Todd Greenberg can't rule on Josh Reynolds and expect zero backlash

I'm still not going to apologise to Todd....

You’re a good man... not many on the internet would take the time to say that I enjoy discussions with you and your posts even when we disagree

My unreserved apology. The first articles I read on this had said charges consistent with Walker. That isn't the case. I've argued from a position of ignorance on this one.

You can't argue with stupid, Barry. Well done on keeping your cool. Some people refuse to listen. Reckon you said the same thing 15 times and still couldn't get through to these peanuts

Your clumsy reference to Greg Inglis fails to acknowledge that GI was instrumental in helping Souths to break their 43 year premiership drought and that he helped the Rabbitohs to become a consistent top 4 side. Additionally, GI helped Souths to attract quality players to the club who previously never considered the Rabbitohs as a serious option to win a premiership and improve their careers. Players like Chris Sandow, David Taylor, Dylan Walker and Angus Crichton have struggled with their form and were unable to reach the same heights at other clubs after leaving the Rabbitohs.

Hope he isnt injury prone....or puts on a bit of weight as he matures.

You’re at bane calling stage now ? :silly: “Probability of conviction would come into it but I think only as far as determine the level of empathy” this was my exact quote, so yes you did (and continue to) take that out of context “Two – judgement of someone else’s perception of their guilt is still a judgement involving guilt” No it’s not. Just because you keep saying it is, doesn’t make it so JDB is the perfect example of this. I don’t have the first clue as to whether he is guilty of aggravated sexual assault in company. I’ve never professed to and never will. But I can look at all the circumstances and make an assessment that regardless of his innocence or guilt, it’s a massive financial and reputations risk to the game to have him playing every week for two years before a verdict is made and that a stand down is not only reasonable but necessary That’s got absolutely nothing to do with his legal guilt. Nothing. The stand down decision is made independent to whether he’s guilty - it is by definition - because no one know if he’s guilty or not Just because you keep saying “they’re the same thing, they’re the same thing” doesn’t mean they are. They’re demonstrably not Guilt isn’t the root cause of harm either. The harm caused by the publicity JDB’s charges and impact that has on sponsors and fans by having him run out every week is realised completely independent of his guilt, which is determined two years down the track

This time last year we were being told that if a player puts himself in a position which then leads to him being charged then he deserves to be stood down on that basis alone. ''Don't put yourself in these positions'' was the apparent solution. JDB apparently put himself in one of these ''positions'' (so as to speak) and I was told that even he if was found not guilty then he only had himself to blame for being stood down. I don't agree with this anyway but the worst part is the so called ''position'' is based partly on untested reports. As we know in previous cases the stories presented in court often refute entirely these reports which are based on the ''victims'' sometimes false testimony, in part at least. It's a dodgy get out of jail free card for those laying the premature slipper in to JDB if he is found not guilty. I don't accept it. A year on I'm hearing nothing of the so called ''position'' that Scott put himself in, instead the possibility is being raised that he might not be stood down if Greenburg likes what he sees in a video. Yet if the video appears to show Scott is innocent in Greenburgs mind , he can't use that in his decision. All the clubs will be keeping a close eye on the developing farce.

Gee and you argued the defence of semantics you hypocrite. But I would argue that guilt and conviction are more than appropriate synonyms for a criminal charge

Again, how have they back tracked? The policy was a charge with a potential maximum prison sentence of greater than 11 years would be an automatic stand down. Less than that a decision would be based on merits. The Reynolds decision is completely consistent with that policy How is this backtracking?

One - I did not take them out of context. you said it would frame part of it to then weigh up against the empathy/perception. Ergo they are making a judgement on it. Two - judgement of someone else’s perception of their guilt is still a judgement involving guilt. "You can absolutely assess public opinion without making an assumption or statement of guilt” Sure if it is public opinion regarding cherry coke. But if it is public opinion regarding a criminal accusation you cannot do that on a case by case basis without probability of guilt forming part of that judgement. This is even more so if arguing from the stand point a commercial impact where outcomes are (potentially inaccurately) quantified based on probability assumptions. Which was why the objective system said it would not incorporate it. To say otherwise is ridiculous as the potential guilt is the root cause of harm.

