Footballers behaving badly

WAC wrote:
Didn't Boyd and Karmichael Hunt tag team a girl in a toilet while Third Man In Thaiday (on and off the field) filmed it? Then they played in a semi a few days later?

That's my point about reliable evidence and the SKD case. It was investigated by police and nothing further came of it, which indicates that chances are it wasn't how the police reported it and it may have even been consentual. And the suggestion is they should have got a long suspension, and would have if it was another club? Please. Not to mention they got a club fine of $20K each for bringing the club into disrepute for their immoral, but probably not illegal actions.

Re Lockyer, yeah whatever. Look at that cctv video footage and decide whether it was anything more than playing around.

My take on the Pearce punishment is it should be half a season. What he did was atrocious but like most have said not on the level of domestic abuse. It wont be his actions that directly affect the punishment it is the fallout. This video went viral around the world, it hurt the NRL big time and thats what he will be punished for. His profile hurts him in one way as it makes this video a bigger deal and sends the media crazy but on the other hand it saves his career or at least a few years of it. If its a 21 year old 2nd year player his club sacks him and the NRL refuse to register a contract for a few years. 12 weeks looks good compared to that

Dip wrote:

That's my point about reliable evidence and the SKD case. It was investigated by police and nothing further came of it, which indicates that chances are it wasn't how the police reported it and it may have even been consentual. And the suggestion is they should have got a long suspension, and would have if it was another club? Please. Not to mention they got a club fine of $20K each for bringing the club into disrepute for their immoral, but probably not illegal actions.

Re Lockyer, yeah whatever. Look at that cctv video footage and decide whether it was anything more than playing around.

It's strange behavior from the Australian captain to say the least.

Shanbon wrote:My take on the Pearce punishment is it should be half a season. What he did was atrocious but like most have said not on the level of domestic abuse. It wont be his actions that directly affect the punishment it is the fallout. This video went viral around the world, it hurt the NRL big time and thats what he will be punished for. His profile hurts him in one way as it makes this video a bigger deal and sends the media crazy but on the other hand it saves his career or at least a few years of it. If its a 21 year old 2nd year player his club sacks him and the NRL refuse to register a contract for a few years. 12 weeks looks good compared to that

You can't punish people like that though, everyone should be treated the same. Half a season for what he did is mental to me. You could clearly see how distraught he was when he gave that interview. He looked like shit.

I would sit him down. You've got a month off and you're off the drink for the whole year. If you so much as spit in the wrong direction we're terminating your contract, if you don't like it you're free to leave now.

Pearce was probably cutting up onions before he made that statement. Just because he cried and looked like shit doesnt mean anything.

Bren wrote:Pearce was probably cutting up onions before he made that statement. Just because he cried and looked like shit doesnt mean anything.

Remorse is a big thing, if someone legit feels horrible for what they did instead of blowing it off and getting on the turps again I think it means something

Honeysett wrote:

You can't punish people like that though, everyone should be treated the same. Half a season for what he did is mental to me. You could clearly see how distraught he was when he gave that interview. He looked like shit.

I would sit him down. You've got a month off and you're off the drink for the whole year. If you so much as spit in the wrong direction we're terminating your contract, if you don't like it you're free to leave now.

If youre going to treat everyone the same then it should be how the majority are treated not the elite and therefor Pearce would be sacked.

No good putting him on a booze ban he has broken them in the past and disobeyed direct orders on that very night not to stay out drinking.

Honeysett wrote:

Remorse is a big thing, if someone legit feels horrible for what they did instead of blowing it off and getting on the turps again I think it means something

Pretty sure he did and said similar things 18 months ago when stood down from the NSW team. They only feel sorry for themselves and soon that passes and they are back at it

Shanbon wrote:

If youre going to treat everyone the same then it should be how the majority are treated not the elite and therefor Pearce would be sacked.

No good putting him on a booze ban he has  broken them in the past and disobeyed direct orders on that very night not to stay out drinking.

He's not out drinking though. He's at a mates, perhaps he wanted to crash there the night and that was the plan.

Perhaps make the rules clear.

1 indiscretion, two weeks out.
2 two months out, no rep team footy.
3 contract terminated and 1 year ban.

anything serious and you wait until the courts have decided what happens and then go straight to step 3.

Hahaha, such bullshit.

Love how every NSWRL finger (up their arse) puppet tries to bring Brisbane into any discussion regarding the NRL "not correctly disciplining clubs/players". Find something else to make you feel better abut yourselves ya goats.

Secondly, and no offense Honeysett as I respect a lot of whay you have to say usually, but to say that every player needs to be treated the same is just shite. There's things that need to be taken into account in these situations.

1) EVERY SINGLE ACTION NEEDS TO JUDGED ON IT PERSONAL MERITS. Just because mister no name who gives a fuck who is that bloke Auva'a got 20 weeks for what he did (which was, 100%, appalling and in no way condoned) does not mean that a representative level player with the "standing" and name that Pearce has should only cop 4 weeks for his actions. Fuck that. Throw the book at him.

