No point beating around the bush – it’s tough to charge forward buzzing with positivity for my first NRL 2019 outing on The Roar.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m fully geared up to get into it with you all during another year packed with new stars, grizzled veterans, surprise packets, Origin bolters, and the inevitable Canberra Raiders premiership.
But that will have to start next week.
Because this NRL offseason has made it incredibly difficult to keep defending the great game against those who wish it harm.
People who don’t like rugby league are gleefully taking the chance to pile more and more trash on top of a game that sometimes cannot get out of its own way.
Whether you like to hear it or not, the knock-on effects from this negative coverage resonates. People who already have a dim view of our game are lost to it now and they’ll likely ingrain that mentality in their kids. Sponsors will think twice about getting involved or they’ll insist on a contract that makes it easier to bail on a club.
Less cash from sponsors and broadcasters means a smaller pie all around, which means everyone gets a smaller piece when it gets served.
So what? That type of ‘fan’ will never be on board anyway. But understand that the biggest challenge facing any sporting code in Australia is attracting the eyes and wallets of the casual consumer. One person can easily poison the well against a sport in their family and social circles, and when that happens it takes years to turn them around to the point they’re willing to re-engage.
Don’t believe me? Ask Rugby Australia how they’re travelling. Ask the FFA how the A-League is going right now. When you lose a customer, fairly or unfairly, these days it’s even harder than usual to win them back.
The leadership of the game needs to take a strong look at themselves – and I’m not talking about the ARL Commission and its chair, Peter Beattie. I’m not talking about CEO Todd Greenberg.
NRL CEO Todd Greenberg. (Photo: MAtt King/Getty Images)
I refer to the leadership groups in clubs and in the players’ association, who understand how seriously players’ actions are affecting the game.
Beattie and Greenberg can front the cameras talking tough every day, but they can’t solve the problem. I can’t believe I’m writing this, but the NRL media’s constant focus on the negative at the expense of the positive isn’t the problem either. The only way anything changes is if the players smarten up and call each other out when things are starting to get away.
Penrith’s James Maloney, a board member of the Rugby League Players’ Association, wrote a piece earlier this month about how the vast majority of players are sick of being tarnished by the acts of the (very) few.
Maloney and the RLPA get it, but they need to push the message a lot stronger. All the corporate training in the world doesn’t have the same impact as a player telling a teammate to pull their head in, to show respect for women, and to show respect for the game they’re privileged to be playing.
Robbie Farah echoed the thoughts of many this week on Channel Nine.
“To be honest I get embarrassed to go out and tell people I play NRL. It gets to that point where that is that stigma around it,” the Wests Tigers veteran said.
“While we keep stuffing up that’s not going to change. As a senior player (who has) been around for a while, it is disappointing.”
Robbie Farah (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
Enough has been written about rugby league being dragged through the gutter this summer so I won’t go into that, other than to say the NRL’s record in taking action against players bringing the game into disrepute is chequered at best.
Now we’ve got Brisbane suspending teen star Payne Haas for refusing to cooperate with the NRL’s Integrity Unit.
If refusing to cooperate with the Integrity Unit is only worth a club-imposed $10k fine and missing two regular season games, who’s going to think twice about brushing them next time they come knocking? Maybe there’s more to come for Haas, but we’ll see.
There is no blanket solution to how the NRL punishes players and there can’t be. Allocating mandatory punishments is a dangerous road because each case needs to be assessed on its own circumstances.
But something tells me the NRL won’t face a lot of opposition if their default position for punishing off-field misbehaviour is the hammer.
For all the dreck and dross, there’s a lot of good things coming through as we approach season 2019. Last week’s Indigenous vs Maori All Star game was a fantastic event in Melbourne, which outdrew the Big Bash cricket semi-final a few train stations away (18,802 vs 15,342).
The Roosters put on a typically efficient performance over in the United Kingdom to knock off Wigan 20-8 for the World Club Championship.
Jack Bird is starting in Brisbane’s centres this weekend for new coach Anthony Seibold after ten months out with injury. Scott Drinkwater is going to get a run at fullback for Melbourne. We get to see if any obvious Wayne Bennett traits have taken root at Souths.
Teams are giving their best lineups a crack in their trials and the anticipation for the real stuff is growing.
