Paul Murray stepped outside, he’d find out it’s not so “bizarre” for women to stay with partners who have hit them. It’s really very common, especially where they have children, and especially where the man is supporting them financially.
Unfortunately, domestic violence programs for men are in short supply, and politically without great support. These programs can be very effective in addressing the issues that lead men to be violent in the home, including being victims of violence themselves as children, poor anger management, and drug and alcohol abuse.
For an ordinary person not earning a footy player’s salary and able to access private counselling, the prospects of getting this kind of help are not great.
Which is more than a shame, because the reality for a great many victims of domestic violence is not that they want their partner to leave, or go to jail, or be rubbed out of his line of work for life – they just want it to stop.
A lot of these women, and their friends and families, are also members of the rugby league family.
The efforts of the concerned chorus would be far better spent learning more about domestic violence and advocating for more offender and family violence programs, as well as for the participation of NRL offenders in them, instead of the knee-jerk posturing we have seen this week.
They could also encourage reformed NRL offenders to use their high profile to talk publicly about their experience and become advocates for respect for women, especially in the indigenous community.
![]()
Passionate about your league? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily league email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- How to increase crowd numbers in the NRL (181)
- All I am saying is give Pearce a chance (123)
- Why do NRL fans love empty seats? (115)
- Let me tell you why people don’t like Manly (110)
- Ease up on ASADA: NRL boss (90)
- It’s time for Channel Nine to get serious about the NRL (90)
- Six things that will improve the NRL (85)
- NSW State of Origin rituals ready for game I (2)
- 2013 NRL season: Round 11 preview (5)
- Please Dave, leave the golden point alone (25)
- Hot Roosters await Storm in a teacup (10)
- WIZ: My exclusive interview with Laurie Daley (10)
- Are the Tigers in danger of losing the Leichhardt faithful? (20)
- Broncos halves dramas continue (4)
- NSW State of Origin rituals ready for game I (2)
- 2013 NRL season: Round 11 preview (5)
- Hot Roosters await Storm in a teacup (10)
- Broncos halves dramas continue (4)
- Once were Warriors, now are worriers (31)
- Wests Tigers at sixes and sevens for years (21)
- Listen Blues fans, let’s not kid ourselves (16)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Greg Inglis, NRL, Rugby League


March 26th 2012 @ 9:39am
Paul said | March 26th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Instead of worrying about re-abilitating Lui, The NRL should offer professional assistance to his wife so she can be encouraged to leave him. There is no good to be had from her staying with him when Kids are involved and quite frankly if he can kick a pregnant woman then i dont see how the cowboys players would want him around, or what about the players wifes at gatherings etc. He has to be cut, hes already been given 1 chance that we know about.
March 26th 2012 @ 9:48am
Ken said | March 26th 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
I can’t claim to know the in’s and out’s of Lui’s case. There is the feeling in the court of public opinion though that this is a trend not a once-off, despite the previous 2 sets of assault charges (and some serious ones at that) being dismissed. Domestic violence is often a ‘he said, she said’ type affair complicated if the participants reconcile and want to move on from the issue before it’s settled legally. Rightly or wrongly, those who have seen somebody go through multiple ‘incidents’ will convict in their mind regardless of legal position.
All that said, I’d be interested to know what the Cowboys were thinking when they signed him. Even if he claimed innocence it would seem like a huge risk to sign him with this hanging over his head (when his previous team obviously haven’t believed in him). If they knew he was guilty then their position of suspending him now would be completely hypocritical, if he looked them in the eye and said he was innocent then they should dump him now. They probably just never asked which is a sad indictment on everyone involved.
Not interested in comparing this case to the Inglis one, which I also can’t claim any special knowledge of. I do rail against the idea that it’s professional sports role to rehabilitate people like this. What about all the people that need rehabilitating that can’t kick a football so well? Should they be signed up to help them? Lui was a very lucky man being able to play professional football for a living, if his actions cause the end of that privilege then so be it. Besides he’s young, if it means enough to him he’ll get his life back on track and work to get back. Endless immediate second chances are not the answer.
