It’s been a big week of bans and fines. And, dare I say it, the NRL pretty well got it right.
Not the timing, mind you. That it took almost three months for head office to actually do something – anything – about the issues that have plagued the off-season show that the NRL is still plagued by the problem that saw David Gallop booted almost seven years ago.
The joint is way too reactive.
But plenty has already been written about the timing of these announcements, so instead, let’s focus on what they got right.
Scott Bolton
Such was the severity of the allegations levelled at other players over the off-season, a bloke who actually pled guilty to assaulting a woman was virtually forgotten.
So it was good to see Scott Bolton slapped with a ten-game ban, along with being fined five per cent of his salary – with half of both suspended provided he address the captains and senior players of each club during the Magic Round.
Because, at this stage, the North Queensland prop is the only current player who has had his day in court – and, again, he pleaded guilty to the charge of common assault.
Let’s be clear: it doesn’t matter that he ‘just’ touched a woman’s thigh. Common assault is still assault, and an NRL player pleading guilty to the charge does not deserve to have his case swept under the rug – which, until Friday, it appeared to have been.
Action against Bolton from head office was a necessity.
As for reports in the Courier Mail that North Queensland chair Laurence Lancini wasn’t happy with the ban? Wake up to yourself mate. You’ve got a bloke who pleaded guilty to a serious criminal charge on your books, yet he’ll be playing come Round 6.
It’s a far better situation than the Dragons and Sea Eagles are facing – with both clubs indefinitely losing the services of innocent men.
Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker
First off, something I want to clear up.
We keep hearing that standing a player down ‘does not make an assumption about their guilt or innocence’.
Yeah, you need to take ‘or innocence’ out of the equation. There is an existing assumption of innocence for anyone who has not been convicted of a crime. It’s the basis of our legal system – innocent until proven guilty.
People have had a hard time wrapping their heads around this – Peter Beattie had to correct himself on it a few times, and in announcing Jack de Belin’s standing down, Todd Greenberg said “we are making no judgement on his guilt or innocence”.
Let’s be crystal: the NRL standing Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker down makes no assumption of their guilt.
They are both, at this time, very much innocent.
We clear? Sweet.
Anyway, while I’m not entirely sure what it is about a crime carrying a potential 11-year sentence that makes it an automatic stand-down – what happens after ten years and 364 days? – the new edict has been a long time coming.
It was abundantly clear that neither of these men are in a position to play. Though they are innocent, their alleged crimes are too serious for us to pretend that everything is fine until they’ve had their day in court.
As for concerns about the murkiness of what happens if a crime isn’t worthy of 11 years’ time, Walker being stood down while Tautau Moga is apparently still right to play is illustrative.
(AAP Image/Paul Miller)
Specifically, it’s a case of perception is reality.
While Walker’s partner has retracted her statement, some pretty shocking details of his alleged offence have been made public.
By comparison, all we really know about Moga is that he is alleged to have slapped a cabby – no CCTV, no gory specifics, no worries.
I’m not sure I agree with it, but whether or not appalling or grubby details are made public appears to be the line in the sand.
Which brings us to the NRL’s reigning champion of grubby details being made public…
Dylan Napa
Oh Dylan, you duffer.
Todd Greenberg was probably right when he said ‘Big Papi’ was guilty of “gross stupidity”, but I honestly cannot muster any outrage at this bloke.
Cos, like, what’s he done wrong?
I’ve seen the videos – we all have, right? – and they feature consenting adults doing some weird shit.
But then, in the words of Dave Chappelle, “Everybody f***s funny to somebody.”
Ultimately, it’s not a great look for one of the game’s high-profile players featuring on Pornhub. But, again, he did nothing even remotely illegal. And what moral high-ground do the NRL think they have to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t be doing within the bounds of the law?
It took them three bloody months to work out that alleged rapists and wife beaters probably shouldn’t be playing, but they were very quick to condemn someone who had sex tapes leaked against their wishes.
And, if you’ll allow me a brief tangent, what would they do if a player came forward and said: “I like to be filmed and for people to see it”?
Nothing illegal, they just prefer to get freaky in a way that’s not heaps common. Does that player get banned?