I think you’re coming at this the wrong way The only reason this policy is in place is to limit the risks of having players charged with serious crimes running around week in week out, representing the NRL, it’s sponsors and fans The public perception factor isn’t trite - it’s everything for the NRL in this process. It’s literally what this process is designed for Reynolds may well be guilty when his court case is heard but if the public empathise with him and won’t walk if he plays then there’s no reason to stand him down... nothing to do with guilt If sponsors and fans will boycott the game if an alleged gang rapist plays then he has to be stood down until we know one way or the other. Again, nothing to do with guilt You’re also continuing this idea that the NRL has changed its policy from last year. It hasn’t. The automatic stand down was only for charges that carried a potential sentence of more than 11 years. Reynolds charges face a maximum sentence of five years (seven it in company). The automatic stand down doesn’t apply here

"Making a decision on whether a player has demonstrated behaviours contrary to the best interests of the game and should be stood down is a completely different process from determining their guilt in a court of law" Yep but then wasn't any reference to judgments on guilt then entirely superfluous and misdirecting as the NRL never had the ability to rule on criminal matters. The reason they can't win is because they back tracked.

Wouldn’t say more than, but yes I’ve changed my position. I got it wrong. I didn’t believe the policy would be used to infer judgement, others did. They were right, I was wrong. How is judgment of guilt in there? You admit that probability of conviction is a factor. That is a judgement regarding his guilt. It’s not a black and white 0/100 but no judgement ever is, you’d need to be omniscient to have that. If they are assigning any weighting to probability of guilt then they are making a judgement on guilt. They said they wouldn’t. Also the trite bigger factor of it’s about the public perception of guilt (ie a judgement or their judgement on guilt) still ahs guilt at the core and the original policy deliberately circumvented such an imprecise and flawed process. Guilt is the core defining factor in both judgements. This perverts the fundamental basis of a NO FAULT policy. The original policy wasn’t universally fair but it was utilitarian, the “new” policy is just pre the no fault stand down with the false mirage of having this objective policy when Greenberg want’s to subjectively apply it.

But at the heart – Guilt. It’s not though Say you’ve got two players charged with assault against a woman In both cases there are witnesses. In one a player unprovoked punches a woman in the face In the second a player forcibly grabs a woman’s wrists because he thinks he’s about to be attacked Both of these may well end up being guilty in a court of law but the NRL can and should be treating these differently Guilt has little to do with it...public perception does

Except you’re wrong about the policy... The policy was that charges carrying potential sentences of 11 years or more would be an automatic stand down, under 11 years they would judge on its merits = they’re still absolutely consistent with that policy

You’re getting pretty tenuous there mushi If you need to start saying “if you believe this then you must believe that” it’s time to let it go Saying I don’t think clubs will victim shame/blame in violence against women cases in no way equates to I think clubs will always behave perfectly in every instance Forget my opinion, evidence says it’s not happening Look at the recent player cases involving violence against women. JDB, Reynolds, Walker, May, Napa, Musgrove off the top of my head Have any of the clubs involved shamed any of the alleged victims? No. That sort of behaviour is typically for the social media pages Do you really think that with a court case for violence against a woman pending that an NRL club or CEO would publicly look to blame the victim? It would be corporate suicide

You need that explained? Last year - clear criteria with no judgement of the case capturing the exact sentiment you highlighted This year - reverting back towards a case by judgement based approach with subjective criteria of where it is enforced Reversion to an old system = back tracking

It's not semantics it shows your underlying bias. also it's rich for a guy trying to argue that judgement of perceived guilt being being massively different to judgement of guilt (when any judgement the NRL would make would be perceived guilt anyway).

"Do you really think in this environment, the best course of action would be for a club to victim shame to avoid a suspension for one player? The backlash would be enormous" So your defense is society will hold them accountable... if that were true then the NRL wouldn't need to do anything in this environment the clubs would already be dealing with it. Society would already push back on having So okay if you believe that clubs won’t do this then you should believe Todd should stand back as the Clubs will act perfectly in accord with societal expectations and the NRL has no fall out to navigate. “With regards to your last paragraph, this process is all about public perception. The best way for the NRL would be to say “nothing to do with us, let the courts decide “ like they used to” Well actually they cam up with a policy last year that was different to that which Todd has deliberately departed from. Also it does have reference to guilt. Throwing your hands up and saying it’s not how guilty we think they are it’s how guilty we think they think he is. It’s just become a more unreliable judgement (can not by any stretch be called well informed) and a second derivative guess. But at the heart – Guilt.