There’s a great story about an English official and an Australian rugby league counterpart having a conversation in the bathroom a few years ago during a break at an International Federation meeting.
“Unlike you, we don’t consider ourselves to be the police,” the Brit said, goading the Australian.
“We leave it to them to enforce the law. We just run a rugby league competition.”
Our Brit kept going with this line of “banter” for long enough for his Antipodean colleague to tell him, in no uncertain terms, where he could go with his observations.
The difference in attitudes to player misbehaviour between the NRL and Super League has rarely been more starkly captured than over the past 48 hours with the responses to Albert Kelly being captured in video calling a woman at McDonald’s a “slut” and a “whore”.
The incident is all over Australian websites while in Britain, Hull FC have only said they have dealt with the matter “internally” while the Rugby Football League – at the time of writing – has made no comment at all.
Also at the time of writing, the local paper – the Hull Daily Mail – did not appear to be carrying a story (they may have by time you read this) on the incident and sections of the rugby league specialist press have buried it.
This is an intellectual rabbit hole we’ve been down before.
You can’t bring the game into disrepute if no-one reports on the alleged misdeed. Rugby league is a small sport in Britain; the national newspapers would have little idea who Albert Kelly is.
So Albert Kelly has only brought the sport into disrepute among people on Twitter (where the video was originally posted) and those who read Australian websites.
And if he hasn’t brought the sport into disrepute because very few people in Britain know about it and he hasn’t broken the law … you can appreciate what the official in the washroom was saying.
If a tree abuses a hamburger maker in the forest and no-one is there to film it…
The problem we have here is the entire disrepute idea. Effectively, by holding players responsible for damaging the image of the game we are allowing those who determine that image – the media – to dictate sanctions meted out.
That’s unacceptable; it’s the antithesis of leadership.
In Britain, many members of the media will tell you they feel they have to “fight for” and “stick up for” rugby league on a daily basis. Not one national paper has a full-time rugby league writer; they all eke out livings getting paid mileage and begging for space.
They are therefore not going to turn on a dime to highlighting anti-social behaviour by league players as soon as they are told about it when they spend the rest of their time extolling the sport’s virtues to unlistening southern editors.
In NSW and Queensland, if the number one sport was quoits then many of our current rugby league writers would be quoits journalists. I believe I would have been a quoits journalist for the last 30 years.
They do not hold themselves responsible for the image of rugby league. They hold themselves responsible for being competitive every day on behalf of their publications because they’re at the pointy end of the newspaper, radio, TV and website business.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby-league” name=”Rugby League”]
The rugby league journalists in Britain, largely, do not have an impact on the bottom line of their media platforms (unless it’s a rugby league specialist outlet). Their colleagues in Australia do.
The Albert Kelly affair highlights an ideological flaw in the way both leagues deal with bad behaviour off the field.
In Australia, we must somehow learn to look past the fact that the Daily Telegraph is more interested in rugby league players committing “atrocities” (the term was used almost in jest in the 1990s and 2000s – then we started to get real atrocities back in the news) than Brighouse-based Rugby League Express is.
I realise the Integrity Commission is taking steps in this direction but this sorry affair is further evidence the NRL needs to act according to what players actually do, not in response to how much bad publicity it attracts.
What does it tell us about the leadership of the game in England, about the verisimilitude of the argument floated under the hand drier all those years ago?
If the woman at McDonald’s had been caught by Ronald, Hamburgler and the rest of her bosses abusing Albert Kelly in the way he seems to have abused her (regardless of provocation), she would be dealt with.
And a big company like McDonalds or Starbucks or Amazon would no doubt answer media enquiries over what action was taken. That is to say, even if Albert Kelly was a cook with a public facing corporation, that corporation would feel a sense of accountability to that public.
Super League and Hull FC so far feel no such compunction to be accountable, even though members of the public were involved and they provide a service directly to the public which is entirely responsible for their businesses.
That’s very sad, regardless of what action or actions you think should be taken against Kelly.
For the NRL, showing leadership is not saying ‘how high?’ when the media says ‘jump’. For Super League, leadership is jumping regardless of the media saying nothing.
Mushi
Guest
It is well within the power of people to do so.
Jed Clampit
Guest
And then it was gone , anything to do with you ?
