Sam Burgess is in big trouble. He’s really done it now.
The big lad has likened the NRL’s judiciary system to a Kangaroo Court.
Now Principal Greenberg has called him to his office to explain himself.
And if Principal Greenberg doesn’t get a public apology from Burgess straight away then Sam may well be getting a breach notice, a $25,000 fine and there are even threats of him being sued for defamation.
Greenberg apparently dressed down Burgess via phone, explaining the extreme gravity with which he viewed Sam’s statement.
Just like any good disciplinarian, he also provided Burgess with a definition of “Kangaroo Court” (of which there are many), whether Greenberg intended this to be intellectually patronising is unknown.
I suspect Greenberg hoped Burgess would understand from that just how much he had insulted Chairman Bellew and all of the old boys who make up the judiciary panels through calling their integrity into question.
“On face value, Sam’s comments about the judiciary breach our code of conduct and are offensive to both the chairman and members of the panel who carry out their duties impartially, without fear or favour.”
The problem is – just like the prefects at exclusive private schools – Burgess is not scared and he’s not backing down.
Why? Because, while the term Kangaroo court may not be a perfect fit in regard to the curious workings of the NRL’s system for dealing with the on-field incidents, the blinding inconsistencies that have occurred this year alone definitely need to be called out.
Sam is a no-nonsense guy. There is little nuance or subtext.
He’s calling bullshit and so he should.
To add to this potential public relations disaster for Greenberg, Daddy (the Rugby League Players Association) agrees with much of what his offspring said. ‘He’ will be coming to that meeting as well to make sure Greenberg knows it and also knows the sentiments uttered have strong support from so very many of the other boys too.
So the stage is set.
“I’ve spoken to Sam today and invited him to meet face to face to discuss the issues he has and explain his comments,” Greenberg is quoted as saying.
But as severe as the crime has been painted by Greenberg – as offensive as he says it is to Chairman Bellew and the members of the panels – the meeting has been scheduled for next week, after Burgess plays for the Rabbitohs against the Sea Eagles in the semi-final…
So what did Burgess actually say?
“Everyone seems to be in uproar about this judiciary system.
“Who is making the calls here? Is there a discussion before these calls go out there? I don’t know. What’s the process? It’s like a kangaroo court in there.”
It’s that last line that Greenberg has seized on. Todd has seemingly used that to link all of the Burgess criticism to the way charges are heard by the tribunal.
Even a cursory examination of the statement makes Greenberg’s stance look like opportunistic pedantry in my opinion.
Greenberg’s statement included the following, “…the NRL judiciary is a longstanding and independent process based on the principles of natural justice in our court system.”
Here’s the thing Todd, the system the organisation you run operates isn’t a perfect mirror of the actual court system.
There is little to no transparency in how the match review committee (MRC) part of your judiciary system carries out their role – or even who makes up the committee. As I’ve explored previously, the membership of the MRC and the rules they follow are pretty much unknown to us.
How can this vital component of the NRL judiciary system possibly be compared to our court system if we don’t really know who they are (is Michael Buettner still involved?), by what guidelines they operate and when we (the players, the clubs, the fans) have no mechanism at all to call them to account for their actions?
I mean, “who is making the calls here? Is there a discussion before these calls go out there? I don’t know. What’s the process?”
These are very fair questions. Sam Burgess is right in asking them.
Sam Burgess is asking tough questions. (Photo by Will Russell/Getty Images)
How Nic Cotric got heavily charged for a spear tackle while Jake Trbojevic didn’t is a mystery to us. It is unknown to us how Nelson Asofa-Solomona didn’t get charged for his crusher tackle. Why Josh McGuire only got fines while Hudson Young and George Burgess sat out long suspensions doesn’t make sense to so many.
If Todd Greenberg wants to try and make Sam’s comments all about Geoff Bellew and the judiciary members and bring Burgess before an actual court on charges of defamation, there is a big risk that the courts might see Big Sam’s questions as entirely valid and reasonable.
That would be very embarrassing for Greenberg.
For mine, Burgess is clearly talking about the MRC part of the judiciary system and not the tribunal, as we clearly know who the members of the tribunal are, as well as the arguments that they consider.
For Greenberg to try and make this about Sam insulting Bellew and the ex-players is very poor in my view.
