Sacked stars plead case to NRL for return after domestic violence convictions

- Indicating I'm unreasonable because I called you out. I never mentioned you by name, there were a few people that disagreed with me in that other post, and I wasn't looking to start that argument again here. I only noted that people disagreed with my position. - Remorseful words/remorseful actions I suspect we actually agree here for the most part. Remorseful words are fine as far as they go but it's an easy thing to do, they don't mean a great deal. The 8 years timeframe with no further offending - the remorseful actions - since the offence is my sole difference between him and Scott who was arrested around GF day last year. - That I didn't hold this opinion last week. I did. It just wasn't part of that conversation. I hold many other opinions on all sorts of things that I didn't directly express either. - name a company that would re-hire someone in this position I don't have much sample size here. The obvious answer though is that the Dragons have made it clear that they are open to do exactly this. I've done a lot of hiring, never been in this exact position but I can honestly say I would consider it depending on the circumstances. - Not knowing the exact answer and looking unintelligent I'm never going to pretend that I know an answer if I don't. I can say that I would want a framework based on actual data about re-offending, comprehensive due dilligence to confirm that the person has made changes in their life (perhaps around assocated factors like alcohol, etc) and ideally some sort of effort in the community to use their profile for good. Perhaps if I had that information and was the person making the decision I would say Scott meets the bar, but instinctively I doubt it.

but I’m not sure why you’re so desperate to paint me as unreasonable and contradicting myself. Because you called me out in your first post. It was only right that I could reply. My principal point on AFB was that sufficient time has passed that it can be shown that he hasn’t re-offended. That his remorseful words were backed by remorseful actions. Pointing out that he was 19 was only to highlight the growth. Neither has Scott. Domestic violence and alcohol charges are separate issues. He hasn't re-offended on the DV charges. Indeed you are fooling yourself with this "remorseful words and remorseful actions" wording. Scott, like AFB, was also remorseful in court. Scott, like AFB, has demonstrated remorseful actions (i.e. he's not been charged with those actions again, like AFB). So, again, why must Scott wait. It’s completely consistent to say that he shouldn’t have been immediately rehired at 19. As it is similarly consistent to say that I don’t think enough time has passed with Scott. I agree it would be, except you didn't in any way hold that opinion last week. You didn't once suggest that the NRL made a mistake in not punting him out for a while. Instead you hammered on ad infinitum about how AFB has grown as a person. What's changed? Your position seems completely arbitrary though? If the player is entitled to resume their career, why not for a club that they’ve played for in the past? What has that got to do with anything? Again, for the same reason that you were unable to answer last week: name a company that has rehired someone who beat up their missus? Name just one. A club who fires someone for those charges, can't then rehire them. It would fly in the face of the values that the club is supposed to uphold. And yes, if you can't figure out a time someone needs to sit out, then don't suggest it in the first place. It looks decidedly unintelligent...and your arguments (despite my obvious disagreement with them) have been quite intelligent.

It's a complex issue and I'm fine with you having a different position but I'm not sure why you're so desperate to paint me as unreasonable and contradicting myself. My principal point on AFB was that sufficient time has passed that it can be shown that he hasn't re-offended. That his remorseful words were backed by remorseful actions. Pointing out that he was 19 was only to highlight the growth. It's completely consistent to say that he shouldn't have been immediately rehired at 19. As it is similarly consistent to say that I don't think enough time has passed with Scott. I admit I don't have an easy answer of how much time is enough time, so if that's your complaint then I'm guilty as charged. Now my view is that both are entitled to come back to the game, the legal system has spoken, but not for a club they’ve played for in the past. My position is unchanged. Yours…wavy as. Your position seems completely arbitrary though? If the player is entitled to resume their career, why not for a club that they've played for in the past? What has that got to do with anything?

Your comments still make no sense, Ken. You cannot possibly suggest that AFB is entitled to play but then say "it doesn't seem like enough time has passed" for Scott. Your comment fundamentally is opposition to your positions of rehabilitation. Either people have rehabilitated and accordingly deserve to be reintegrated into society and the game. Or they can't. You can't say "it doesn't seem like enough time has passed". AFB and Scott both went through the legal system, copped their punishment and that's that. In fact, aside from the size of the fine ($1000 for AFB, $1400 for Scott) their other punishment was the same. Allowing him to be re-hired immediately by another club – possibly for a salary boost – was clearly not a good response by the NRL. Again, a comment that is in opposition to your "he was only 19" position last week. So yeah, I'll double down and say that you are absolutely an apologist for AFB if you hold that position on Scott. Now my view is that both are entitled to come back to the game, the legal system has spoken, but not for a club they've played for in the past. My position is unchanged. Yours...wavy as.