Last year I wrote that rugby league continues to save itself from itself because the onfield product always delivers excitement and quality in the face of adversity.
From the few months we’ve all just endured, 2019 needs to be the greatest season in history.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
I’m not sure what you mean by the term ‘right’. I don’t know why you would say his rights are limited to ‘freedom’ or what you even mean by ‘freedom’ in this context. Freedom of movement? Freedom from arbitrary incarceration? Freedom of speech? In any case, he certainly has a right to natural justice and procedural fairness, which are directly relevant to this case. The NRL recognises both in its disciplinary procedures. It might not be a fundamental human right for a person to play rugby league, But that doesn’t mean that it is not immoral for him to be arbitrarily deprived of the opportunity to ply his trade in accordance with the terms and the intent of his employment contract without first being given the opportunity to answer the as yet untested charges that have been leveled against him.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
No relevance to you at all , no worries. Don’t ever bother doing a course which has law as one of the subjects because your head will be spinning with all the old cases they reference. They might even be wacky enough to talk about things that happened a hundred years ago.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I'm not obsessed about anything McT however I will strongly suggest that you reply to what I wrote or not reply at all. Everything you say after the obsessed bit is correct and nobody is disputing it. Google the headlines and tell me who is responsible for them , Brett Stewart or the con man and his daughter. I'll give you a hint , it wasn't Brett Stewart and he was rightly chosen as face of the game.
Big Daddy
Guest
How is murder and kidnap case 23 years ago relevant to an alleged rape in 2019.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
The point is obvious to anyone. I’m citing a real example of a murderer who was free to work before the trial because they decided he was of little or no risk and still innocent at that stage. Allowing charged people to continue with their life before trial can and does happen. If you can’t see any relevance to the topic of the yet to be judged JDB then I can’t help that. The law regularly draws precedents from history.
Nick
Roar Guru
Again, You make it sound like he has a right to play football. He doesn't. He has a right to freedom, nothing more.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
You mean ‘inviolable’. The presumption of innocence is not inviolable in Australia. Plenty of laws reverse the onus of proof to require the accused to present evidence of their innocence. In any case, you misunderstand me. Being held in remand might not eliminate the presumption of innocence during the conduct of the actual trial, but stripping someone of their rights and privileges without first reaching a finding of their guilt clearly conflicts with any notion of presumption of their innocence since it is inflicting the penalties or stripping them of the rights they would otherwise have as if they were guilty. It is treating a person presumed to be innocent as if they had done something wrong. A complete lack of due process. Furthermore, the courts know that holding someone in remand can prejudice trials and that is why there are rules and procedures in place to avoid juries being aware of or reminded of the status of the accused such as making sure that manacles and prison jumpsuits are removed during trials. How it could be said that JDB’s rights and privileges wouldn’t be infringed by forcing him to stand down is baffling. He was allowed to play rugby league before (and had a whole written contract to that effect) but would then be prevented from doing it afterwards.
Big Daddy
Guest
FYI, That case was 23 years ago and Bruce Burrell died 2 years ago so what's your point.
McTavish
Roar Rookie
I am not as obsessed about this case as you appear to be but, from my recollection, it seems to be materially different. Stewart was suspended for 4 games for drunkenness at the Manly season launch, when the NRL had already spent considerable dollars on him as the" face of the game." I do not recall him being stood down while awaiting the result of the criminal charges bought against him.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
SG, Bruce Burrell who is now in jail for a long time for murdering a woman in a high profile case which involved kidnapping as well I believe, was employed by a bulk landscape group on the Northern Beaches before trial and the world didn’t cave in. I’m in no position to comment on how common it is but if the courts decide that it is reasonable to be in society and work while you are still innocent then that’s what they can do. I suspect JDB will play the season and I predict if this happens that the season will progress just like any other, bizarre as it may seem. Lodge , who is clearly guilty of terrible things played a whole season and whether you agree with him playing or not , the world still spun around. If JDB is guilty he will be severely punished to add to the massive turmoil he is going thru now clearly. He is being punished at the moment very badly whether he is innocent or guilty based on reports of those who were falsely charged and the impact it had on them. The damage to the game has already happened largely because of the charge and whatever the NRL do now will only make a small difference. There is no way to remedy this situation after the event. Wait until 2 or 3 players are falsely charged before a finals series because only then might you understand the case for waiting until the trial to act.
