What do we learn from the case of Ryan Tandy?

well said, it is easy for those to condem Ryan after he has died, but a lot of people just don't understand depression and loss of self worth and purpose, if only more people could show understanding we could avoid many tragic deaths. I have never met Ryan Tandy but I have know doubt he was a good man.

I have to explain this all again to Barry If I put a lot of money on this I would want to be sure and that involves Tandy obtaining and losing the ball near his own line. Allowing the Cowboys to get down the field (without another ruining it eg a bookie getting in a Cowboys player ear) from a reverse kickoff would seem to be too risky for the dough being invested; The NRL were aware of the sting on Friday; (a) when did the players know like the stewards telling a jockey that their mount has had a large drift or plunge; (b) Watts took the tap (unusual in the first 2 minutes) without consulting his captain; (c) the price of a Cowboys try would have blown out the window and duly delivered; So when was it known and di the bookies get to a Cowboys player to spoil the scam esp as the NRL would be watching closely for complicity. Barry confirms the Tandy actions but doesn't explain how the fixers knew it would go down the Bulldogs end - anything else is too risky A newspaper were going to implicate a player but were scared off and though better of it. I hope Tandys book gets published and it is accurate but likely libel laws will kill it.

Normyzee I’m stunned that you honest to goodness need an answer as to why the NRL needs to treat the two differently. I mean I’m utterly stunned that this is the entire basis of your position. Call me a sceptic but when someone is advocating the replacement of our entire system of law with an NRL tribunal I do get a little sceptical. The off field deception and subsequent damage to society as a whole is for the courts to rule upon. In that court yes domestic violence is a far greater crime and should be treated as such. The NRL should only be looking at the effect the actions have on the rugby league community’s faith that the NRL is a professional competition that represents that league community. The NRL has no place on adjudicating on anything other than that. None what so ever. Off field illegal incidents affect that, sure. They erode our ability to relate to players and how representative of our community we feel the competition is. So players are rightly punished to a greater extent than just the letter of the law. Match fixing/spot fixing however (and the intent is the same here – reduce the probability of your team winning for financial benefit) affect our very belief in the contest. If players are intentionally helping the other team it is a farcical contest that has no reason for being. There is no greater betrayal of competitive sport than this. It isn’t just hurting your team and the quality of the game through wilful negligence like off field behaviour it is a cold deliberate subversion of the entire sporting contest. As said previously in other professions you get expelled for similar "crimes" against the very fabric of the profession. His intent to corrupt the game is undeniable and was treated with severely but justly. His actions made it untenable for him to do his job. He is not the first nor the last to struggle with such an outcome. The burden on managing that down ward spiral falls not to the employer or industry he betrayed, but to society as a whole to give a chance for redemption elsewhere in life. With regards to his treatment as a footballer I have not a single shred of sympathy for Tandy and his punishment. But what happened to him as a human being I do have sympathy for his plight, but also have some sympathy for those whose’ lives he helped derail and destroy also.

Xman - the problem with your little conspiracy theory is that the bet was actually on the Cowboys to score first via penalty goal. The fact that Watts took the tap and the Cowboys scored a try actually lost the bet for the syndicate involved. The fact that he left in disgrace had nothing to do with the spot fixing. Tandy was the only one who did anything 'sus' and that's the way it played out when it was investigated by the police.

True, I have been fairly unsympathetic - I guess I can't muster up much empathy for him, because all the things he has done are a direct result of decisions he made. Life is all about choices we make, and he's unfortunately made some very bad choices. I just think there are people who wind up in far worse situations than he did, have much less opportunities than he did, and that's part of the reason why I can't feel too sad for him. He was dealt a fantastic hand in life, a chance to play at the highest level and he threw it away. It's sad, but it happens. Life goes on. Anyways, I'll leave it at that, I've said more than enough in this topic, and anything else would just be repeating myself.

Because you have been pretty cold and so black and white.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. You know nothing about me. Why on earth are you making this so personal?

