Inglis charged for assaulting his girlfriend

Just out: The girlfriend of Melbourne Storm rugby league star Greg Inglis has made a new statement to police that her lawyer says may clear him of charges he assaulted her. Inglis, regarded as one of the world's best rugby league players, was charged with unlawful assault and recklessly causing injury to girlfriend Sally Robinson during an alleged altercation at their western suburbs home on Sunday. The case, heard briefly in the Sunshine Magistrates' Court on Wednesday, was adjourned for two weeks. Ms Robinson allegedly suffered a black eye. But The Age newspaper reports that Ms Robinson's solicitor, Bob Galbally of law firm Galbally Rolfe, confirmed Ms Robinson had made a fresh statement to police that had been passed to detectives. "I can confirm that I have provided police with a new statement and other significant facts which they were not aware of when Mr Inglis was charged," he said in a statement to the newspaper. "I am concerned that the public have been left with the wrong impression of what occurred on August 9. Now that the full facts are able to be investigated I am hoping the conclusion will be that no offences have been committed." Inglis, 22, an Australian and Queensland representative, was suspended indefinitely by the Storm after he was charged. Melbourne Storm chief executive Brian Waldron told The Age Ms Robinson had been re-interviewed by police on Thursday and that he expected the same would happen with Inglis. Waldron has said that while public interest in the matter is unavoidable, the welfare of the individuals alone remains the primary focus of the club. "Not only are there legal processes to respect but at the centre of this must be the health, safety and wellbeing of the two people concerned in the matter, particularly Sally," said Waldron. He said Ms Robinson had received individual counselling in addition to that the club had provided. The club has sought advice from Professor Ian Hickie, a national mental health expert from the University in Sydney, in relation to the matter. Professor Hickie issued a press release outlining the importance of granting provacy and respect for all parties involved. "The media has an overwhelming duty to respect this request and not place undue pressure on the parties involved, especially Sally," Professor Hickie said.

1. What has this got to do with Rugby League? It allegedly happened in his private life with his significant other and therefore a matter for the courts and police, not his footy club. 2. He has been charged, not convicted and is therefore innocent until proven guilty. 3. In the current anti male hysteria whipped up by feminist politicians many men find themselves in this situation and eventually are acquitted.

Mike from Grialong, No uncertainy mate, just a better perception of what is going on. your the one who asked the question, just dont like a plausible answer. Keep the head in the sand. Redb

MyGen, Sorry but your going to have to explain what we should be careful about? Sydney media? - Pfft. They already have a fair go and are only relevant to Sydney. Redb

Mick It's true that there has been a certain ambiguity around where the threshold for onfield violence sits within aussie rules - which the governing body has been trying to clarify for nigh on 30 years. But those same ambiguities actually exist in League as well - maybe moreso. For instance, striking is illegal in League every bit as it is illegal in aussie rules, and in fact both codes have virtually the same definition. But would anyone know that by looking at the two games?

MyGen: Sound appraisal there as usual. The logical corollary of arguments from the “shrill and the haughty” is that any game that contains violence should be banned because there is a chance it incites violence off the field. The sane among us can differentiate between the biff and domestic violence. I know exactly where I stand on the biff, as do do most in the rugby league community. But it’s always amusing to see the uncertainty the subject generates among the AFL cheerleaders. They remind me of a gaggle of kiddies running excitedly down to the surf for the first time, dipping their toes in, then retreating with squeals of terror as they get a taste of the power of the waves…

Yes, I'm still not sure what your point is. Your saying that the HS will write stories that appeal to fans, but they don't spin or manipulate? I have no trouble accepting the huge following of the AFL in Melbourne. Have been there many times and experienced it first hand (even went to that hole in the ground at Waverley Park, but I'm not holding that against anyone). But that effects the kind of spin their papers deal out. In a market that is dominated by one sport like Melbourne is, it doesn't make sense to bite the hand that feeds you, whereas in Sydney it is a much more fractured market that the papers are dealing with, hence there more schizophrenic strategy. The SMH and the Australian spin too, just a little more subtle about it (the Australian's coverage of sport deserves an article of its own). So I'm not sure what we're arguing about other than the presence or absence of spin (of a different type) in the HS (or the Age), and Waterboy's original point still stands... be careful what you wish for.

MyGen, Missing the point dont you think? You have to accept the AFL has a huge following in Melbourne, there are over 400,000 members of AFL clubs in Melbourne. HS will write stories that appeal to fans. Collingwood, Essendon and Carlton get more stories good or bad because they have the biggest followings. Collingwood in particular is a headline generator and probably feels the same way as RL does at times much to Eddies lament. Redb

Does the Herald Sun only sensationalise the good stories then?