OTHERWISE

2) The game that you and I love can kiss your billion dollar TV rights deal down the toilet with his attitude and flush it. Seriously. You wanna kill a game? Give it no TV rights. Before you know it not one single corporate sponsor has any interest in the game because they'll see no profitability from it. You wanna take the TV right deals away. Slap shitty lil 4 week bans on this kinda crap.

Like it or not, the media and TV corps control this game. The more it grows and the more money gets thrown at it by big corporations, the more responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY is going to be placed on clubs, and therefore, players.

Now that that part of my rant is done, personally I think that the punishment that the NRL wants to hand down is harsh, BUT, for the sake of the game that I love, I support their stance 100%. If it was Hunt or any other muppet Broncs player that had done this kinda thing then I hope the NRL would do the same.

Mearcats wrote:Hahaha, such bullshit.

Love how every NSWRL finger (up their arse) puppet tries to bring Brisbane into any discussion regarding the NRL "not correctly disciplining clubs/players". Find something else to make you feel better abut yourselves ya goats.

Secondly, and no offense Honeysett as I respect a lot of whay you have to say usually, but to say that every player needs to be treated the same is just shite. There's things that need to be taken into account in these situations.

1) EVERY SINGLE ACTION NEEDS TO JUDGED ON IT PERSONAL MERITS. Just because mister no name who gives a fuck who is that bloke Auva'a got 20 weeks for what he did (which was, 100%, appalling and in no way condoned) does not mean that a representative level player with the "standing" and name that Pearce has should only cop 4 weeks for his actions. Fuck that. Throw the book at him.

OTHERWISE

2) The game that you and I love can kiss your billion dollar TV rights deal down the toilet with his attitude and flush it. Seriously. You wanna kill a game? Give it no TV rights. Before you know it not one single corporate sponsor has any interest in the game because they'll see no profitability from it. You wanna take the TV right deals away. Slap shitty lil 4 week bans on this kinda crap.

Like it or not, the media and TV corps control this game. The more it grows and the more money gets thrown at it by big corporations, the more responsibility and ACCOUNTABILITY is going to be placed on clubs, and therefore, players.

Now that that part of my rant is done, personally I think that the punishment that the NRL wants to hand down is harsh, BUT, for the sake of the game that I love, I support their stance 100%. If it was Hunt or any other muppet Broncs player that had done this kinda thing then I hope the NRL would do the same.

I completely understand your point of view and agree with some of it. However at some point there needs to be some common sense, Pearce didn't commit a crime. He was a dickhead on the drink, yes not a good look but I don't believe it has the negative impact without the shit NRL media. Look at the AFL, they've had SO many issues the last two years. One of their players got done on camera with cocaine, most people wouldn't even be able to tell you his name. He's now switched teams and no one has said boo. (actually happened with two players) Why? Because the AFL and it's media hide the negatives and show the positives, League is a sport that eats itself from the inside and with reporters like Buzz and Wilson it always will.

The media are the ones that make the league players look worse than they already are. Pearce doesn't deserve the book thrown at him in my eyes. Give him a month, a $20k fine, misses rep footy and if he ruins the clubs name again he can sit out for a year.

Problem with the AFL head in the sand approach is that it can backfire, like with the ASADA stuff.

NRL open about its issues, everyone got away pretty much scott free.
AFL tries to pretend there is no problem and then end up getting their arses kicked.

I don't care if it helps the image of the game, I don't think pretending there are no problems is a good idea.

People need to look at precedents before going off about how he should be given 12 weeks or half a season off. As for being at a mates it definitely wasn't a mates place he did not know them before that night and I would suggest the only reason they even let him in was the hope that he'd do something stupid and they could make a quick buck out of it.
He hasn't hurt anyone except himself, hasn't broken any laws and has done less damage to the game than a huge number of other players who have gotten off relatively scott free. If they are going to try to make an example of someone it needs to be someone who has done something serious instead of this sort of crap. Maybe start with people who are actually breaking the law like wife beaters and drug users.

Dip wrote:

Personally I reckon if there is any club that is likely to have their management either be intentionally deceiptful or just plain incompetent in order to get an advantage on the field, then you really need to look no further than the club you support.

