Many won’t remember Willis Meehan, the promising forward the Roosters sacked in July 2015 after he was found guilty for a second time of assault, having previously been placed on a good behaviour bond in 2014.
Meehan, who had played one senior game with club, later revealed that he had been playing the role of standover man for known criminals, although this is not something for which he had ever been charged.
Repeated off-field incidents ending in court appearances led to the Roosters running out of patience.
Fair enough. And yet…
The Roosters recent recruitment of serial bad boys Zane Tetevano, Paul Carter and Liam Knight has raised a few eyebrows.
Tetevano’s record makes for uneasy reading. Sacked from the Knights for ‘disciplinary reasons’, notably smashing a taxi windscreen, Tetevano was thrown a lifeline by the Sea Eagles, only to be later jailed for four charges relating to assault of his then partner.
Carter’s career is marked with incidents involving alcohol. While at the Titans he was twice charged with high-range drink driving, on one occasion while driving unlicenced. His sacking saw him move to Souths, where he was again sacked following alcohol-related incidents.
Knight is also known for running afoul of drink-driving laws. In an incident where he was clocked doing nearly double the 70km/h speed limit, Knight made headlines for spraying Aerogard in his mouth to try to avoid being picked up by a breathalyser. His unusual attempt failed and a high-range drink driving charge saw him being stood down by Manly, before moving to the Roosters.
There is an argument to be made that these players have been punished by the authorities, and while the club is taking a risk in signing them, the Roosters are well within their rights to do so.
The club does have a history of signing, or re-signing known troublemakers.
Blake Ferguson was known for more than his football when the club signed him, with an indecent assault charge following multiple off-field incidents while at the Raiders. Since joining the club he has stayed out of trouble.
Club captain Jake Friend is another example, with a successful rehabilitation and return to the club after being sacked following arrests for assault, drink driving and offensive behaviour.
But for every Friend or Ferguson, there are the not-so-successful stories. Serial offender Todd Carney joined the club in 2010, only to be sacked the following year. Former captain Mitchell Pearce is still at the club but no longer skipper, after a number of well-publicised off-field incidents.
While Pearce may yet demonstrate he has turned himself around, surely he is on his last chance, and a less talented player might not have been given that leeway.
What to make of all this? Meehan’s sacking seems reasonable. He crossed a line that meant the Roosters couldn’t back him any more.
But where is that line?
It’s easy to look from a distance and make parallels. Twice being charged with assault means you aren’t Roosters material. Repeated counts of assault on your partner? Repeated high range drink driving? Indecent assault? That’s the other side of the line, apparently. At least, if you’ve done your time.
And provided you did those things before you became a Rooster.
Meehan has since found structure and discipline by embracing both boxing and Islam. The Sea Eagles offered him a reserve grade contract for 2016, but the NRL has not registered a contract for him for 2017. The fact that Meehan has been offered a contract by Manly, while a former Sea Eagle and a former Rabbitoh are lining up at the Roosters, confirms that a sacking offense for one club is not always a recruiting barrier for another.
That’s the beauty of rugby league – there may be a second chance.
If you are good enough. And if you keep on the right side of that line.
Wherever it is.
up up cronulla
Guest
Sharks are not standing fifita down, for the last time people he has not beoken and laws or been charged with anything!
Dutski
Roar Guru
Interesting take, One Week. So is it the case that a club like the Roosters with established sponsors and longstanding corporate support can afford to take a risk knowing that they can afford the odd hit to the brand if it all goes wrong, while a club like the Raiders, Knights or Titans with a less established financial situation are quicker to cut someone loose? If so then as you point out you get situations like Ferguson, where the Raiders couldn't afford to keep him but the Roosters could afford to take a punt and wear a little damage if it all went wrong.
Mike from tari
Guest
Once upon a time the clubs would sack them, then the media & certain people said hold on you can't throw them to the wolves because they could descend into the darkness of depression so you have to support them & look after them & give them a chance again but the treatment of these players who stuff up is all over the place, there is no consistency in the punishment,
Squidward
Roar Rookie
I've been done twice at RBTs. Clean of course
Tom Rock
Expert
It all comes down to winning. Provided that the NRL will register the contract, very few teams will shy away from signing a talented player on his second, third or final chance. If that player will help the club win a few games, then most clubs can't help themselves. They usually trot out the line that their culture is strong enough to keep this wayward soul in line. And yet before you know it, said soul are urinating in his own face.... The Roosters are a bit of a special case. From my perspective, they sign these blokes because it makes sound business sense. Take Blake Ferguson. When the Roosters 'rescued' him, they got a hugely talented player still in his mid-20s, and signed him for peanuts. If he played well, they fill a position on their roster with an Origin caliber player without any impact on their salary cap in the immediate term. If he bombs or does something stupid, sack him and move on. Apart from some public scrutiny, there is minimal risk. This strategy is by no means fool proof, but when you are blessed with the sound management structure and financial security of the Roosters, you can afford to take chances. The real issue here is at an NRL level. They are the ones who need to draw lines in the sand. If players cross them, they can't register a contract with any NRL side.