Nick
Roar Guru
I'm sorry, but that's 100% wrong. Being held in remand does not "outweigh the accused's right to the presumption of innocence". The right is invioliable in a liberal democracy such as Australia. Not saying JDB should be held in remand, merely making a point that him not playing football doesn't affect his presumption of innocence. By the way, standing JDB down is not denying his rights and privileges. Football is not a right, nor barely a privilege. His right to freedom (which the law is written for, not football) is maintained. Him not playing football is not a civil rights issue to be appealed at the UN. Perspective, please.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
When a Court denies bail it is only ever on the basis that a variety of factors outweigh the accused’s right to the presumption of innocence. Those factors are fairly common in cases of people charged with murder, but are uncommon in cases of sexual assault, and they don’t really appear to apply to deBelin. Anyone with any experience with criminal law could tell you that. Again, the comparison is not apt. If the crown had attempted to justify denying him bail on the basis of some sort of silly comparison with murder, they would have been ridiculed by the Court.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Of course that’s what I’m implying. That’s what I believe happened (and if you think they were going back for another reason I think you’re unbelievably, painfully naive) but we’ll see. But I’ve never claimed to KNOW what happened. That’s not me twisting your words... that’s you twisting (or misinterpreting) mine
Nick
Roar Guru
Alright, fair enough on the analogy comparison. However the murder comparison is still accurate. People charged with murder (with rare exceptions) are held in remand... the ultimate example of rights and privileges being stripped, but the principle of a presumption of innocence still exists. He would still have it if he's stood down.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Ben,a line in one of the papers last week by a journalist deserved a lot more publicity. It goes against the public perception hugely. He said that sports journalist like dealing with NRL players over other sports people because of their great attitude (or words to that effect) . The 99% of decent NRL players have nothing to answer for.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
The principle of the presumption of innocence is that a person accused of a criminal (or civil in common law jurisdictions) offence is not required to prove their innocence. Forcing deBelin to ‘stand down’ until he is able to successfully defeat the charges against him flys in the face of the principle of the presumption of innocence. His rights and privileges are being stripped before his guilt is proven. The analogy with a teacher being stood down while paedophilia charges are dealt with is not apt. In a case like that, the charges go to the heart of their suitability to interact with children which is central to the requirements of their job. In deBelin’s case, the charges do not relate to his ability to play rugby league - to catch, pass, run and tackle. Furthermore, standing a teacher down on full pay does not affect their income. Standing down deBelin will likely reduce his income significantly and negatively affect his ability to earn income in the future, and his ability to defend the charges against him.
SAVAGE
Guest
Agree with Haas's stand. But, the family need to understand that they've got responsibilities as well. If they want him to realise his full potential, they can't produce off field dramas, and distractions, there will be enough of that from people close to him outside of his family group.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Mr McTavish Most people agree with this statement I believe ” If you have behaved in a manner whereby the police have charged you, and you have generated shocking headlines from one end of the country to the other, I would maintain that both the club and the NRL are themselves putting the game into disrepute by playing you” The author of this statement in the media was expecting a backlash but was pleasantly surprised when he was roundly supported. There is no presumption of innocence applied here. Being charged by the police proves nothing about your behaviour. If the allegations are fake then it isn’t the player who has generated the shocking headlines , it is the liar. Try explaining to Brett Stewart that he was the reason for the charges and shocking headlines.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
I’m referencing it very accurately. Standing down employees normally only occurs when the allegations against them relate to matters that relate directly to their ability to do their job - like threatening a fellow employee or stealing from the business. That doesn’t apply with deBelin. The reasons that banning DeBelin affect his access to justice have been clearly set out. Employment as an NRL player is unlike most other jobs. Denial of the opportunity to play games causes significant financial loss even if they were to be paid their base salary.
Nick
Roar Guru
See you just haven't a clue of the principle of presumption of innocence...law and order I suppose is your background. If your kids' teacher was arrested for acts of paedophilia, would you be happy with him/her still teaching while the case is pending? Of course not. They can be stood down and still afforded the presumption of innocence. If de Belin was accused of murder, he'd be in remand in prison, but still given the presumption of innocence. Same principle here. The risk of a possible rapist in the Big Red V...no thanks.