Why such a disparity in the fines handed out to Pearce and Norman?

"AFL people regularly look down at NRL people when it comes to how business is run. Regularly, with good reason." @barrettdamian http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-21/the-cronulla-road-the-essendon-road-

Firstly, what's more socially acceptable -- animal abuse and some actions that were bordering on sexual assault, or a couple of pills and having some dodgy mates and appearing in a sex tape? Secondly, as others have stated, Pearce has form in this area.

Because Pearce's antics were on film. Just like Carney's drinking thingy. If the Carney thing was never photographed he would be in the NRL still. A bit unfair...but that's how it rolls fellas!

Maybe people could take a deep breath and realise that whatever stupid thing some 20 something did, who you don't know personally, doesn't actually effect your daily life. Why people get so hysterical about something that has nothing to do with them? Read about it, form an opinion if you like, and move on. Read all the stories in the newspapers and imagine if you were not allowed to put names to every crime or incident reported. Imagine where some of these things players do/are accused of doing would rate on importance level....

I get the theory, but it's ridiculously unfair. To have media exposure alone dictate the NRL's response (which is pretty well what you say) is also called "trial by media" and that's not what media is for. I know commercial image is important but if I were Greenberg, I'd be in far deeper trouble trying to explain why Player A got less punishment (a warning? For a robbery? Come on...) than Player B for exactly the same offence. And don't think for a minute no-one would find out or care. They always do. Surely the NRL has a responsibility to be consistent for everyone, not just those who "damage the brand".

fazed, while agree kind of in regards to Pearce's indiscretion not being his first, The first time you get caught carrying drugs, probably isn't the first time you have actually carried drugs. So Pearce hasn't necessarily been a dope more often than Norman, he has just been caught more often than Norman who until this year didn't really carry the same profile in the public domain as Pearce which may have helped him fly under the radar. I think the Norman punishment is about right and the Pearce fine was a bit too much. But i personally think if the Parramatta 5 board members had not announced they were going to challenge their banning and the clubs 12 point deduction, the NRL may have well left Norman alone...

Did Carney do the damage to the game ? Or was it due to the social media frenzy afterwards that did the damage ... The same could be said about Pearce .

Give him two years for good measure.

The game could implement a three-strike policy like a rival sporting codes for repeat offenders How about one strike and your out?

don't blush baby

Not entirely. Lets say player A robs a post office get caught by police and gets fined 100k. The media don't hear about it or don't publish anything, very few people know anything about it, does not appear on social media but the NRL is informed. The damage to the NRL is minimal. The punishment dished out by the NRL should be low and be more as a warning than anything else. Player B robs a post office and get caught by police and fined 100k. The press get hold of it and it is front page news, a passer by has a video which appears on the internet and shown on all the major tv channels. Outrage ensues with numerous articles on internet chat rooms such as the roar. The club and club officials are all asked for their opinions and what they think should happen to him and whether the 100k was enough. Other players start chipping in with their opinions, the post office which was intending to be a sponsor of another club is suddenly in two minds. The whole thing drags on for weeks. The punishment from the NRL has to be high to reflect the damage done to its business and in order to try and distance itself from the action of robbing post offices.

My precise point, well said.

true sir

Six weeks and $50K seemed to be the consensus of Roarers opinion before the penalty was imposed. The NRL may not have wanted to be accused of leniency having regard to Wayne being on the ARL board, though he did not vote on the matter. Interesting points now raised as to the accounting and taxation treatment of the issue. Maybe Mitchell has to tackle something more difficult than a head on.

Yeah that was weird. If ever something should be a crime, surely what he did ranks up there, especially for the first poor girl he kissed afterwards. The NRL dropped him faster than a lava baby but I would like to have seen what they would have done if it was his first offence, remembering he had more form than Supermax. Packer was not as recalcitrant as Carney, but for what it's worth, I don't think he should have been allowed back either. Are you saying the NRL should ignore the legal outcomes and implement their own processes from the go? That would be tough given they don't have the evidence at the investigator's disposal I think.

I love the ultimate logic in this Squidward. The fact that the West Indies are rubbish at cricket means Corey Norman gets a smaller fine for drug possession. Sure there's a few steps in between, but really, it's all Chris Gayle's fault, isn't it?

Reading your reply again, I think we are on the same page. What I am saying is that it is down to the NRL to decide how much damage has been done and punish accordingly. It does not matter what is legal and it does not matter what the legal system decides to do. A classic example here is Todd Carney - never prosecuted by the police because nothing he did was illegal but he did immense damage to the game's image. Many fans do not get why the NRL punished him but allow someone like Packer back in the game. As bad as Packer's crime was, he did less damage to the game than Carney did (Though I believe that he should not have been allowed back).

But if the court finds them not guilty, then Coles would be in a situation where they would face an unfair dismissal scenario. So they still need to have their ducks lined up very well. Or standing down the person from there role until the court case if they believe they are right but aren't 100%.

...... and who would you put in their place ? We have all seen what happens when the great unwashed elect people to senior positions that they are unqualified to hold.

Not at all, Coles may well sack an individual for stealing as that is damages their business and regardless of what the courts decide.