March 26th 2012 @ 10:07am
Matt F said | March 26th 2012 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Good point. If Lui was an average young kid who may not make it I doubt the Cowboys would be keeping him, let alone signing him under such a cloud. It seems rehabilitation is only an option for the better players.
March 26th 2012 @ 1:45pm
Pete75 said | March 26th 2012 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
It’s simple Ken.
The Cowboys got him because he was willing to pay for a packet of chips a Mars bar, and a Coke if they won.
There was next to no risk in it for the Cows if he was found guilty.
March 26th 2012 @ 3:28pm
Ken said | March 26th 2012 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
I see your point but surely the negative fallout – getting your ‘brand’ associated with him and the effect on sponsors is still a risk.
March 26th 2012 @ 10:44am
B.A Sports said | March 26th 2012 @ 10:44am | Report comment
“Do they seriously think that such an outcome would affect the amount of domestic violence in the NRL or society?” – Yes. If sacking Robert Lui meant that just one male thought twice about striking his wife or partner (let alone pregnant partner), or one male was made to realise that he needs to get counselling for past indiscretions – then yes de-registering him is the right thing to do.
“Do they seriously think the women who support the NRL and consider having or do have their kids play the game want Lui to be expelled for life, with all its consequences?” Of course they do! I would be shocked if the vast majority of women wouldn’t want him banned for life.
This discussion was had on the site last week and the horrible example that the Cowboys are setting to their fans (of which many are indigenous where this issue is huge) should not be overlooked. Put the guy in counselling, support his partner, but he never plays in the NRL again. That is a privilege and not the only option he has for making a living.
Comparing the Lui situation to the Inglis situation was a bit of a stretch as well. The particulars are significantly different.
March 26th 2012 @ 1:31pm
James Payten said | March 26th 2012 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
If sacking him for life made others change their behaviour it would be worth it, you say. What makes you think it would? Its a big untested assumption to end a bloke’s career on.
Wouldn’t you more interested to change Lui’s behaviour rather than some hypothetical offender whose sensitivity to the NRL’s decisions we have no clue about? How is cutting him loose and not giving him a path back a better option in terms of reforming his behaviour?
The Inglis and Lui situations are different, but it worth contrasting them. Both are examples of of domestic violence and the NRL need a transparent consistent policy to deal with any example as it arises. If they are going to stand on principle they need to more than respond to the volume of the media.
March 26th 2012 @ 2:51pm
B.A Sports said | March 26th 2012 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
If you de-register him from the NRL, the message you send is “domestic violence will not be tolerated and we stand as firmly on this as any other form of anti-social behaviour”
“Wouldn’t you more interested to change Lui’s behaviour rather than some hypothetical offender whose sensitivity to the NRL’s decisions we have no clue about?”
I would love to change Lui’s behaviour (but maybe it’s more than just behaviour – who knows). And as i said, you can put the guy into a counselling program, but he never plays in the NRL again. Playing in the NRL is a privilege, not a right. He blew it in close to the biggest possible way. You’re not leaving him destitute if you provide him with counselling. How old is he 22? He can still go to Uni, or do an aprenticeship.
Last year the NRL recieved a Community Action Grant from the Fed Govt for an education and media campaign against VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
Part of the funding they received was to go to sponsorship of The Remote Area Indigenous competition in Queensland promoting messages against domestic violence
Why does the NRL get involved in this program? Because they have an audience that they can influence.
Why do sports run “Say no to drug” campaigns and run “responsible drinking campaigns”, because they have “role models” in their organisations that influence people.
March 26th 2012 @ 6:52pm
James Payten said | March 26th 2012 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
Sending a message? Sounds like something a politician would say when they’re banging the law-and-order drum.