Gee that's a bit rich

Your Name wrote:

Gee that's a bit rich

Yeah perhaps a little given how the Andrew Gee saga smells, but I like to point out the irony of Shanbon's club staring down the barrel of being -4 points and a $500K fine for salary cap rorts, and having at least 2 former jail birds on their team roster including one who was signed the month after his WADA drug ban expired, but him still using the Broncos as the standard for everything evil and immoral in club administration.

do off field indiscretions really affect the TV deals ? i doubt it


they probably affect our ability to attract sponsors which is reason enough to treat them seriously but the TV stations don't give a shit about anything but ratings, unless your suggest pearce getting an actual fair amount like 4 weeks is gonna force people to not watch it on tv anymore ??


in any case, the game shouldn't decide suspensions based on who the daily frigging telegraph go after.


the punishment should fit the crime for every player, punishing higher profile players more is discrimination imo, people always whinge about clubs taking the hard stance on fringe players but protecting higher level players but the NRL should do the complete opposite ?



ps where is the RLPA ? missing as always, they should be in these negotiations as well making sure pearce doesn't get some ridiculous 10-12 week suspension

Dip wrote:

Yeah perhaps a little given how the Andrew Gee saga smells, but I like to point out the irony of Shanbon's club staring down the barrel of being -4 points and a $500K fine for salary cap rorts, and having at least 2 former jail birds on their team roster including one who was signed the month after his WADA drug ban expired, but him still using the Broncos as the standard for everything evil and immoral in club administration.

I was only shit stirring, no need for an explanation, we know Broncos have been sweeping lines under the rug for years and why Benny left the first time. No coincidence he didn't come back till after they had retired and the reason he took the vulnerable Boyd under his wing.

Announced today, somehow they have dodged the -4.

Dip wrote:

Yeah perhaps a little given how the Andrew Gee saga smells, but I like to point out the irony of Shanbon's club staring down the barrel of being -4 points and a $500K fine for salary cap rorts, and having at least 2 former jail birds on their team roster including one who was signed the month after his WADA drug ban expired, but him still using the Broncos as the standard for everything evil and immoral in club administration.

Both of those Jailbirds have done their time and appear to be moral citizens now. How long exactly should it be hanging over their heads?

Krump wrote:People need to look at precedents before going off about how he should be given 12 weeks or half a season off. As for being at a mates it definitely wasn't a mates place he did not know them before that night and I would suggest the only reason they even let him in was the hope that he'd do something stupid and they could make a quick buck out of it.
He hasn't hurt anyone except himself, hasn't broken any laws and has done less damage to the game than a huge number of other players who have gotten off relatively scott free. If they are going to try to make an example of someone it needs to be someone who has done something serious instead of this sort of crap. Maybe start with people who are actually breaking the law like wife beaters and drug users.

I really couldn't give a rat's arse what a player does in his private life, provided he isnt breaking any rules/laws and he isnt hurting anyone. I'm only really eant hear about football. The media really are like a pack of sharks on a feeding frenzy when it comes to player behaviour. The media is more to blame and more  out of control than the players IMHO.

Can someone please explain to me why what Joel Monaghan did a couple of years ago was so much worse than what Pearce did on Aust Day that he had to leave the NRL and move to England to play ESL?

I'm NOT aware of a significant difference and my understanding is that Monaghan was a cleanskin in the bad-behaviour stakes compared to Pearce who is a repeat offender.

Simon Templar wrote:

Krump wrote:People need to look at precedents before going off about how he should be given 12 weeks or half a season off. As for being at a mates it definitely wasn't a mates place he did not know them before that night and I would suggest the only reason they even let him in was the hope that he'd do something stupid and they could make a quick buck out of it.
He hasn't hurt anyone except himself, hasn't broken any laws and has done less damage to the game than a huge number of other players who have gotten off relatively scott free. If they are going to try to make an example of someone it needs to be someone who has done something serious instead of this sort of crap. Maybe start with people who are actually breaking the law like wife beaters and drug users.

I really couldn't give a rat's arse what a player does in his private life, provided he isnt breaking any rules/laws and he isnt hurting anyone. I'm only really eant hear about football. The media really are like a pack of sharks on a feeding frenzy when it comes to player behaviour. The media is more to blame and more  out of control than the players IMHO.

Can someone please explain to me why what Joel Monaghan did a couple of years ago was so much worse than what Pearce did on Aust Day that he had to leave the NRL and move to England to play ESL?

I'm NOT aware of a significant difference and my understanding is that Monaghan was a cleanskin in the bad-behaviour stakes compared to Pearce who is a repeat offender.

Fair point.  Have always thought Canberra have done a good job with this sort of thing.  Dip did point out to me last year that they've had to sack so many players because they have let things go too many times, but I still think Canberra do the right thing more than a lot of clubs.

Just with Pearce.  Did anyone watch the 360 interview on Tuesday night?  I was sold on what Pearce was saying.  BUT THEN, towards the end, he started saying "we've got a good culture at the Roos..." and then stopped and smiled (almost laughed) and then covered his mouth and said "It's not funny, I shouldn't be laughing" or something like that.  Just smacked of him not believing what he was saying.

Through that interview I also got the impression that he still didn't truly believe he had a problem.  Now alcoholism is NOT defined as someone who drinks all the time or everyday.  Part of the definition is if it affects your personal/family/work life REGARDLESS of whether you drink every day or only once a year.  He started the interview by saying he is not an alcoholic.  Seems a strange thing to say when you have just spent a month at a clinic.