Can we please stop applauding Brett and Glenn Stewart for their varying feats of mediocrity? Firstly, Brett Stewart is one of the best, if not the best, finishers in rugby league. He is helped by playing behind an excellent team but nonetheless he is a great try-scorer.
However, the plaudits he’s received for his supposed “burying the hatchet” moment with David Gallop on the Grand Final day are ridiculous.
Brett has ponced around with a chip on his shoulder for two years and for no apparent reason.
He was punished for acting like a drunken fool. He was not punished for the criminal charges laid against him. Those were charges on which he was later acquitted.
I’m also extremely sick of articles throughout the finals saying Brett was ‘doing it for his suspended brother’. Because we all know that NRL players only play well when their brother has been suspended.
At least Ray Warren has stopped banging on about him being a diabetic though.
Now, on to the Karl Pilkington look-a-like, Glenn Stewart. I don’t like Glenn Stewart (along with the vast majority of his teammates, fans, coaches and generally people who associate with him) but he is an excellent player.
The form he has showed this season – though not good enough for Dally M recognition (see “Dally M fallout not all positive”) – has been great.
However, he should have no axe to grind with Gallop either. The Courier Mail said something about his pat on Gallop’s arm on the stage being a way of saying ‘No hard feelings mate’.
I would like to call it bullsh** right here.
a) It was a completely innocuous hand shake, and b) Glenn was, if anything, treated a little leniently by the judiciary for his part in the Brooky Brawl. Brett, on the other hand, was treated ridiculously gently.
On top of that, Phil Gould is one of the greatest minds in the game of rugby league. In saying that, Gould’s comment that Glenn Stewart’s five-metre grubber for Michael Robertson just before half-time was ‘the best grand final play he’s ever seen’ was absolutely laughable – at least it would have been if it hadn’t raised such serious questions about Gus’ sanity.
It was a short grubber behind a rushing defensive line and Manu Vatuvei – the opposing winger – was twenty metres back, thus removing any danger of a mis-kick (this is all disregarding the blatant obstruction seconds later).
So, if you want to applaud Brett and Glenn Stewart for their play, go right ahead. But please, can everyone stop acting like the world owes them something?
apaway
Guest
Jonathan, you're right, it is not the responsibility of a major national corporation to monitor drinking levels. However, at a certain point, the individual is also not responsible and it is why the clause of "Diminished Responsibility" exists in cases where an individual has consumed too much alcohol. What needed to happen then, and what thankfully all NRL clubs now seem to be aware of, is that all functions should be populated by RSA-trained staff, either behind the bar or among the club members, whose training allows them to identify when someone has reached a level of intoxication that means they should not have another drink.
sledgeross
Guest
Wasnt he evicted from a pub AFTER the function, and it was on the way home from this that he had the "interaction" with the young lady?
Jonathan Healy
Roar Rookie
Look, we're both just repeating ourselves. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, I say we call it a day.
Charles
Guest
If your first comment is correct that he was drunk and disorderly than there alone lies a problem with the Responsible Service of Alcohol Act. As an employer, having staff at an official function, serving alcohol, you have a certain responsibility for your staff! I was not there nor privy to exactly what occurred and I concede if he was drunk and disorderly at a function David Gallop would have concern with both parties involved! If Brett was so drunk and disorderly at the function why he was not sent home then? If he had too many, after the function, no problem with that, he did act responsibly that he went home in a taxi. If he was disorderly then fair enough he has to answer for that! However commonsense would tell you that this player went through hell and back and punishing him at that particular traumatic time over what was trivial as to what he was going through, was to my mind, very poorly handled. The police cleared Brett from the allegations made against him but his name will always have a stigma against it! From being a pin up boy of Rugby League, then to lose everything overnight, Brett Stewart needs to be counselled and supported much more than he has been! The whole saga has been a disgrace in the way it has been handled!
Jonathan Healy
Roar Rookie
The fact of the matter is, what can be conclusively proved is not always the whole truth. Obviously, Brett was drunk and disorderly at the function otherwise nothing would have happened. However, let's say, for the sake of argument, he did nothing. He was a model citizen who responsibly monitored his alcohol consumption at the event. He then took a taxi home and jumped straight into bed. He was then charged with sexual assault and the NRL, seeing this as a bad sign for their game, suspended him for four weeks. Then they would have done wrong by him. HOWEVER, even if that second scenario was the case (which I don't believe for a second that it was) he still has no right to bitch and moan for two years about a piddly four week suspension.
Charles
Guest
Jonathan Healy - People that serve alcohol are obliged by law to follow the Responsible Service of Alcohol. The point I was making if Brett Stewart was at an official function it would be responsible to ensure staff (footballers) were not going over the limit. However it is obvious there were no problems with him drinking at the function as nothing was said then. Perhaps he had too many after the function I do not know, but again nothing was said to indicate there were any problems? It is when he got home in a taxi and an alleged incident occurred, all hell broke loose. After a lengthy investigation by the police and having continual attacks by the media, he was acquitted. So I say again what was he really guilty of? The player had a few drinks too many, so what? He did not say or do anything, to anyone whatsoever! The difference between me and you is that before I put a noose around someone’s neck, I try to establish the facts as to what happened and why it happened! Unless you can come up reasonable argument that explains what Brett Stewart has really done wrong in the first place, I will defend his reputation.
Jonathan Healy
Roar Rookie
Charles, you are ridiculous. Why is it the responsibility of a major national corporation to stop a 25-year-old fully-grown man from drinking too much. These guys should be smart enough to be responsible for themselves and then, if they aren't, they should be humble enough to accept the consequences.