I call that out as empty posturing: it might make people feel good, and feel like they are taking a stand on the issue, but I question whether it would achieve anything. You have no idea beyond your gut feeling that it would, right?
I’m not against taking action on domestic violence. It’s a problem of shocking proportions in indigenous communities, especially in the north and centre of the country. What I am doing is warning against the easy temptation to scapegoat, and to be drawn into thinking that if only we had harsher penalties the problem would disappear. It won’t.
Its just so much easier to get angry and call for someone’e head than it is really think about a problem and go through the difficult effort to solve it.
March 26th 2012 @ 7:58pm
B.A Sports said | March 26th 2012 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
A “gut feel”. You don’t generally put hundreds of thousands of dollars into a “gut feel”.
And Lui is no scape goat. This isn’t drink driving or getting into a brawl in a night club, incidents we have seen many footballers guilty of. He has been found guilty of assaulting his pregnant partner. We have harsh penalties for bad crimes to deter people. It doesn’t make th eproblems disapear, but it is aimed to deter people from doing things they shouldn’t. Thats why you get more for murder than you do speeding, thats why you should get more for assaulting your pregnant partner than urinating on the street.
March 27th 2012 @ 8:22am
Paul said | March 27th 2012 @ 8:22am | Report comment
Are you for real? Next you will blame his partner for being pregnant, For gods sake mate he laid the boot into a prgegnant woman, but wait ul prob also say she knew he was drunk and should have hid in the closet,. How you can come on here and try to defend him and what he did is astounding., and yes that is what your doing.
March 27th 2012 @ 10:20am
James Payten said | March 27th 2012 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Go back and have another read. I am not defending what he did to his partner.
What I am concerned with is the most effective way of making sure it never happens again. I say “sending a message” to Robert Lui or anyone else who may or may not pay attention to the NRL is ineffective in achieving this purpose.
What is effective is providing support and counselling to offenders, and their partners, who very often stay with them: to get the man to front up to his behaviour, identify why it occurs, and take steps to fix it.
Lui has been punished by a Court and the NRL through suspension. I can’t see any additional effect or motivation for improvement that will be provided by cutting him loose for life. I can only see that will be detrimental to the prospects of him and his young family.
March 27th 2012 @ 10:23am
Paul said | March 27th 2012 @ 10:23am | Report comment
James, MATE. Heis the one with the problem, Would you be saying the same thing if it was a murdercase, he shouldnt go to gaol ?
April 12th 2012 @ 11:47am
sandy said | April 12th 2012 @ 11:47am | Report comment
as a woman who has a son and daughters and now grandchildren,with a son-law who is a coach of junor players of the game, and I love my footy, but I absolutely agree with all your comments to James Peyton. I cannot believe this man is paid for his comments, he comes across as a person who would turn a blind eye for the sake of the game,unfortunately like a lot of people in general in society (sad reflection) to violence.Does make you wonder people in positions of power(Judges etc) do they also have these same views.I am happy that B.A sports are voicing thier views and I hope can bring a change that is very much needed not only in sport, but in other areas of life as well, because if we don’t have an affect, we are really just watching a group of men,(who are women bashers) playing a game that we pay for and pat them on the back for it.
March 26th 2012 @ 11:41am
Seano said | March 26th 2012 @ 11:41am | Report comment
The rugby league world is quiet in Greg Bird! He glassed his Missus and wasn’t rubbed out!!!! Oh that’s right he is an origin and test player better not rub him out for life hey Mark Geyer???????
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
March 26th 2012 @ 1:09pm
Ken said | March 26th 2012 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
You’re kidding right? A few years ago when that was current there was a huge wave of sentiment saying Bird shouldn’t be allowed back. And that was a single incident that was later legally dismissed, Lui has already had 9 charges (across 2 other incidents) dismissed in a similar way and now has pleaded guilty this time around. There was a good argument for Bird losing his opportunity to play professional footy but there’s an even better one for Lui.