The issue isn’t that NRL tribunals don’t hear cases fairly and transparently. They do.
The issue is that the MRC could be argued to be wildly inconsistent in the charges they lay and – just as importantly – those that they don’t. It is very arguable that many either don’t get heavily charged – or don’t get charged at all – while others aren’t so fortunate.
This goes straight to the fairness of the NRL’s judiciary system.
Sam Burgess is absolutely spot on to call it out. Further, I admire the hell out of him for refusing to back down.
Burgess should know that he has masses of support in doing so.
Todd Greenberg should know that too.
kk
Roar Pro
Hi Mushi, I agree. Six on each hand. I've gone for a dive to the Mariana trench. As an example of Rule Book change I would like to see 'roller ball' instead of the current 'play the ball' as law. Tackles above the neckline direct or otherwise punished by automatic five minute sin- bin and fine $? Four twenty five minute quarters instead of 2 x 40. The Bunker to have total authority over the game including clearance of any suspect forward pass or foul play not sighted by referees or linesmen. Strips to be legal for 1 on 1 only. If at any time immediately prior to the tackle there is more than 1 on 1 a strip is not legal. Scrums should be eliminated, replaced with a tap. Consideration given to eleven players on field and six on the bench. Five points for a try. Similar guernsey colours to be avoided to present better on TV. One Referee. Linesmen to carry different coloured flags. When is a player deemed "held" and how do we get consistency for that ruling? The same goes for dragging a player into touch. The Bunker was Greenberg's greatest contribution to Rugby League and one day we may see it used for the betterment of the game regardless of the breaks in play to get the decisions right. Would it be possible to eliminate the MRC and those players considering themselves 'not guilty' go direct to the judiciary?
mushi
Roar Guru
Sorry for the delay I elected to step back from a patented gore thread where he tried to establish moral high ground in the Mariana trench. KK your comment reinforces my belief. It’s highly unlikely Greenberg changed, most of what he seems to be now is exactly who I thought he’d be; he’s a club trained political beast with limited commercial acumen. He was put in there to appease the fans who thought Smith and Gallop weren't league enough. And as you say you respected him. Just like the ARLC, the fans got what they demanded. It’s just that there demands weren’t well thought out. I'd say he would have won in a landslide on a vote given the observed quality on many NRL member voted boards. If NRL fan’s really want to unveil the greatest subversive group to the progression of the game it’s simple. Stand in front of a mirror. I look at your requests and they’re vacuous buzz words. What ambiguity in particular do you want removed, remembering we’re dealing with 26 athletes with free will moving independently at speed around an oval shaped ball and observed by 4 officials in real time. The simplification of actions by the judiciary is also a dangerous one. The judiciary isn’t like a criminal court with the overwhelming burden of proof on the accuser. A simplified appeal process, in my mind, just logically leads to less appeals and more power in the hands of the MRC.
The duad
Guest
Is a player or coach entitled to the freedom of speech to be able criticise the the administration of the game they play in without fear of the “bringing the game into disrepute” protections the game has placed on themselves.? This is similar to the Folau freedom to religious expression. Or an employee openly criticising the quality of his employers products without fear of being gaged or punished or terminated. Does your employer have the right to control your critical opinions about your employer.? My opinion is No they do not. If my employer has the right to criticise me than i have the same right to criticise them. Sam is right to voice his opinion openly without fear. He did not say they are a kangaroo court he said it was “like”a kangaroo court. Go get em Sam, fight the good fight.
The duad
Guest
This seems to be more about Greenburg and his push to make the game more appealing to families, small children and women to take out any indiscretions that bring the game into disrepute. Greenburg seems to treat the game as his own personal fiefdom and everyone under him as servants to his agenda. His disregard to players, coaches and others freedom for opinion is border line paranoid. I understand the need to promote a game and sell it and expand it. The game is inherently violent to some degree. To remove the aggressiveness and replace it with something else makes the game something else. His intention to “ clean up the game “ would be better directed to off field incidents via education rather than the nrl behaving like an alternative government with its own police force. Hair pulling, slapping, elbows, tripping, facials, boot throwing, waterbottle throwing, swearing has become excessive and petulant. Some on field incidents require some discipline but some things are just extremely minor and warrant nothing more than a raised eyebrow and a smirk. Greenburg and others throw the “ bringing the game into disrepute” line around for everything they simply dont like, wether it actually brings the game into disrepute is highly subjective. Has Greenburg and others become dictators or administrators?
