Punishing off-field incidents: you can’t win
Roar Pro By Vanilla Gorilla, 22 Jun 2012 Vanilla Gorilla is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- AFL, Jesse Stringer, Kurtley Beale, Rugby Union
Related coverage
Recent developments in two different footy codes over recent weeks have created an interesting dilemma around how to discipline a player internally if they are alleged to have been involved in an off-field incident.
A few weeks ago Kurtley Beale was involved in a fracas at the Victory Hotel in Brisbane that resulted in him being charged with assaulting a security guard in the early hours of the morning.
Beale has been named to play for the Wallabies in their upcoming test with the Welsh. The ARU has chosen to take the approach of assuming he is innocent until proven guilty due to the uncertainty of how long police proceedings will take.
In comparable circumstances Jesse Stringer, an eight game player for the Geelong Cats, was suspended from the club for 12 months for an alleged domestic assault.
In both of these instances reckless violence is used and the respective states police have charged these players, however one loses an entire season while the other gets straight back into the side. How does this occur?
Firstly, let us look at each teams current circumstances.
The Wallabies are struggling and lacking in depth, therefore losing their star player for an undefined period of time is going to hurt them dearly. They will be significantly weakened without Beale’s flair and attack from the back. It is convenient that the Wallabies can use the innocent until proven guilty method here.
Geelong has a well-established team that will survive with the departure of one of its younger players. They appear to have plenty of youthful studs on their list to cover Stringers’ absence. The consequences of the suspension are not as severe.
The pros and cons of either decision can be analysed and a reasonable argument can be made for either codes handling of the situation.
Wallabies: “Innocent until proven guilty”
For:
By choosing to allow Beale to play, the ARU and the Wallabies are saying that they will not act until an official legal finding has been made. This would seem prudent given that in everyday life, if you were going to court for assault, your employer would let you continue until you were found guilty. Once you were convicted you would lose your job.
This also would deter scorned ex-partners’ jealousy, hatred and other despicable human emotions being used to conjure up false allegations against professional athletes. What better way for an ex lover, business partner or enemy to get back at you than simply implying something horrendous happened? They can make baseless claims while watching your career sink knowing that there will be little consequence to themselves if they are found to be telling porkies and they would possibly receive lucrative TV deals with Today Tonight or other sensationalist media outlets.
Against:
The issues with taking this wait and see approach is that it does not teach the player anything. It gives the impression that the athlete is only responsible for his actions if he gets caught or can afford to pay the person off in an out of court settlement, admonishing any level of guilt or consequence in the short term.
It can have a negative effect on team chemistry. In the Wallabies case Beale now takes the place of game-winning-kicker Michael “Iceman” Harris. Would this not grind your gears if you were Harris? You save the team from defeat against the Welsh and the next week you are being replaced by someone who, allegedly, punched a bouncer. Dissent can spread rapidly among a team and has Ebola-like consequences in regards to team harmony.
Geelong: “Let me show you the door”
For:
This technique of releasing a player instantly based on a serious crime being alleged can help with team culture overall. It shows that these acts, or putting yourself in the position where negative relations may be created, will not be tolerated. It signifies to the team that no matter who you are, violence will not be tolerated and the distraction caused by the incident is not welcomed. If you are found to be innocent then you will more than likely rejoin the team.
Against:
The major issue here is that by releasing a player based purely on suspicion or allegations could open the club up to litigation. Releasing a player without factual evidence could be a form of unfair dismissal in our everyday lives. If the athlete is then proven innocent they may have recourse to ask for compensation for lost wages etc, as a result of being dismissed on allegation alone.
Sadly there is no easy answer to all of this. With the advent of Twitter, blogs, Facebook and online media, these situations explode and go viral with alarming regularity. I do not blame the clubs for wanting to cover their asses but I can understand why some would not want a trial by media.
In the end this is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. What would fix this is if all codes in Australia would sit down and discuss a structure for how to deal with these matters.
It is important to get some level of consistency. It will provide little recourse for players in terms of litigation and there will be a sound understanding from players and fans alike as to what will happen if you are alleged to have committed a violent act.
At the moment this is all very subjective. I would let the player continue to participate, assuming innocence until proven otherwise. However, I have ‘old world’ views as I am an old man trapped in a young man’s body. Opinions will vary. All I am asking for is some consistency.
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.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
The Crowd Says (11) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Jesse Stringer, Kurtley Beale, Rugby Union
June 22nd 2012 @ 3:23am
Dubble Bubble said | June 22nd 2012 @ 3:23am | Report comment
The differences in punishment would have had a lot more to do with their respective statuses in their chosen sports than anything else I would imagine.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:11am
Vanilla Gorilla said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
I would tend to agree with you. A perfect example in the AFL alone is the Melbourne Demons saying they would happily let Jurrah continue to play even though he is accused of being involved in a brawl and carrying a machete. The Demons stink and need to keep their good players, Geelong have a large pool of talent. It is a tough call to say which technique is correct, both have their merits and both have their flaws.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:32am
Rabbitz said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:32am | Report comment
I am confused.
When exactly did sports administrators usurp the Judicial and Courts system?
In professional sports the administration are merely “Principal Contractors” who sub-contract labour hire agencies (the clubs) who hire contract labour (the players) with the assistance of Recruitment Agents (player agents).
So to make it real world, and these are examples and do not imply any wrong doing by any party:
Principal Contractor – ARLC
Labour Hire Agency – Penrith RLFC
Recruiting Agency – Dodgy Bros Sports Management
Skilled Labour – John Doe, Winger
Where in this set up is there an alternate constitutionally valid Judicial System?