Jonathan Healy
Roar Rookie
Charles, I hope you realise the irony in your comment. You keep telling people not to make judgements about people, but there you go thinking you can read his mind. Besides that, as you said, what he "feels" he was punished for and what he actually was punished for are two different things which just reinforces my statement that he is misguided and wrong.
Charles
Guest
What everyone needs to understand very clearly is that Brett Stewart went to an official function where there were officials present. During that time he proved he was responsible as there was no misbehaviour at the function! Now some have said that he stayed on after the official function and kept drinking. If he chose to keep on drinking after the function, that is his prerogative to do so. After that he took a taxi home, so in that view, he did nothing wrong. When he got home there was an incident that occurred and an accusation made against which proved to be wrong. So the only question in wrong doing is did he get drunk at the function or partly so. If he did the hierarchy will need to be consistent and fine everyone that ever attends an official function and is over the limit! It happens all the time in both officials and footballers. Bear in mind in that time there were no complaints about his behaviour! As apparently he stayed after the function it was not the responsibility of the league anyway! The point I am making is that we need to understand where Brett Stewart is coming from. He has a special day and he relaxes a bit by having a few more drinks. He knows he is being responsible in that he has a taxi to take him home, so what is the problem? At no time was he abusive or misbehaved, so again what is the problem? I was not there and can only go on newspaper reports but all I am saying we have become a society that has become too judgemental and cynical, when it is not based on fact or understanding of the situation!
Beowulf
Guest
Correct - even worse, Manly had no officials there at the end! Peters was supposed to monitor them all, went home and all went to crap after that. One major reason Peters was booted the other week....the Club realises how much damage this saga is doing them with sponsors and the NRL, and why the Club is splitting into two factions over the issue. The NRL gave Manly a chance to punish Stewart accordingly, and the Club gave the NRL two fingers and did nothing - of course the NRL was going to respond to that insult. They were at a work function, disgraced themselves and Stewart was the 'face of league' with a multi-million dollar campaign built around him. He would have received all the spin-offs, benefits, endorsements, career exposure etc if he could stay out of trouble for 6 months. I'm sure this was made clear to him, and how long could he keep his nose clean???? Less than 1 week. By simmerring over it, doing ridiculuous post try horse-gallops, confronting Gallop on stage in front of the major sponsors CEO AND an 11 year old boy says to me he is very immature and very, very badly advised.
mattamkII
Guest
This country is built on a healthy disrespect for authority....not overly patriotic formal BS.
League_Coach101
Guest
I don't think the issue is whether or not there was a crime involved - if his drinking was a crime then he would have been charged. The issue is whether having too many drinks at an official function is acceptable behaviour from a player who had just been publicly annointed the 'face of Rugby League in 2009.' I would contend that it is not acceptable behaviour. I would contend that Brett should take responsibility and apologise. i would contend that if it was at a Manly season launch and Manly are such a 'family club' who all 'support each other' then maybe someone should have stopped Brett. Had Brett not had too much to drink I'm quite sure NONE of the other stuff would have happened.
Campbell Watts
Guest
Perhaps you should be sticking to the NY Times or the BBC Charles if you only want to hear the issues without the "judgement" - this is a sports opinion blog! It's bound to be full of opinions - most you will find to be judgemental, in fact any comment made is a judgement by that person regarding the issue! And my judgemental view is I'm over these bloody whinging sooks!! Now go read the Fin Review Charles
Charles
Guest
If that is correct apaway, I do appoligise for my error! Although my comments do stand as to that it was at an official launch!
apaway
Roar Guru
Charles Good points, but I think you'll find that the function in which Brett Stewart got drunk was a Manly season launch, not an NRL advertising launch.
Charles
Guest
Matt F & League_Coach101 – You are both missing the point! Brett Stewart was a pin up boy, for his outstanding attitude and contribution to the game, their role model. He went to their official function which spearheaded the league’s latest advertising campaign as their pin up boy. He celebrated with the officials, no doubt, with free drinks and had a few too many. He then went home in a taxi. There is nothing he had done wrong, apart from having a few too many and no crime in that, at no stage was there bad behaviour from him! All he did was to celebrate and then go home, responsibly in a taxi. It was when he got home problems arose but until that stage there were no complaints from the league or anyone else. So in fact Brett Stewart was punished for allegations made against him and that is why he is so angry, fair enough!
Matt F
Guest
Charles there's a big difference between getting drunk on a night out with your mates and getting drunk at an official work function (well, maybe xmas party aside!) especially if there are clients involved. My boss couldn't give a stuff what I get up to outside of work but I'd probably get sacked if I did so when representing them.
Matt F
Guest
So it's the NRL's fault that Brett Stewart got smashed at an official function? No personal responsibility on Stewarts part? Also wasn't the function run by Manly, not the NRL? I guess it must be Manlys fault then
Johnno
Guest
Ah soappit why would you with the Stewart brothers they don't fight fair. They don't fight 1 on 1 as Adam blair found out if you pick a fight with 1 of them the other will jump in and run at you when you can't see him. 2 on 1 with Gallop would not be a fair fight. I wouldn't meet them either unless it could be 2 on 2 as they go in and help each other not good.
soapit
Guest
not to mention they've had many other options to be a man and schedule a meeting and thrash it out with him but he chooses to do it on the grand final podium when they are both really restricted in what they can say. i suspect he wanted to avoid giving gallop much of a right of reply.