March 26th 2012 @ 3:38pm
JVGO said | March 26th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Greg Bird was rubbed out. He went and played in France for one? two? seasons. He was allowed back after he was acquitted His subsequent behaviour appears uncontroversial. The Sharks suffered massively from the fallout and negative attention however.
March 27th 2012 @ 10:53am
James Payten said | March 27th 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Paul: of course not. If its worth jail, it’s worth jail.
In this case, the Magistrate assessed it as being so serious as to be worth a fine and a bond.
Keep it in perspective.
March 27th 2012 @ 11:10am
Paul said | March 27th 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I think i am. This would not be a new development in this blokes life imo, and these prof footballers live such a privlaged and spoilt life that joe blo in normal life would not have had the proffesional legal assistance that he no doubt recieved. The courts are very leniant on domestic violence until someone is seriously injured or killed. For me the perspective is he Knocked a pregnant woman to the ground and proceeded to KICK her. And its not his first time !. I think i have the perspective right and you need to stop thinking he deserves special treatment.
March 27th 2012 @ 12:16pm
B.A Sports said | March 27th 2012 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
James;
Yes/no question.
Do you think Robert Lui should be allowed to play in the NRL ever again?
March 27th 2012 @ 4:21pm
James Payten said | March 27th 2012 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Yes, I think that’s clear from I’ve said.
The ARL Commisson will have the final say as to if and when provided they are satisfied with the rehabilitation he has undertaken. I agree with that, but I think they should tell us what criteria they are going to apply, and tell us why they come to the view they do.
March 27th 2012 @ 5:18pm
B.A Sports said | March 27th 2012 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
So where do you draw the line?
What crime would be hainous enough for you to say, that a player is never allowed back in the NRL?
March 27th 2012 @ 5:45pm
Nathan of Perth said | March 27th 2012 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
Orphan consumption. With mint sauce.
March 27th 2012 @ 7:24pm
James Payten said | March 27th 2012 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
That is a really good question.
The NRL’s treatment of past matters has been very inconsistent, and it has been difficult to fathom whether there is a principled policy or whether it’s just decided according to how much heat it gets in the media.
Danny Wicks recently got jail, but once he’s done his time, should he be allowed back?
I would say yes, but not absolutely. He’s served his punishment and should be allowed to move on. But there would be an onus on him to repair the damage done, and perhaps he could do that by becoming a mentor to young players.
Wendell Sailor did that successfully.
March 27th 2012 @ 10:22pm
B.A Sports said | March 27th 2012 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
I agree the NRL has been inconsistant in the past, but that doesn’t mean they need to be inconsistant in the future. Obviously it is hard to have black and white rules because of the myriad of things that players could do (off the field) and the degree to which they do them (no different to the judical system i guess), but i agree they should have some sort of systematic approach. Given systems haven’t been their strength in the past, i’m not holding my breath.
I think though that something that differentiates between direct harm to an individual (like kicking a pregnant woman) should be up for a “ban for life”, depending on the severity of the assault, or harm. Charges relating to crimes that by their nature could harm or kill someone (like drug dealing or driving at 147km an hour on a city street) should face serious punishment with the possibility of redemption once appropriate counselling and contrition is shown.
But to me a guilty plea to a violent attack on a woman and unborn child is enough to be banned for life.
Ryan Tandy is gone for life, nothing he did threatened a persons health.If he is gone, Lui HAS to be gone.
April 12th 2012 @ 10:36am
sandy said | April 12th 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
yes ………………I think that most woman, would want him to be banned from playing the game.
doesn’t matter what colour,race or religion, violence should not be tolerated.
whats saddens me more is someone as yourself, in your position-job, seems to be making excuses for these men.
maybe you are more concerned that if everyone who is outed for violence and was banned, there wouldn’t be many
players left, so as a result no game to watch.
and yes I love my footy too.