If we do some name swapping:
Principal Contractor – Leighton Holdings
Labour Hire Agency – Skilled Labour Hire
Recruiting Agency – Dodgy Bros Recruitment
Skilled Labour – John Doe, Concreter
Would you accept that Leighton’s have the right to ban, fine, or otherwise deal with John Doe over an offence he committed at a night club or while driving his private car? Especially while the offence is not proven via the (real) courts?
Once the matter is settled the Principal Contractor may have a case for dismissal of the individual but they would also be need to be aware of the unfair dismissal legislation and regulations when they do it. Can you imagine the outcry if the Principal decides to levy a $10k fine against an employee or skill hire?
How would you feel if your employer came up to you and said “You got drunk on Saturday night, got thrown out of a nightclub, so we will fine you $5000″. I suggest you would be unhappy to say the least and ask what it has to do with you employer.
How did sports administrators get this power?
How did the clubs and players come to believe they have this power? There have been cases where, in court, players have asked the Magistrate to allow the Club to decide on and apply the punishment.
Players are employees like any other employee. Clubs and Administrations are just employers. They should be given no discretion, other than fair termination, to punish for off-field, unrelated to work legal matters.
June 22nd 2012 @ 10:13am
Fussballs AFL tracking spreadsheet said | June 22nd 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
You make a compelling argument, but isn’t the nature of the contract signed between the skilled labour and the principal contractor also a key consideration? I think you’ll find this will specifically include a range of behavioral clauses that are unlikely to feature in regular employment contracts. As one of the other posters mentioned, often the suspensions / terminations issued by sporting clubs relate to beahviour surrounding the offence in question.
For example, a player stays out until 7am, gets trashed, shows up at training hung over and in the midst of all that is alleged to have punched his girlfriend. The guilt or otherwise of the player in relation to the alleged criminal offence will be determined by the courts, but the other facts are not in question and represent potential grounds for suspension or dismissal based upon the contract signed by the player.
June 22nd 2012 @ 11:36am
Rabbitz said | June 22nd 2012 @ 11:36am | Report comment
The question on contracts is a vexed one.
Do the sports administrators have the right to include such clauses that include giving the employer punitive rights over the employee?
Are they valid?
Would an industrial rights commission allow them to stand in any other employment agreement (contract, award, etc)?
My current contract has clauses relating to fitness for work – regarding alcohol and drugs – it means I can be stood down or fired, not that the boss can fine me, or make me to ‘community service’ or any other demeaning task/punishment of his liking.
If I get blind stinking drunk on Friday night, get into a blue, get on TV during that blue but arrive at work on Monday sober and capable of work, well it really is none of their business. It may go to suitability of character for a job, but in all reality, it doesn’t reflect on them.
Unfortunately society (via the media) seem to hold young meathead sportsmen and women to a different standard which they don’t deserve, but that is a whole different kettle of fish.
June 22nd 2012 @ 9:51am
JD1991 said | June 22nd 2012 @ 9:51am | Report comment
With regards to Geelong – they would of asked the player what had occurred – and based on what was told, would then take action accordingly. A few years ago in the Lovett incident – he was suspended not for the rape allegation in the end but other puroprted incidents, been late to training, not informing the club as soon as he was aware etc – as such breaking team rules.
So without knowing the process that was undertaken, the incidents may not be as similiar as they look on the surface. For instance, Beale could be claiming self defense, whilst Stringer could be claiming (I am making up this now) yes I was drunk, I was out past X time, but I didnt hit her, so he was suspended for been drunk on a night he should not of been and out past a time that was determined. (Although the sentence is hrsh if this was the case)
June 22nd 2012 @ 10:18am
wisey_9 said | June 22nd 2012 @ 10:18am | Report comment
From the reports I have read -
* Stringer fronted up to the Cats’ senior playing group
* Told his side of the story
* They are the ones that recommended the 12 month ban
The bans are probably more reflective of the seriousness of the off-field incident rather than the players’ skill.
June 22nd 2012 @ 10:37am
Lucan said | June 22nd 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Demetriou applauds Melbourne for letting Jurrah play, and then applauds Geelong for suspending Stringer.
AFLHQ are having a lend of us all, surely?
June 22nd 2012 @ 12:01pm
BigAl said | June 22nd 2012 @ 12:01pm | Report comment
So true ! – and I find it difficult to believe that the penalty was applied because it was . . . recommended by the Cats senior playing group.
June 22nd 2012 @ 2:52pm
swannies05 said | June 22nd 2012 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Stringer hasn’t come out and complained against the sanction. As stated above, he told his version of events to the senior playing group and they recommended his penalty, I have no problem with this whatsoever. The senior playing group may not be the best people to judge if what he did was wrong/right, if his action meet the penalty from a legal point of view but in terms of how it will effect the playing group/cluture of the club/example for others, there is no one better to decide this. In my opinion, another very well handled situation by an amazing football club.
June 25th 2012 @ 11:49am
Maximus said | June 25th 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
Isnt Stringer allowed to play in the VFL which is probably where he is up to at this stage?
Masters on Offsiders claimed that because Stewart was found inncoent then the NRL does it as well as the NRL. He neglects all the other cases of domestic violence where some have been allowed to play on – some havent Lui?
The indigenous aspect to the Jurrah case means its tricky…………………………………………………