Hard to make amends Paul D he is dead. People like you are not predisposed to helping anyone but yourself lucky we are not all like you.

Yeah. Nrl can't go looking after every one sacked. I don't expect my employer to go checking up after me for years after if I was to be sacked for fraud. Shouldn't be the case here. Terrible news though

Well said turbo, if he'd shown signs that he was willing to make amends I'm sure people would have been more predisposed to help him out. But ultimately I don't think he really cared too much about league as a game, only what he could get out of it.

I can see how it plays out, but there's a lot of assumptions and guesswork in what you're saying. My view is that Tandy was always going to give a penalty at the first opportunity within kicking range. Bulldogs receiving the ball simply made it easier for him to do it sooner, by dropping the ball and then conceding a penalty. Had it been the reverse and the Dogs kicked off, I'm sure once the cowboys kicked downfield at the end of their first set of six, he would have been there to take an early hit-up like a good prop, and dropped it cold on the 2nd or 3rd tackle, well within kicking range for the cowboys. Same result. Don't assume I'm oblivious, just because I don't agree with what you're saying. I can see how it plays out, but I can also see you're wanting to believe that's there more to the story. You're in effect accusing a number of players indirectly, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest otherwise, I'm not on board with that.

You put a lot of money on the Cowboys - do you seriously take the risk that somehow the Bulldogs kick off and the Bulldogs keep the Cows deep in Cowboys territory obviously and then winning the ball back and score. With the Cows kicking off, you have tandy onside and he duly delivers by dropping the ball deep in his territory and then giving away the penalty. Can you not see how it plays out...If the Bulldogs kick off then Tandy is only one of 26 in the equation. You are right it doesnt have to be on the first set of six but if you have put a lot of money on you want to be sure. If the reverse kickoff takes place the 25 other players can impact the game. In one way you are vindicated by saying Tandy is the only one involved because the sequence played out exactly with only Tandy involved. But on the other hand how did the fixers know the Bulldogs would receive. I'm amazed you cant see that... The other question is when did the players know - the NRL was alerted friday and the game was Saturday evening - did they not tell the players - could the bookies not have chatted to key Cowboys players??? Anthony Watts who left the club in disgrace then takes a quick tap and Cowboys score a try - the long odds on a Cowboys try score have been delivered. Andrew Ryan and the long serving Cowboys hooker who has retired whose name escapes me were listed as captains that day...

Planko, I didn’t quite understand the point you’re making. The bets placed by those involved off the field was that the first scoring play of the game would be a penalty goal to the Cowboys. There was no proviso that it had to be on the first set of six. And if the Cowboys were the ones who the bets were on to score first, why would you want Canterbury to receive the kick off? Wouldn’t it be the other way around, that you’d want the Cowboys to have the ball in hand? You explain to me why it’s so important that the Bulldogs had to receive the ball from the kick off, and then I’ll discuss it further. Because right now I don’t see the relevance.

Tandy could have done volunteer work for 2 years solid, re-applied and could well have been given a reprieve. Everyone on here says the NRL needed to do more for the bloke. Why didnt Tandy go out of HIS way to repay the rugby league community. He could have volunteered to chop oranges or something on weekends for junior footy. He could have helped line-mark the fields. If he was seen to put in the hard yards his ban could have been lifted. You can lead a horse to water...

Normy, you are painting league players as helpless and incapable people. This is unkind. They are normal people like you or me. They can fend for themselves, they are as bright as you or me.

Rest in Peace Ryan. I remember he was a good solid player and he played hard. Maybe we should have a think about how we treat players. They are human beings too and even when we punish them we must empathize with them and help them. Player welfare must always come first.

That is if you are struggling, how do you fix a game with 26 on the field by getting at one player. In your answer don't forget to answer this qn "explain to me how the fixers knew that the Bulldogs would receive the ball from the kick-off in the Cowboys game"

OK so are you going to answer the question - how were the punters so sure Canterbury would receive the kickoff. - how can you avoid the qn so obviously??

Professional sportsmen or women are not normal ... Some are but most are not.