MAX
Guest
Top article Dutski. So easy to read and jolts the memory. The power of forgiveness gets a real workout when it comes to proven violence against women. Such is my respect for Trent Robinson that he deserves to be rewarded by the troubled trio turning into decent law abiding citizens. Drawing their talents out will be the easy part. Good luck to Easts in 2017. Rugby League is better when they are firing.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Jacko that is probably just cynical enough to be true.
Jacko
Guest
The rules around second chances is very simple and consistant. If you are good we give you 3 chances, average you only get 1. Brilliant and we let you decide how many chances you want. A qld rep = many many chances. NSW rep 2-3 chances. Kiwi = 1 chance only if you dont play for, or want to play for the Warriors otherwise you're gone. English or other nationality = just get rid of them...unlesss they are good or better
Jacko
Guest
You are so right about the inconsistancy. Take valium and red bull and you get stood down for 6 weeks, take PEDs and you get a 3 week deal at the end of a season your team cant qualify for finals in.
Dutski
Roar Guru
I agree on the violence against women, which is why Tetevano being offered a contract in particular isn;t something I am comfortable with. How do you incorporate someone with that history into your club culture? How would the other players feel about it? It is a tough issue. No-one wants to see a case where players get a line put through them despite paying their dues to society. That's when guys end up going off the rails entirely - I'm thinking Anthony Watts here - footy player to bikie in a few short years. Can these guys turn it around? I hope so, I really do. But I feel really conflicted about having them at my club. That probably reeks of hypocrisy - I'm happy for these guys to be given another chance if they've turned themselves around and kept their noses clean. Just not at my club, thanks... That's how it feels and yes, you couldn't call it anything but hypocrisy. Sounds like this is just symptomatic of a larger societal debate which might be a bit heavy for a sports opinion website.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Agreed eJ. As a Roosters fan I wanted to write about my club, particularly given the recent influx of 'bad boys'. Three in one season? That's a massive risk. But you are also getting players with NRL experience for next to nothing. My dad used to be a Bulldogs fan as they (in his eyes) were the cleanest club in the league. He jumped ship at the Coffs Harbour business a decade ago and ended up a Sharks fan. As you say, and as he found out, no club can claim the high ground here. But how much is enough?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Tough issue because we all come at it from different viewpoints. I don't have a problem with players having second chances, the issue becomes when is enough enough. I'm happy to accept that these are young men and they're going to get into trouble here and there. But how many times does someone have to go DUI before the message gets through? At what point does the game say enough? Violence against women is an area I'd like to see the clubs and the NRL stand firm. One time is one too many but then are we effectively saying that's irredeemable? What's the message that's sent with even a one chance only policy - that it's ok to abuse a woman once? Such a tough issue.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
I mean they are well within their right to do whatever they please in their spare time. They are in their off-season prior to any testing requirements. If they choose to partake in what a large share of people their own age are doing, then that's their choice. Very few drug takers will ever stand before a judge. Or get swabbed by the police.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
Well within their right? Tell that to the judge? Or when you're getting swab tested by the cops
eagleJack
Roar Guru
It's not really a Roosters specific phenemon though. It has always been the case that if you stuff up under contract you'll be sacked. Only to be welcomed with open arms by another club within weeks or months. Can any club take the moral high ground on this issue? The NRL is littered with reformed bad boys.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Thanks brendon. The original title was 'Roosters recruiting, an undefinable line and the case of Willis Meehan'. The Roar eds took it in a different direction. It does seem to be the place people go when they have screwed up. Just don't screw up once you're there. As for Fifita... sigh. You're probably right.
Brendon
Guest
Um, just to clarify, you said where does the NRL stand on second chances, but isn't it actually "Where do the Roosters stand on second chances?" It seems in recent years, if you screw up anywhere in the NRL, the roosters will be willing to take you. I expect to see Andrew Fifita there any day now....
eagleJack
Roar Guru
Nor would multiple NRL players currently enjoying an off-season. And they are well within their right to have a good time. In isolation the vast majority of off-field incidents are shocking But the NRL have proven time and time again that they allow second, third or even fourth chances. And Meehan will be no different. Once he has proven himself.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Hey Squidward. Not flying the flag for Meehan as such. As a Roosters fan I'm dirty that we signed these other players. The idea that we would employ someone who repeatedly bashed his girlfriend doesn't sit well with me. The point of the article is that there appears to be different rules for different players. If you do your offence at another club, then all is forgiven. If you are talented enough, then you get more leeway. If your crime is seen as not as bad as others, you get a second chance. Meehan's crimes were crimes and he was rightly sacked. But it would have been a different story if he'd have been a star player, or had done them at another club.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
What is this a Meehan redemption story? Let's not sugar coat assault. He pretended to shoot a cabbie in the head and took all his money. And I see him around the traps. Let's just say he wouldn't want to be peeing in a cup anytime soon