Roberts' reprieve spells more bad news for the NRL

Sure. Roberts may have the capacity to be a boof-head. Does this mean a rugby league player is not allowed to go out. Seems restrictive. I read a number of stories on this and apparently nobody lodged a complaint. The girl got her hair pulled and asked who did it. Two guys said they think it was James Roberts. These two guys have also not come forward. Josh, can you please advise what an appropriate punishment is for an alleged incident with no actual evidence? I think what actually makes this mind-boggling is that you actually wrote an article basically crucifying the guy. Can you please tell me what he actually DID

Was not selected. Aka overlooked. Not banned. Besides once again apples and oranges. The selectors can pick and choose whoever they want for whatever reasons (barring discrimination). It's not the same as being under contract to a club and having that contract torn up for unfounded accusations.

They didnt overlook him, They stated at the time he was not selected because of the DV issue

OK. You win, well done. Love the crims. They won't let you down. You'll get the life you deserve, little man,

Pathetic reply. And sad insult added on. Shows your true character. Good job. Leave decent people alone. Keep believing in the crims. One day they'll target you, and your attitude will change completely.

Pretty sure Radradra never received any actual ban and being a representative team the selectors overlooked him due to many reasons. One of which being his current legal situation. Apples meet oranges.

I have absolutely no doubt that there is an alcohol and gambling problem in the NRL (and probably other codes, as well as perhaps in society in general). In the media's defence (I'm not one) there have been many, many occasions when they could have reported names and stories of high profile players, coaches and administrators who have been found in various embarrassing situations, but have not put pen to paper - mainly because it would only be bad for rugby league, but the journos career prospects!

Just 2 months ago they refused to allow Radradra to tour because of a charge that had not even gone to court, And still hasnt. The rules seem to change for every different person

No by my logic people would be punished when they have actually been proven to have done something wrong. Not necessarily to a courts beyond a reasonable doubt degree, but something a little stronger than "someone pulled my hair and these two guys I don't actually know said it was James Roberts". accusations carry weight, premature punishments/sackings carry lawsuits. What happens if he gets the sack from the NRL then the footage comes out and it's not him doing it? Or the two men come out and say they were joking when they said it was him? He'll be getting more than just his contract amount back from the NRL I can tell you that much. As for quick resolutions. Does that only apply to when someone is punished in your mind? Is being cleared of wrongdoing either due to insufficient evidence or otherwise not a suitable resolution? Maybe we should go back to the old days of burning witches when a neighbour says they saw them dancing? They can prove they aren't a witch because witches don't burn. Does that sound suitable? Perhaps our police force shouldn't bother with arresting criminals. Just shoot them where they stand and if they turn out to be innocent that's ok, because imagine what the victim of the crime is going through. Silly little man.

So by your logic, any and every accusation is irrelevant until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a court? And it's still irrelevant during all the deliberate court delays, reserved decisions, adjournments, recesses and holidays? Let's demolish jails too then shall we? Every person accused of a crime would just take their sweet time, and they can. And mass murderer JT gets to play the whole time until then? Come on, think a bit harder. I just had a look at the future WDD world, where absolutely nothing is to be gained by having accusations quickly resolved (except if you're the victim, but who cares about them, right?). Imagine it. Footballers, criminals, murderers and wayward miscreants would just LOVE that. Paradise! Accusations carry weight. You want them ignored altogether. Wrong. And disastrous. Many a victim of crime knows that. Think about it from their point of view for just one minute instead of poor old Jimmy's.

I agree NORAD. Everyone blames the media but they're like any industry - give the customers what they want. The articles about off field behaviour tend to have 2-3 times the number of comments as those about on field performance.

So let's just suspend any player who is even accused of misbehaviour? I witnessed JT go on a murderous rampage on the streets of Brisbane with an M16 and several hand grenades. There's no evidence because he disposed of the bodies meticulously but He and I were both there and a friend of mine told me he was the one who did it. He should be rubbed out of the game for life. That's basically the logic you're using. As for the "infinite legalistic innocent until proven guilty indulgence." Wow. So someone shouldn't have the right to dispute an accusation? Tell that to Brett Stewert, Ben Teo, Sam Thaiday, among other who've been falsely accused of very serious crimes. Brett Stewert was stood down before being proven guilty and we all remember that pleasant little moment don't we?

The AFL can't create an Integrity Unit, it's better to sweep everything under the carpet. A complicit media helps

"The mistake the NRL has made is feeding this off field outrage industry. Unlike the AFL the NRL caved into the media by creating an integrity unit ...." Maybe so Norad. But the outrage industry is a fast growing phenomenon fuelled by social media echo chambers, and if the NRL had not set up an integrity unit, the outrage industry would still have been further outraged that nothing was being done to address things that outrage them ! The AFL on the other hand utilises a massive carpet under which to sweep most things that outrage. Their judiciary is a joke where an on-field axe attack would yield little more than a 3 match suspension downgraded to 2 for an early plea ! The outrage may be all over quickly but the hypocrisy lingers much longer ! The AFL continually caves into the media and the outrage industry of political correctness with fuelled outrage surrounding issues like the booing of Goodes, of the berating of comments by Eddie McQuire, Sam Newman, Gary Lyons, etc,, the failure to deal appropriately with the Essendon drugs issue for two years and the impacts that had on the likes of James Hird. There is plenty of outrage being generated by the AFL and its participants , and their is very little evidence of any "integrity " in its dealing with it. Hypocrisy only is the AFL's prime response !

I agree in large part Norad, though I don't live in Melbourne, so I kind of feel like unless you do (and maybe you do) it is hard to judge the atmosphere and compare AFL/NRL behaviour. But i do agree on your last paragraph. There are more people called "rugby league journalists" who you never see write a single word about an actual game and when they actually appear on TV or radio and get asked on a question about something relating to on the field, you often wonder, if they do even watch the games.

This isn't court Jeff. This is public opinion. Plus it's an opinion site. Adapt. Roberts drunk is a fool. How much more evidence do you need? How many more incidents will it take? How many more buffoons like Roberts will keep dining out on your infinite legalistic "innocent until proven guilty" indulgence? Wake up. This isn't court, it's life. Court doesn't even come close to real life and by no means can it be regarded as the paragon of our society. It's every bit as flawed and broken as the Roberts out there.

The mistake the NRL has made is feeding this off field outrage industry. Unlike the AFL the NRL caved into the media by creating an integrity unit which means every legit or faux outrage story now goes on for weeks. That's a lot of clicks and advertising bucks. AFL has not been without comparable incidents to the NRL since the end of the 2016 season. But you might want to ask why do AFL stories of player off field stuff either never get turned into news at all or very quickly disappear. You have to blame NRL fans for that. They are the ones clicking the news stories. You only have to look at The Roar stories under NRL and AFL tabs to see that. News sites aren't going to keep running stories no one wants to click on. The only stuff that NRL media cover now is off field stuff. Either contracts or misbehavior. They don't write about the on field stuff like in the NFL or AFL.

Try legal studies 101 future Phil Roth field

No evidence usually means no case unless you are tabloid magazine. I do agree about the inconsistent penalties though, under-punishing criminal activities whilst over-punishing stupidity is a strange one to say the least.

yeh, the NRL should punish players on accusations and no proof. You're not David Gallop are you