Robert Lui deserved harsher sentence

I think that in relation to the alleged 2010 incident, the girlfriend refused to give any evidence against Lui, and the matter was dismissed by the Magistrate, probably after the Prosecution withdrew the charges, because they knew that there would be zero chance of a result, with the main witness being unwilling to co-operate.

In the past decade or so there have been quite a few shocking cases of top rugby league players mistreating women, whether as individuals or as part of a group of team-mates together. Is it fuelled by drink, drugs or what? In earlier years you never, or at least very rarely, heard of women being bashed or abused by league players. Whatever's causing all these terrible incidents, one thing is clear -- the penalties being dished out are no deterrent because it just goes on and on. How can these guys call themselves men when they do this? It seems they just don't care. Maybe the punishment needs to include a bit of the physical stuff they like to dish out to girls. The root cause of this outrageous behaviour must be determined otherwise in a few months we'll all be discussing another shocking episode, then another ... and another ... it's absolutely sickening.

Just look at the Bird case where even the judge said no one's story added up but with the "victim" not sying anything what can they do?

Agreed - I can and would be fired for this. Hell once this hit the papers I'd get the "There's two letters on the desk. One says we accept your resignation, the other outlines your termination. Please choose wisely"

That's absolute, utter rubbish Gareth. Show me one person, let alone "a lot" who has ever said / written that Bird is made for Origin or tough BECAUSE he glassed his girlfriend... The most childish, inane twisting of words I've read in a long time.

According to a lot of people, glassing your girlfriend and then trying to blame your mate makes you "tough" and/or "built for origin".

Yes there's a legal problem with saying second offence. He was never convicted and therefore, legally, this is his first offence. Of course that's a pretty naive attitude generally speaking, although I have no specific knowledge of what Lui did or didn't do, to suggest that if you weren't legally convicted then it never happened. His partner's medical records suggest that something happened Even if you go by the 'where there's smoke there's fire' train of thought though you still have a logic problem categorising this as a second offence considering this is the third incident (with multiple charges each time) of domestic violence that he's been to charged over. If you weren't using a 'legal conviction' definition of offences, then this is a trend, and if it's a trend you can't help but wonder how many other times it's happened where the police weren't involved. Yes, I know that these previous incidents are unproven in court but it seems naive to ignore it completely. There's also the level of offence, obviously I don't condone any violence towards women but there's a difference between a push and repeating kicking her in the head which is what he has plead guilty to. I also don't find any positive our of hearing that they are still together, personally I'm of the view that this guy has had chances to turn things around. Again I don't claim to know any specifics about Lui and his actions besides what's in the paper, but maybe losing his job and his partner might have been the sort of reality check this bloke needs to turn it around. As it is he's basically lost nothing bar a single season of NRL while still on the payroll of a professional football club.

If it is in Lui's or anyone's employment contract states that your employment can be terminated if you are involved and found guilty of a criminal offence, then an employer can terminate your employment/contract. In my Employment contract it states that i can be dissmissed if (amongst other things), i "engage in conduct that causes serious risk to the health and safety of a person". I have been pretty clear in my position previously, so i won't harp on it. I think the NRL have been soft, their punishment is pathetic (if i am not mistaken both didn't just atttack women in their homes, they attacked women carrying unborn children in the safety of their own homes) and both should have been deregistered and they can go out and get a real job like the rest of us.

We have clear cut penalty gradings for on field infringements which can make or break a nrl teams finals chances. Why can't we have a clear cut penalty gradings system for off field infringements on individual players. Not clear cut you say? Why not follow the courts rulings, they have clear cut gradings, sentences and monetary fine amounts. Then we won't have bigger RL names getting off lighter than players hardly known. Latu - who? de-registered entirely for one punch on a random outside a nightclub, Lui - up and coming player - a season for repeatedly kicking GF on ground Greg Bird - NSW Rep, didn't get as much as Latu and Lui and please please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he GLASS his girlfriend???

This was Lui's first offence found proved. He was sentenced as a first offender, following a plea of guilty, to a fine and good behaviour bond. The first set of charges were not dropped by police as has been reported elsewhere. These charges were heard by a magistrate and after hearing the evidence, including from his partner, all charges were dismissed. The NRL cannot treat him as a second offender on the basis of allegations thrown out of court. But it's worth thinking about that first set of charges. In domestic violence cases, partners often don't front at court to give evidence on the day of hearing, or if they do, they say they can't remember what happened or deny it, leaving the court no choice but to toss the charges. Lui's partner did give evidence that day, and while I don't know what she said, it might have been the case that her memory was not so reliable that day. This last set, Lui pleaded guilty, meaning the court was not left with the task of determining guilt or innocence. On the next occasion this might occur to him or anyone in the else in the NRL, how do you think a life ban will play on the mind of the victim involved? Do you think she is going to want her man earning a couple of hundred grand or going back to regular wages? Do you think she will want to carry the can for ending his professional career? Of course it's not her fault, but that's what she'll be thinking? Think she'll bother reporting it to the cops? Or if she does, think she'll turn up to give evidence? If she does come to court, think her memory of events will be all there or that it might desert her? No player facing a life ban is going to plead guilty. What would be the point? Without convictions, the NRL can't take any action at all. Is that the result you prefer?

Whats the alternative? I do agree with Spencer, its not the job of the NRL to pass Lui is lucky he is not in jail, but look at the wider circumstances. The fact that his victim is still with him and they have a child together should not be ignored, although Im not sure why she is still with him. Im not sure about Lui's educational background, but in all likelihood, RL is his lifeblood and sole source of income. If Lui was banned for life, he would not be able to make a living and his young family would suffer, continuing a vicious cycle. Also Im not sure about this being Lui's second offence, as far as Im aware he hasnt been convicted before. The previous allegation was acquitted. I would say Lui has been punished immensly already. His name has been tarnished people will always associate him with being a wife beater, his earnings have suffered.

I can't believe David Garnsey has been in the papers today whinging about how Lui and Gordon should have been summoned to present their case before punishment was handed down. What were they going to say - "Bitch had it coming!"? "I beat her for her own good, because I love her"? After the absolute dribble from Ben Teo and his fancy criminal lawyer I'm beginning to think players should have the opportunity to "defend" themselves revoked altogether.

with regards to Watts i think the roosters had a lot of problems with him and wanted him out of the club as he had a bad influence on others at the club especially Carney.

Since when has the NRL, or any sporting body, become judge, jury, and executioner? The courts have dealt with the issue. I wonder Cutback, what would happen if your employer fired you/suspended you for being found guilty of a similar offence?