MyGen Good reply. I accept it is a simplifcation but Mike asked the question which you rightly point out is about perception. I think there is a perception that seeing the code does to tend glorify violence it could beget more violence or an 'out of control' state. Perceived as organised chaos or just chaos? Redb

Redb, I see now that you are saying that NRL creates a culture of violence around itself, so when this kind of thing happens everyone can say "Told you so". I don't see how this relates to Mick's original point on the different levels of interest between NRL and AFL incidents. Why isn't there more hand-wringing and questioning when this happens in AFL's "non-violent" culture. I still think there is a double standard there, and we are in danger of getting perceptions mixed up with realities. Though someone said "Perception is 9/10ths of the law", didn't they? ;-) As for the links, Article 1 is one person's opinion: "Stressing that she never experienced violence in her marriage, she suspects that some partners tolerate it because of what they see on the field." It's not science. Article 2 is more balanced and nuanced, but at the end of the day it is insinuating a link between violence on the field and violence off it that I don't think is necessarily there, at least in a causal sense. Guys who have become professional Rugby League players don't suddenly one day decide that violence works on the field, so maybe it will work off it as well (and Greg Inglis is not a violent player on the field, even if he is extremely physical). This has been going on for 100 years and the great majority of players in that time have been able to turn off the tap at full time and not take it home with them. We might as well proscribe any displays of aggression on the football field in all codes, but I think that would just result in aggressive people not playing football and looking for other outlets for their aggression, and I don't think we'd like the end result on the field in any code. In other words, I think you underestimate the role that aggression plays in all territorial sports. As others have said, violence is a problem in society-as-a-whole, so what do we blame for the majority of domestic violence perpetrated by non-footballers. Towards the end of the 2nd article, there is a more interesting quote to my way of thinking: "Fundamentally, the codes were not in competition with one another, but with ''TV sets and gangs'', a Storm official said yesterday." I think that's looking in the direction of where off-field violence is coming from, not between the white lines. There are plenty of stories of players who say football saved them from gang life. Anyway, interesting links and they do provide clarification for your original comment, even though I still think it is an over-simplification, and the thoughts I have tried to put down here only dip a toe in the water. The truth is a lot more complicated than "What game do you play?".

Cronulla have appointed two women to its board Sharks appoint two women http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/nrl/story/0,27074,25852554-5016549,00.html

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/brutality-on-the-field-sometimes-spills-into-home-life-says-wag/2009/08/11/1249756306559.html and then this: http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/the-imperfect-storm/2009/08/11/1249756306562.html "But as much as Storm belongs to a city, it also belongs to a code, and a culture. A Storm insider yesterday characterised it as an endemic ''old codger mentality'' that rejoices in gratuitous violence. Twice in the past month, in a club game in Sydney and a state-of-origin game in game in Brisbane, players set upon one another and were celebrated for it. You don't have to be a psychologist to see a link what is cultivated on the field and tolerated off it."

MyGen, Do you read comments in relation to the thread of the debate? The Daily Telegraph in my view, manipulates rugby league with good and bad stories to sell papers (excessively so). Just becuase the Herald Sun does not sensationalise the bad stories to the same extent does not make their treatment of sport some sort of denial that bad incidents occur. Redb

Only RL fans, and only in Sydney? That is hilarious.

Waterboy, I have no doubt the first consideration for Storm CEO Waldron and the Board is appeasing the sponsors in this situation. In fact the severity of any suspension ultimately will be determined by a barometer set by the sponsors. As for the Sydney media - they manipulate RL fans on a daily basis. Hilarious spin. Redb

The NRL scandals of 2009 (and recent years) have all involved either, 1. abuse of alcohol, 2. violence or 3.outdated attitudes and treatment of women (and in some cases all three). The NRL can have all the 'education' programs it likes, rationalise the scandals as 'wider societal issues' and yet the scandals continue. So Rugby leagues is faced with a choice, keep doing the same (and expect more scandals) or do something different. Three suggestions for the governing body. 1. Refuse to accept alcohol sponsorship, it promotes the consumption and abuse of alcohol. 2. Get serious about on field violence, the recent state of origin saw a fella get knocked out and no action was taken against the perpertrator, if this happended in my work place, i would expect police charges to be laid. 3. Find a role for women in the sport that does not objectify them. As a casual observer of rugby league, the only visible women i see are the cheerleaders. Not disparaging the efforts of women who play a postive role, but i do not see any visible women in a playing, officiating or adminstrative capacity. As a practicising Social Worker, i speak on a daily basis to women who have experienced violence from men and it saddens me to read that this woman has experienced a situation that is likely to leave her feeling scared, humiliated and powerless. Also that the alleged perpertrator has maybe made a decision might stuff up his life.

Are you saying he is already guilty in an ethical or social sense, Mushi? I am either uneducated and unintelligent or that comment is incomprehensible.

Something strange happening with the posts on this thread, all out of position. My intended reply to Mushi: "The presumption of innocence is a legal concept though Mike not an ethical or social one. Thankfully the educated and intelligent who reside in this country understand that." Meaning what, precisely, Mushi? Please do explain.

"The presumption of innocence is a legal concept though Mike not an ethical or social one. Thankfully the educated and intelligent who reside in this country understand that." Meaning what, precisely, Mushi? Please do explain.