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Yep, played under Woz for Newtown, spent some years at Souths, came back to Ryan at the Tigers.
Jacko
Guest
Big Daddy i think Sam just needs to say that being English he thought a "Kangaroo Court" was an Aussie court...All just a cultural misunderstanding surely!!!
R J
Guest
Smith almost rips a guy's ear off. JWH elbows a bloke in the head knocking him senseless. Yet Sam's in trouble for pulling hair? Sure he's got a rap sheet and no angel but please ... Perhaps the issue is his coach doesn't attend basketball matches with Todd?
R J
Guest
Consistency is overrated.
kk
Roar Pro
Mushi, when Todd was top dog at Belmore he had my absolute respect. As CEO of the NRL he has become just another 'gunna' politician. If he did nothing more during his tenure than reform the Rule Book, removing ambiguity and with simplification of actions by judiciary I would cheer that the game had made progress. I now ask, Is Todd the right man to head the NRL?
eels47
Roar Rookie
Well said mushi, couldn't agree more.
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
What, concerning my reply to Red Rob specifically merits that response mushi. I think you posted your comment under the wrong post. Please explain?
Paul
Roar Guru
Tim, I'm not sure you'll see this question but what recourse does Burgess have if he IS fined? In other words, can he take this issue to court and have a judge decide whether the judiciary is a kangaroo court, because that's the heart of the issue? If that was the case, I'm sure the players association would jump on board, because they, like us, would love to know why some guys get off charges, while others cop heavy penalties for similar or worse offences.
Papi Smurf
Roar Rookie
Keep trying Rellum. High school kids would have done a better job of impersonating NRL footballers than the Broncos did against the Eels. They DIDN'T SCORE A POINT!! Souths won the second half 6 - 4 which was in itself a statement. Their poor first 20 mins (just like against the Storm) did most of the damage. Perhaps Souths first 20 mins were poor but the Broncos entire 80 mins was atrocious! And the axe has already started to fall on your turkeys at Red Hill. :laughing:
mushi
Roar Guru
But it does detract from his comment, because it's emanates from him not believing he deserves to be suspended. He didn't have this calling at all until he pulled someone's hair. His comments aren't courageous. It was rock throwing from a pulpit pandering to the same old school commentators whi are in perpetual search for their next "bah humbug it used to be better". In gould's case so he can have Greenberg's job. Courage would be yielding some of the outrage, admitting his role and then engaging in something constructive. Slinging insults from a microphone and then hiding behind claims of freedom and righteousness and having others sight that you were too unintelligent to understand the nature of the comments, well that is about as brave as pulling the hair of someone who isn't defending themselves.
mushi
Roar Guru
Do you really think that about Greenberg? The management teams of many clubs have been bottom rung for most of my life time and NRL fans lauded the commission structure. I'd think a collection of fans would be paying a $ 1.10 at the bookies to make the worse decision.
mushi
Roar Guru
Wild leaps in logic in attacking a judicial system? Agreeing the fact pattern doesn't in any way fit his narrative but holding it up anyway? Grabbing a click bait angle and running it into the ground for profile?
mushi
Roar Guru
Yep hard for him (or JWH) to run the consistency angle when it was their consistent indiscretions that led to the suspensions not being a judgment call.
Adam
Roar Guru
Everyone is entitled to comment. But a little intelligence in the answer would help for one. It's a little hard to take comments seriously when the person complaining is really only there because they actually did the "crime". I sort of see this like the person complaining about the cops revenue raising when they've been caught speeding. It's probably true, but doesn't really hold as much gravitas if they were literally speeding.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Your team got thrashed Papi, thrashed! :silly:
Peter
Guest
So Sam should not say anything because he’s rubbed out a few times. As a serious question (and I’l be amazed if you answer because your purpose seems to be simply to shut Burgess up): Who would you approve/permit to make statements regarding the MRC/“judiciary”? No-one? Only non-players? Players who have never been cited? Cited but found not guilty? Anyone but Sam Burgess? Whatever your answer, what is your justification? (Try to avoid saying “but Sam!”) I look forward to your clarification.