Josh Papalii Suspended

Dip wrote:

Haha. Great story. Raphael's excuse? "I thought it was Michelle (My Shell)".

Sounds like she got a Master Splinter as well.

More like a Shredder from what I saw.

Also makes this video 1000x times funnier. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OJhLRR33FI4

I guess I'm too young for THAT April O'Neil

Dip wrote:

Double punishment is necessary because in reality the brand, reputation, and income of their footballer's employer, the NRL, is affected by criminal and public matters. That doesn't happen for many workplaces, but unfortunately it does in this one. This is of course blown way out of proportion by the media, and the general public need to be smarter, but hey that's the reality.

Personally, if I'm a sponsor, guys doing things like this I think reflects poorly on themselves, not the club or the game, so I'd still be happy if I'm a sponsor to keep being a sponsor, though maybe I wouldn't want those particular guys in my advertising plans, particularly if I'm say, NRMA and we're talking about a drink driver.

Another thing I can't quite get around is the punishment for things that AREN'T even illegal, and to me it shows the NRL is off their chops in this area. Personally I think the guys who do some things are wankers, but how is it you effectively get a lifetime ban for pissing in your mouth which is gross but not harming anyone, an 8 week ban for harmlessly pretending to hump a dog, but 2 weeks for punching a guy off the ball (George Burgess). It's just not right.

Yeah I understand that is usually the standard line that get's rolled out....but it's a complete cop out and I don't buy it.

The same public/media attention get's lavished on pop stars and I don't see their promoters standing them down for say two concerts due to being done for DUI.
In fact, most would be stoked with the additional coverage (and I'm sure there would be instances where for a fading star, it would even be encouraged).

As you say, realistically it only reflects poorly on the player and the club/sponsors/NRL's brand is barely if at all impacted.
In the case of Papali, Huawei probably got a bit more coverage than usual.

Just leave it for the courts/authorities to decide the punishments I say.

If you see a driver of a removalist van swerving on the road and being a dickhead you're more likely to look negatively on that brand. Thus may not use it. Which causes brand shrinkage and is hurtful to the company.

If you see a player getting loaded and driving you may not want your child to watch the games he plays in thus the NRL loses viewership, then a potential grass roots player. The NRL is the overall employer, if one of your staff is doing something that potentially hurts the brand you're going to do something about it.

We can't just not punish these guys when they make mistakes. They're in the public eye - like it or not, that's why they get paid more money. To negate the negative impact of your life no longer being completely private. However the media should do more to protect the image of the NRL as well, as an example the Pearce situation should never have made it to the news. That was in private and was not against the law, likewise with Todd Carney. That's why I believe there should be media accreditation handed out - if you don't protect the brand you don't get the insights.

ryno_ wrote:

As my wife calls it - April's supply.

If the court case was on a Friday, do we really expect an assessment of the case and punishment handed down by that weekend? It seems a little unrealistic.

No. But only because he pled guilty. All the info was available. You are just holding off on announcing punishment so you can't be seen to bias the court. Semi's case different story. Ohhh wait ..........

Honeysett wrote:If you see a driver of a removalist van swerving on the road and being a dickhead you're more likely to look negatively on that brand. Thus may not use it. Which causes brand shrinkage and is hurtful to the company.

If you see a player getting loaded and driving you may not want your child to watch the games he plays in thus the NRL loses viewership, then a potential grass roots player. The NRL is the overall employer, if one of your staff is doing something that potentially hurts the brand you're going to do something about it.

We can't just not punish these guys when they make mistakes. They're in the public eye - like it or not, that's why they get paid more money. To negate the negative impact of your life no longer being completely private. However the media should do more to protect the image of the NRL as well, as an example the Pearce situation should never have made it to the news. That was in private and was not against the law, likewise with Todd Carney. That's why I believe there should be media accreditation handed out - if you don't protect the brand you don't get the insights.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree about the media accreditation and associated accountability - it's something I've been spruiking since I joined Sportal.