A chat for another day…
Ultimately, I guess we’re saying Napa was a goose and it’s going to cost him. I reckon ten per cent of his annual wage is a bit steep – particularly when it was announced on the same day that a bloke who admitted to common assault got five per cent, with half suspended.
But there was no way in hell he should have spent time on the sidelines just because he has created new search results when you google ‘NRL digital’.
Kilgore Trout
Roar Rookie
Isaah Yeo seems like a great guy and future captain , but when quizzed about Tyronne May he took the standard diplomatic approach ... "error of judgement etc " and all that dribble .... which is fair enough and probably what all the squad were all instructed to say if asked . What I would have really liked to hear is something along the lines of , " He has let the entire squad down and we are all really pissed off ! We would all be more than happy to never see him again ! " . I still remember the first time I heard someone say to an completely intoxicated friend " if you get in that car to drive , I'm gonna knock you out " . That occurred sometime around the end of the 80's . About another 20 years on from there and people's attitudes eventually evolved thanks to decades of brutal advertising campaigns and education as to what can happen . Prior to that time the further you had to drive home pissed , the greater the achievement and if the police stopped you ... they were the bad guys ! Drinking and driving was always against the law , but it wasn't until people began to face the ire of family ,friends and co workers that any real progress in changing the " culture " was made . My point is .... until the attitudes of any footballer's peer group change .... change in behaviour and or standards is very unlikely . I totally believe in the presumption of innocence but I think the NRL has done what it had to do regarding JDB . I would be interested to know who engaged the lawyers and is footing the bill to fight his case ? If it's the club ..... then I rest my case .
mushi
Roar Guru
I think you missed his point Rob and actually ended up reinforcing it....
Aiden
Guest
Ha. No fantasy. It happens in workplaces all over Australia regularly. There are dozens of Fair Work decisions on this. You call it fantasy, you are just showing the public’s total lack of understanding. I’ll break it down for you. A person engages in criminal activity outside of their employment. If that activity has no connection with employment, an employer can do nothing about it. If there is a connection, they can. I outlined the connection in pro sports above. In a different working environment it might be something like an alleged assault on a co-worker at an after work drink, or a drink driving charge when the guy drives for a living. As you get to more senior people in business they can get the chop for doing dodgy things based on brand damage if they are visible faces of their company (like players in the NRL). Once an incident has occurred an employer is not legally required to wait for the outcome of the criminal process. You might not agree with that, but it isn’t a fantasy. They aren’t. Have a look at the unfair dismissal benchbook if you are curious. It’s online. They can discipline the person based on breach of employment terms, so their own investigation. Sometimes employees will be advised by their lawyers not to respond to questions. If the employer still has enough evidence, like CCTV footage for instance, they can proceed to an outcome. If they don’t have much to go on other than an allegation then they may not be able to proceed to an outcome. Stop getting confused about the difference between civil and criminal processes. They are two different things.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Aiden , you are off in some strange world of fantasy. You are advising the NRL to try to interview an accused player like Brett Stewart and if he follows his lawyers advice and remains silent then they need to sack him. Why would you sack an innocent player?
Aiden
Guest
Believe it! Their criminal lawyer will tell them to shut up as admissions that they might make to their boss could be disclosed in the criminal proceedings with far more serious consequences than a suspension.
Aiden
Guest
I am only pointing out the legal position. In the case of blokes in a factory or whatever, you are right, there is no connection to work in that case. But pro sports people are partly paid, like it or not, for their contribution to brand. If they have clauses in their contracts about not bringing their employer into disrepute then that provides the connection. I’m not really taking sides, although blokes that hit women are weirdo grubs that I can’t drum up sympathy for. The only thing that annoys are people making comments about what the NRL can and can’t do which are not informed. They think it’s a criminal case and for the NRL it’s a civil issue.
tingo tango
Guest
Again some bloke trying to justify how a female would act in this situation. Seriously you guys are unbelievable. Again the guy has been charged which means the police believe there is enough evidence for a conviction. He may well get off and it is ok to point to Brett Stewart but if you want to draw a longer bow why not OJ Simpson?
tingo tango
Guest
Your comments are disgraceful. How would you know what a normal reaction would be to these situations?? Secondly he has been charged which means that seasoned police officers and the government prosecutors think there is enough evidence to secure a convictions. The guy should not be playing and I for one support the NRL 100% on their tough stance. As they said on the Today show this morning after another sex tape has got out "the game has a cultural issue" and I could not agree more.
elvis
Roar Rookie
Luckily for me I run my own business and I treat the employee's respect and their private lives as their own. I am zero interested on anything they do off the clock. I don't know why you are so eager to champion the rights of business to intrude and monitor people like big brother.