1st&10
Guest
Albert Kelly enacted similar behaviour when he lurked within the Sutherland Shire after visiting various night spots on a regular basis
McTavish
Roar Rookie
I am not saying that media attention should be the sole basis for punishment but it does require consideration as the consequences that flow from it form the philosophical and legal basis for an employer to have any say in what their employees do in their spare time. Obviously if it was proven to be that the player had committed no offence despite poor media attention then no consequence flows to the player. As you say, the position the media takes is not under the control of the player or the governing body, however players are more than aware that the higher the profile of the sport or the individual, the greater the risk of adverse publicity. This does mean that lesser indiscretions by objective standards will sometimes bring about greater damage to the brand. It is just how it is. Hayne can just count himself lucky that, for whatever reason, the media chose not to make a big deal of this. You can bet if they had the NRL would have been more interested (although in this case he was not an employee at the time. ) As pointed out this also comes with benefits to both entities in terms of exposure and income.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Media interest is not proportional to anything but their own agendas. For example, there has been very muted coverage over the Hayne rape accusations when compared to the outrage that was surrounding the Pearce dog incident. I'm not saying Haynes guilty, I'm just saying that the media could have a field day with that case if they wanted to and there's been witch hunts in the past based on much less "evidence". To base a persons punishment on the whims of the media is just asking for trouble
Ruben
Guest
This comment has been removed for breaching The Roar's comments policy.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
No, the players actions can only bring the game into disrepute if a. someone knows about their actions and b.someone associates the individual(player) with their employer. The degree of media interest is directly proportional to the ability to impact on 'the game's' (their employers) reputation and hence rightfully should be taken into account. The punishment is not for the offence per se but for its impact on the employers brand, which is really what they are mainly concerned about.
Emcie
Roar Guru
I get that, and there's definately an element of responsibility on the players in that regard (particularly for players in positions of authority like captains etc). But there's still inconsistancy around that area if we're basing that whether the media chose to cover the issue or not. Surely players actions bring the game into disrepute regrardless of how the media covers it, especially when the media is just as likely to do a complete 180° and slam the NRL if they change their mind and decide that the punishment is too harsh.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
Unfortunately the crux of the matter is the issue of "bringing the game into disrepute." This is obviously going to be more of a factor in the NRL and the players know it (and are better recompensed because of it.) They can't just expect the big dollars and the public adulation without the responsibility and consequences that comes with it. It is perfectly right that their employer, the NRL, takes a firm stance on protecting it's reputation. Football leagues are not moral guardians. My employer is mainly only going to be interested in what I do in my off time (illegality aside) if it impacts on them in any way.
Terry Wogan
Guest
The sad thing for league is that yes these same reporters would be writing about quoits if that was the #1 game. Most NRL reporting journos are all fans of AFL and soccer if you read their social media accounts. I'm sure they would rather be reporting on their fav code and not NRL. So reporting an NRL atrocity and fueling the damage to the NRL code comes as no big deal to most of them.
Forty Twenty
Guest
Imagine if video footage of Gladstone gate emerged with cage fighting in a motel room. I'm a Manly fan but if this was on the TV I'd imagine Todd steps in and all sorts of drama erupts. Much more significant issue than having a cuddle with a fluffy dog but because there isn't footage it isn't such big news .
Emcie
Roar Guru
Your point was pretty clear Steve, people are just getting caught up in the details of your example. Bit ironic that people are discussing the medias coverage more then the leagues reaction in an article discussing how the leagues reaction should be seperate from the media coverage...
Steve Mascord
Expert
So what I'm saying is Super League need to be a bit more like the NRL and the NRL need to be a bit more like Super League - show leadership that is independent of media coverage to a greater degree than is currently the case. Good leadership on the part of the Sydney rugby union when Joe Bloggs abuses Sheila at Coogee McDonalds would be to suspend or fine him even if no-one particularly cares. And if the Sydney rugby union podcast was to call them for comment, to say Joe Bloggs has been stood down. I think this Albert Kelly example is helpful in exposing the over-reach in the southern hemisphere and the under-reach in the northern. That's my point, put another way. Cheers.
Patrick Mosey
Roar Rookie
The video taken was edited deleting the start of the film,I wonder why? The same British journalists having a go at Kelly but feeling sorry for a player caught with drugs in his system who looks to be facing a 2 year ban?
Jed Clampit
Guest
Are u for real Jimmy ? Probability alone ? I'm CERTAIN he abused the girl , not probably abused her . Pretty damn comprehensive footage there old boy.
Emcie
Roar Guru
Do we also hold the media responsible for damage done by media storms based on nothing but rumours and innuendo?
Luke MacDonald
Roar Rookie
Great piece, well done Steve
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
"He’s saying the NRL needs to impose sanctions on misbehaving players according to their actual crime, and not take into account how much of a media storm it generates." Except that the media storm is doing damage to the NRL generally and the relevant club specifically. I'm not saying that should be the only criteria, but it should play a part I think. Players are quite happy to take the big bucks that come (partly) from sponsorship, so they need to be held account in that regard.
RandyM
Guest
that's fine and the punishment for an NRL player who commits an "atrocity" is that his name is dragged through the mud and tarnished in the sydney papers but the governing body shouldn't be measuring its punishments based on how outraged the media pretends to be.
BrainsTrust
Guest
The newspapers in England are a lot more ruthless than the papers here. If a major sportsman in England visits a hooker its front page page news. The biggest difference is in the behaviour of the players. Rugby league players in the NRL behave worse than rugby league players in England by the proverbial mile.