Does Jurrah deserve a second chance?
Roar Rookie By sirnoob_51, 18 May 2012 sirnoob_51 is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Brendan Fevola, Liam Jurrah, Melbourne Demons, West Coast Eagles
Related coverage
The Melbourne Football Club has dropped a bombshell this week leading up to the start of its indigenous round having named Liam Jurrah to play this weekend for the club in its clash against the Sydney Swans.
The question does have to be asked: does Jurrah deserve a second chance?
Without going into the much reported specifics, there has been a lot of off field controversy involving Liam Jurrah before the start of the season this year, which resulted in the 23-year-old forward getting into trouble with the law.
But does this off field incident tarnish his reputation and his right to play the game.
In the eyes of the law, every individual is seen as innocent before proven guilty. Their are sceptics that do claim that people who hold a position of power or fame in society are given favouritism over people of the general population.
Is Liam Jurrah counted as one of those people?
As someone who has faith in our justice system, I do not believe that Jurrah will get special treatment.
I could sit here all day naming AFL players who have had run ins with the law. For example Ben Cousins, Alan Didak, Heath Shaw, Brendan Fevola have all had their share of legal troubles. In that list of names, I can already name a few that have been given more chances than they have deserved – specifically Cousins and Fevola.
Ben Cousins was only sacked from the Eagles after a string of incidents finally came to a head when he was caught with possession of drugs in 2007. Despite ongoing reports that he was out of control, it took this incident for him and the Eagles to part ways. He was sacked the next day for bringing the game into disrepute.
Brendan Fevola was also given many more chances than he deserved. Any die hard football fan can remember his drunken behaviour at the Brownlow Medal. He was traded by Carlton in 2009 to Brisbane due to his off field behaviour, only to be sacked by Brisbane one year later for the same reason.
Does this incident his tarnish Jurrah’s reputation? Maybe. However, it is up to the justice system to decide whether he is guilty of a crime.
Does he deserve a second chance? Being as this is Jurrah’s first real serious off field incident, he certainly does.
And he should play this weekend. Keeping his mind focused on football is probably the best thing for him
The Crowd Says (15) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Ben Cousins, Brendan Fevola, Liam Jurrah, Melbourne Demons, West Coast Eagles
May 18th 2012 @ 8:53am
Lucan said | May 18th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
The “Justice system” actually cleared Cousins of the 2007 possession charge that saw him sacked by WCE. The fact is Cousins never received a conviction during his playing days, but the mud stuck and the AFL hammer still came down on him.
Why do you consider Jurrah “innocent until proven guilty” but not offer such leeway to a footballer who was never actually found guilty by our legal system?
May 18th 2012 @ 9:39am
Jack Russell said | May 18th 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
That shows the flaws in the justice system more than anything else. It’s not like Cousins was actually innocent – the mud stuck because he was rolling around in it.
In regard to Jurrah, he’s up on charges as serious as I can remember for an AFL footballer. I don’t know whether he should be playing now, but if found guilty then his career is over.
May 18th 2012 @ 10:22am
Lucan said | May 18th 2012 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Agree, I’m not trying to defend Cousins. Same thing with Fevola. All the dispicable acts from these footballers were never meet with Courts handing down a decision, yet their clubs and the AFL still acted and were applauded for taking action against the individuals.
May 18th 2012 @ 12:34pm
BigAl said | May 18th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Cousins was sacked because it was (belatedly) recognised that he was a bad influence around the place.
Jurrah’s issues are more serious, but I doubt if anyone deems him to be a ‘bad influence’ around the club.
I can see a whole lot of legal arguements being put that being allowed to continue playing AFL football is the one thread of salvation that the poor fellow has to turn his life around ( and set a good example to his bretheren ?) – as evidenced by his repeated wearing of his Melbourne FC tie and suit in his legal and public appearances.
The AFL could well find itself caught between a rock and a hard place on this one – it will be interesting !
May 18th 2012 @ 11:40am
JamesP said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Define second chance? If he is found guilty, he’s doing time. No second chances there
As you say, he is innocent until proven guilty, so until then (if then), he should continue going about his business of being a footballer for the MFC
May 18th 2012 @ 7:36pm
GrantS said | May 18th 2012 @ 7:36pm | Report comment
I agree James but it would seem that most people already have Jurrah guilty.
I don’t know the full details of the incident in which it is alleged he was involved but until he is actually found to be guilty he has every right to continue his employment and play football.
If he is found guilty then I would think that would put an end to his career but we should wait to see if that happens.
May 18th 2012 @ 11:36pm
sirnoob_51 said | May 18th 2012 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
When I mean second chance I mean by Melbourne selecting him this week to continue his playing career. Many clubs could potentially could have suspended him from playing until his legal battles are resolved. I do apologise if I wasnt being so clear on that.
But I believe like you said that in the eyes of some members of the community he is already seen as a criminal and that the Melbourne football club are doing the best possible thing by Jurrah by giving him a second chance this week by selecting him in their 22.
Also the best possible thing for him is for him to focus on his football career. But I agree like you say if he is found guilty his playing career would be over for good.
May 18th 2012 @ 4:25pm
stabpass said | May 18th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
It probably sounds stupid, …. but i will still say it, i reckon Cousins misdemeanours are worse than Jurrahs, Cousins had a Wesley College education, a loving family, ATM he has a baby boy and a partner, he has been given the silver spoon service since he can remember, Jurrah however on the other hand !!!… has grown up in what can only be considered akin to a thrid world country, and deals with things how his community deals with things.
No excuses … but i reckon Jurrah has some.
May 18th 2012 @ 6:47pm
Gordon Smith said | May 18th 2012 @ 6:47pm | Report comment
Stabpass – are you aware how paternalistic that is
May 19th 2012 @ 12:18am
BigAl said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:18am | Report comment
Quite possibly, but given the current environment and situation, I’m sure any competent legal team would push it for all it’s worth.
May 18th 2012 @ 5:10pm
ohmybob said | May 18th 2012 @ 5:10pm | Report comment
jurrah should be allowed to carry a machete onto the field of play. its just my opinion.
May 19th 2012 @ 12:58pm
The Cattery said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
that’s against the rules mate
May 19th 2012 @ 10:39am
Bigbaz said | May 19th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
If Craig Thompson can sit in parliment I reckon Jurrah can play footy.
May 19th 2012 @ 12:35pm
sirnoob_51 said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Bigbaz- absolutely hits the nail on the head
May 19th 2012 @ 12:59pm
The Cattery said | May 19th 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
Yep – no further correspondence needed.