Given the NRL and its clubs openly contributes to domestic violence through being the gambling provider of choice in lower income areas it’s a glasshouse for the administration. Nah, that's a stretch mushi. The NRL taking the gambling coin is fairly repugnant. But establishing a link of contribution towards domestic violence when the bet on the footy goes wrong is unfair. If they weren't betting on football, they'd be betting on something else and still whipping the missus around the room.

” Where there is genuine remorse there is an acceptance you won’t get everything that you want.” The hard thing is to decide whether the remorse is for the effect that the action had on the girl/wife/NRL or whether the remorse is simply personal – “I wish I hadn’t done that because of all the opportunities I have now lost“. Scott says “I want to prove to myself that I’ve grown as a person. I’ve made mistakes yes. But I’ve learnt from them. I want to help others.”” My response would be: he can prove he has grown as a person by getting himself a job outside NRL and sticking to it and behaving as a decent member of society. If he wants to help others, he can do that without coming back to the NRL. There are plenty of opportunities. People can be forgiven for thinking he wants to come back to the NRL simply because he can earn much better money in the game than out of it. If he could show what he has done to help people and to be a better human then maybe he would get more sympathy.

It’s a no for me. I’m all for second chances, but these guys have had a couple already (that we know of).

It's these types of decisions that makes me glad I'm not in charge of the NRL. No one wants to see them back in the NRL, but then no one really wants another tragedy like Ryan Tandy. The NRL is not a charity but it does love a good redemption story. I look at people like Manu Ma'u and Russell Packer who really turned their lives around after being in prison. There's others I've probably forgotten about. If Bronson Xerri sorts himself out and plays in the NRL long term, then that is better than him ending up in more trouble. I'll be honest I don't like Matt Lodge playing NRL but maybe I'm just a hypocrite. Domestic abuse is the worst. There's obviously a few current players that have been guilty of this in the past, like Fonua-Blake. The NRL had a big problem with this in the past and a line in the sand had to be made in 2019. It's been a positive to see better behaviour since the No-Fault Stand Down came in. There is no solution that will please everyone. Maybe just let them play NSWRL/QRL Cups for the rest of their careers? Where there is genuine remorse there is an acceptance you won't get everything that you want.

if they take (non performance enhancing) drugs, who cares? Except their employer maybe. People take drugs. However, the violence, abuse and threats against women (and anyone else unable to stand up for themselves) would indicate a low life scum bag who none should employ. You made your bed, boys, now lie im it and stop intimidating women.

I'm usually not in favor of NRL players taking up boxing but I have at least one clear exception. Curtis Scott. He wants to punch people in the head and that's what boxing is all about , so why not.

Yeah nah! not for me. there’s enough deserving battlers looking for a break in the nrl so just cut ties.

A big no, and another big no. And that's before even starting on the fact Jennings is too old, anyway. Besides the simple fact they're both wife/partner bashers, the increasing media exposure of violence against women (and not before time, I might add) would also make any crazy decision like the one suggested the NRL's worst nightmare.

I've got no sympathy for Scott, but a capacity for change has to be recognised and if we can turn that into a positive outcome more broadly then hey. Given the NRL and its clubs openly contributes to domestic violence through being the gambling provider of choice in lower income areas it's a glasshouse for the administration.

If Scott can point to X months sober and provide 25% of earnings to a women’s shelter I’m on board. Jennings I’m less inclined, he’s in his 30s. Unless he can point to some dramatic change in circumstance he is who he is.

where do you think the bulldogs will land in 2024

This came up a bit in a thread last week concerning AFB. I said that after 8 years of appearing to back up his remorseful words with his actions that it no longer should be an issue. There was some disagreement on that, some believing that it's a 1 strike issue - I was even called an apologiser. If the question had been his 2015 signing with Manly a couple of months after St George sacked him though, I'm sure we all would have been on the same side. Allowing him to be re-hired immediately by another club - possibly for a salary boost - was clearly not a good response by the NRL. The question with Scott and Jennings then - if you believe in allowing redemption at all - is how long before they get the second chance. I don't know that there's any easy answer to that. With Jennings it all seems quite moot. Looking it up he's going to turn 36 early next season and hasn't played for more than 3 years. Surely the Roosters aren't hard up enough to take a chance on him even without the possibly bad PR of his drugs and domestic violence record being splashed around. Scott is much younger of course, but his rap sheet is worse. It doesn't seem like enough time has passed but I don't envy the people that have to make these decisions.

a resounding no and no.

I'm glad I'm not the one making a call on either ex-player. As the comments show, many have hard & fast views over the issues these two were guilty of doing, but IMO there's a tonne of other factors to be considered, eg should they be punished twice for the same crime, should the victims have a say, is the game better or worse off depending on the decision and obviously, are they genuinely remorseful for their actions and what steps have they taken to show that's the case (and doing a rehab programme is not showing remorse). Shame King Solomon's not around.

I guess while ever the NRL takes a soft line then players will continue to take drugs. Convictions for domestic violence and crimes against women and society generally shouldn't be tolerated.

No sympathy