Finally, rugby league is getting its house in order. Now that Mitchell Pearce has been handed the code’s biggest-ever fine, as recognition that he committed the worst deed any league player has ever committed, hopefully we can move forward with the new considered, methodical approach to off-field discipline.
All that really remains is to educate the public and the playing population itself on exactly what they can expect if they cross those lines.
And in aid of that goal, The Roar is proud to present the New NRL Rate Card For Players’ Misdemeanours. This rate card can be referred to by any player seeking to know exactly what his youthful hijinks will cost him.
More Mitchell Pearce
» Mitchell Pearce has had his last alcoholic drink
» Pearce cops eight weeks and $125K fine
» The fine is huge, but Pearce is just lucky to be playing footy
» Mitch Pearce’s welfare the priority: RLPA
» WATCH: The original footage; does the punishment fit the crime?
First, as we’ve already discovered, it’s $125,000 for any player found guilty of being filmed wetting his pants, bouncing a dog on his lap, ineptly trying to score with a woman, and making a series of baffling racial remarks. But further to that, here is the penalty scale.
$10,000 – a player may either urinate on a public monument of his choice at night, or punch an admittedly obnoxious government employee during the daytime.
$20,000 – having sex in a public toilet.
$30,000 – having sex with a public toilet.
$35,000 – being caught taking drugs, but only those drugs that, you know, pretty much everyone does all the time but we pretend to disapprove when a famous person does them.
$40,000 – drinking until you’re absolutely sure that a complete stranger wants to have sex with you and just needs a bit of persuasion to loosen up.
$50,000 – tweeting a racial slur, homophobic profanity, misogynist hate-speech or suggestion that the NRL Judiciary is full of shit.
$50,000 – doing the above, but as a public Facebook status.
$50,000 – doing the above, but as an update on LinkedIn.
$50,000 – doing anything on LinkedIn.
$55,000 – becoming a contestant on Dancing With The Stars (25% discount if you can prove you’re doing it ironically).
$60,000 – murder, but for a pretty good reason.
$62,500 – murder for no particularly good reason.
$65,000 – beating up a woman.
$67,500 – rooting your mate’s missus.
$70,000 – having a regular segment on The Footy Show involving cross-dressing, practical jokes, interviewing mentally disturbed passersby on the street, or repeating a baffling catchphrase that everyone in the audience seems to find hilarious for no reason that anyone can figure out.
$75,000 – being Paul Gallen.
$80,000 – being Ray Hadley.
$90,000 – being whoever is responsible for getting Phil Gould to do those horrible speeches on the field before State of Origin games, I mean for god’s sake isn’t there any security at the ground, who even let him out there? Is anyone getting any insight from these talks? And does anyone actually think Gould looks more impressive or statesmanlike because he’s standing on grass? In fact, let’s just give this fine to whoever hired Phil Gould in the first place.
$95,000 – saying that a referee made a mistake.
$100,000 – saying that a referee made a mistake and being right.
$105,000 – failing to conscientiously promote the gambling industry whenever the opportunity presents itself.
$110,000 – being involved in a fight outside a pub where it is generally agreed that you didn’t actually start it or act aggressively in any way and were just attacked by some psychotic alco, but everyone says that you shouldn’t have been out that late anyway so it’s best that we punish you as if the conclusions we all jumped to before knowing the pertinent facts were actually true.
$111,000 – getting fat.
$112,000 – turning up to training drunk.
$113,000 – turning up to training stoned.
$114,000 – turning up to training covered in tramp blood.
$115,000 – committing extreme acts of criminal sexual violence as part of an unending pattern of sociopathic behaviour.
$120,000 – peeing in your own mouth.
So, leaguies, go out there and live your life! Just remember that it could cost you – and from now on, that price is going to be more logical than ever.
apaway
Roar Guru
That's Gold! (Ah, dammit, that's a fine isn't it?)
Sports Fan
Guest
That's not right. Both Monaghan & Carney posed, weener out, for the camera. Monaghan quit the Raiders. In his very announcement, he said he'd be joining Super League - so quit the NRL, too. The topic of NRL registration never arose. Besides, NRL could only indicate non-registration following a contract request. Carney's wrap sheet was about 4 times longer than Pearce's, including multiple counts of breaking club rules, not presenting for duty, police charges and a prior 1 year full ban from the NRL. Even so, the Sharkies treated him poorly, cancelling a year of contract and saving big cash, rather than having him sit out 12 weeks. Now face a law suit for 3 mill. They don't compare. Pearce acted a goose when he'd been invited to get-together amongst a group who were presenting as "private friends". All had been drinking for hours - obviously Pearce lead the pack. Filming was concealed, with camera hidden in hands - see the dodgy edit down to a one-third strip of film.
pete bloor
Guest
As I pointed out above I think a lot of the "back talk" has been conjured up from thin air.
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
Ben, my Mum and Dad said to me when I was a youngen "Dean, you can be whatever you want". So that being said, I'll reserve my opinion until after I've seen the footage from this years mardi gras...........but whatever floats your boat champ!
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Your advice is always valued, Mike.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Are...are you accusing me of being a policewoman?