Rob
Guest
TB, I just asked the daughter about what she would do if a boy, bloke, idiot drinking touched her on the thigh at a pub? Her response, She would walk away and probably tell her friends he's drunk and being stupid if he does it again tell security but best leave to somewhere better. Dad we just went to New York and visited time square, I got shoved and pushed for a couple of hours by randoms trying to take photo's, seriously! Okay kid what if they groped you in a no go zone on purpose? I'd slap them fair in the face really hard, but I don't hang around drunks or people that would do that dad. She's a smart girl. Is it any wonder she top her school's OP just like her mum.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
They would also apparently sit there in complete silence when asked to respond to these unproven charges. Deserves a spot in Ripleys believe it or not.
Rob
Guest
The year of the might Bulldogs redemption. A team assembled by cheating the salary cap and then players uniting and taking a pay cut to win it for each other. The days of the mighty dogs bounding sessions and was were legends were born. Wasn't big Willy a cult figure?
Rob
Guest
I heard a version that he sat down to talk to the woman. She said she wasn't interested in talking to him and as she got up to walk away he put his hand out to apologise and it touched her thigh? The woman took offence which is not beyond the realms of possibility. But I suppose your story is better than the version I heard and unlike yourself I wasn't present.
Rob
Guest
Yes the era of 0% bad behaviour. Let's select the next immortal shall we?
Rob
Guest
I have had a beer and heard plenty of stories of the exploits of past greats both on and off the field. When they've had a few the stories they tell of the great fun they had and how grateful they are the mobile phone didn't exist in their day. The media respect their privacy and dared not report the bad for fear of exclusion. "once upon a time that “5%” would have been 0% and then 2% and now it is 5… Guess what, in a few more years it will be 10% " Now we have know it all, perfect, pure as driven snow, keyboard warriors passing their judgement and reminiscing about the good old days when boats were made of wood and men were made of steal. You know the days when racial abuse was accepted because the black fella was not a real Australian human. When punching a bloke was how you sorted them out and fixed ya problems, When gays were bashed and women new there place. Sorry BA that was a different 0% era?
Rob
Guest
It's never been acceptable but accepted by those who have handed down the culture. Mathew 7;1-5 would be a good read for some.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I haven’t made any conclusions about the alleged victim or JDB. I’m not assuming JDB is innocent at all. You have stated that one study put false accusations at .6%. Does this figure also apply to De Bellin’s case in your opinion? I can’t see a contradiction that doesn’t exist. Do you think De Bellin is likely to be found guilty? If so that’s a valid opinion to have but anyone who is already declaring his guilt is out of order because his status today is innocence. Ironically you are jumping to conclusions on a study based on the general population , do some research and see if those figures in any way apply to the NRL. I’ll save you the effort , they don’t.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
"morally reprehensible behaviour" .. I like that comment. Not enough of it. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it should be socially acceptable. Or defended. We presume to want our kids to grow up with some standards and morals and their role models carry on without self control... we have TV shows highlighting immorality, dating based on 'hooking up', we have kids in primary schools discussing life based on who they want to bonk FFS. If someone is facing a bit of a tough time because they lacked some self control and good sense then it's a lesson well learned. Good on those who still expect some social moral standards.
Wal
Roar Guru
You are however jumping to conclusions about the alleged victim and then damming people for not assuming JDB is innocent. Can you not see the contradiction.
mushi
Roar Guru
Presumption of innocence isn't a social concept it's for criminal proceedings, because you kind of need to choose one way or the other. The reason it's explicit is because it isn't in our nature. There isn't a human being on the planet who has dogmatically applied innocent till proven otherwise every aspect of their lives.