As for your first couple of paragraphs I couldn't agree less.

The analogy doesn't align and if you actually think about it, rather than just taking the standard NRL line as gospel, you'd realise that the impact on the brand is negligible.

I do fully appreciate how protective businesses need to be of their brand but in this instance, it is blatantly obvious that sponsorship companies are aligned to the football team and an individual act of stupidity is something that the team/sponsors are unable to ever completely control and should result in the individual being punished by the law (as he will be) and not the team/sponsors.
Nobody is going to not purchase a Huawei phone as a result of this and if anything, some people that wouldn't even know the company will now be aware they exist.

As for the NRL they can shove their brand protection up their clacker.
They do more damage to the reputation of the game and their brand than the players do and unfortunately individual mistakes like this will always occur and should be punished by those that are in the best position to punish them (i.e. not the NRL/clubs).

Oz Sport Mad wrote:
As for the NRL they can shove their brand protection up their clacker.
They do more damage to the reputation of the game and their brand than the players do and unfortunately individual mistakes like this will always occur and should be punished by those that are in the best position to punish them (i.e. not the NRL/clubs).

As long as Blake Ferguson, a convicted sex pest, still plays and represents the code and country at the highest level the NRL has no brand protection.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree about the media accreditation and associated accountability - it's something I've been spruiking since I joined Sportal.

As for your first couple of paragraphs I couldn't agree less.

The analogy doesn't align and if you actually think about it, rather than just taking the standard NRL line as gospel, you'd realise that the impact on the brand is negligible.

I do fully appreciate how protective businesses need to be of their brand but in this instance, it is blatantly obvious that sponsorship companies are aligned to the football team and an individual act of stupidity is something that the team/sponsors are unable to ever completely control and should result in the individual being punished by the law (as he will be) and not the team/sponsors.
Nobody is going to not purchase a Huawei phone as a result of this and if anything, some people that wouldn't even know the company will now be aware they exist.

As for the NRL they can shove their brand protection up their clacker.
They do more damage to the reputation of the game and their brand than the players do and unfortunately individual mistakes like this will always occur and should be punished by those that are in the best position to punish them (i.e. not the NRL/clubs).

Alright let's take the teams sponsorship out of it, Papalil would have third party sponsors that are paying him money to represent them at certain things. Whether that's to come in wearing one of their shirts and teach some kids or sell a product. That reputations is damaged by these sort of actions. The NRL as a company then needs to be seen not being negligent to these businesses as the employer of these contractors - thus needing to suspend him.

ryno_ wrote:

As long as Blake Ferguson, a convicted sex pest, still plays and represents the code and country at the highest level the NRL has no brand protection.

i'm no Ferguson fan, but i'm happy to argue that DUI is atleast as bad putting your hand up a girls dress


i to hate blake representing NSW & australia since his return but Driving drunk is just as bad imo, i've seen a family rocked for their whole life when their little girl was killed by a drunk driver, our courts just don't seem to punish them enough untill they kill someone, i hate it

leaguegod wrote:


i'm no Ferguson fan, but i'm happy to argue that DUI is atleast as bad putting your hand up a girls dress


i to hate blake representing NSW & australia since his return but Driving drunk is just as bad imo, i've seen a family rocked for their whole life when their little girl was killed by a drunk driver, our courts just don't seem to punish them enough untill they kill someone, i hate it

While I agree that DUI (especially low range) seems to be, culturally, well below where it needs to be in terms of stigma against perpetrators, I would not agree that it is equal to what he is convicted of. One offence is both premeditated and targeted in nature while the other is (generally speaking) careless and negligent. Both dog acts, sure. But trying to pick a random girl up like you would a bowling ball is, in my book, much worse.

Perhaps the fact we can even have a discussion about whether its worse for the NRL to have a DUI on the field or a sex offender shows that their "brand" is fucked.