Ben Pobjie
Expert
I have pictures of the Roar editors. Sick stuff.
northerner
Guest
To be fair to both of us, I'm a newbie here and have only read a few of Ben's articles, so I'm probably seeing it differently than you are. Maybe, after I've immersed myself a bit more I'll change my opinion, but just on the basis of this one article, I think he has a point. And that's what satire should be about. Anyhow, we can agree to disagree on this one.
Ginger Meggs
Guest
If the NRL wants to be the judge and jury on off-field behaviour they should make an effort to be fair. Joel Monaghan...no prior offences...doggy act...NRL refused to certify a contract with any club...deported to the UK for life. Tod Kearney...many prior offences...drinks own urine...banished to UK. Mitchell Pearce...many prior offences...doggy act...4 weeks rehab at a resort, 8 weeks off, big fine and he's back. A bit tough on poor old Nick though. He will have to hit the kick for the fine and he wasn't even at the party.
Mike
Guest
If this article is supposed to be satire or in any way funny I would advise the writer to not give up his day job and the Eds to cast a bit wider for quality content.
GB
Guest
There's a ridiculous amount of trial-by-media. Have heard comments from a couple of US/Euro folk commenting that it's a weird obsession here. Ugly, unfair & fact-twisting Terrorgraph & Current Affair drive agendas. (As an aside, notice the weird edits on the Pearce video - middle 30% remains, left & right 35% cut, with weird visual echos of central picture? No - it's not an iphone/samsung 16:9 picture on it's side, it's a different ratio & edited. Hard to imagine any reason to payout cashola & then run with such a weird edit, than to hide filmer's fingers on lens as his mitts wrap the camera to conceal it). Judgements/penalties must come back to bite for some cases. The general population are more intelligent than the 10% of permanently outraged tele readers who simplify all issues to the point of instant lynching, don't worry about facts, rights, complexity or relativities. Having said that, signs of improvement do exist. Handling of the SKD case was five stars. Souths were given plenty of leeway to deal with internal strife - perhaps too much? Whereas prior Gallop handling of Stewart was five thumbs-down & five 'Eduard Munch, The Scream' faces. Pearce treatment aligns with latter. Suppose with one fair case & one lynching, Roosters get to half-complain.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Fine. I never said you were anti-league for a second. Pobjie's articles are constantly focused on the negative aspects of sport. I've never read anything of his that speaks fondly or respectfully of sport. Even if you agree with him you can't deny that this article is based around a massive negative part of the code. It's also full of cheap shots at players and at the game regardless of whether the premise of the article is right or wrong. As I've said several times now this is the latest piece in a long line of articles taking pot shots at league. That's the basis for my comments. Anyway, I respect your right to enjoy the article - glad you got something out of it that I didn't. I'm not interested in debating it any further. You like it, I don't. You're not going to change my mind and I'm happy that you enjoyed it so have no interest in changing yours. Have a read of his articles and point out the one that speaks with a love or even fondness of sport.
GB
Guest
Great article and embarassingly accurate. Of course, there is a sliding crime scale. It's just implicit, rather than explicit. And it does look like above. It shows that despite Grant famously criticising "reactive" management, that's precisely where we are. Players are penalised firstly for generating headlines and much less for "substance of infringement".
Griggso
Guest
That's gold Dean :)
northerner
Guest
@The Barry - do you think the penalty imposed on Pearce was fair? Was it consistent with other penalties imposed on other players for other transgressions? Does the NRL make its decisions based on the severity of the offence committed, so that fake sex with a dog gets a lower penalty than a drink driving conviction? If you're happy with the way punishments are handed out, then you can certainly criticize what Ben has written. If you believe the NRL is inconsistent, however, and swayed more by media attention than by fairness, then you'd agree with his article. Personally, in the interests of the players and the game, I'd like to see a much more transparent and consistent disciplinary process. So I agree with the point of Ben's piece. That doesn't make me anti-League.
nerval
Guest
I don't know about "most of us" northerner, I can only speak for myself. And, as with The Barry, all I see is the latest in a litany of articles from an author who shows every indication of loathing the sport, its players, its fans, its tribunals and its very existence. Still, if the Roar editors are happy to pay Ben... it's "money for old rope" as my favourite teacher used to say.
nerval
Guest
Yes, he did.
The Barry
Roar Guru
What's to get? I've been reading this blokes articles for a couple of years. There's never anything about what happens on the field it's always negative bandwagon jumping about the latest controversy. As I said earlier maybe in isolation this article is fine...as a broader body of work it's all part of the same theme. It is bagging the game. The game includes it's administration and how the game is run. It's completely negative and based on a negative theme. Not bagging players? It's a list of indiscretions, one of which is a $75,000 fine for being Paul Gallen. He also used language that would get one of our posts moderated or deleted. Anyway - glad you enjoyed it. Keep an eye out for Pobjie's articles and tell me when you see one that's positive about any sport in any way.
Dean - Surry Hills
Guest
In dog beers, he'd only had three
Northerner
Guest
If you believe this article criticized the game you didn't get it at all. Stop being so defensive, read it the way most of us are reading it, and see that it is a criticism of the game's tribunals, not of the game or of the players.