Josh Papalii Suspended

So after their clash with the Dogs, the Raiders have now had enough time to wade through the mountain of evidence including the players admission to settle on a 1 game suspension, because the 1 international game the NRL gave wasn't enough. So the NRL were able to make a decision in less than 24hrs that took the Raiders 3 days to make the same decision and allowed Papalii to play against the Bulldogs and be suspended for the game against Newcastle.


So now the clubs can pick and choose which games their stars get suspended for.

i don't know what the precedent is on DUI and what the punishment is usually, but losing the australian jersey and the 20k that comes with it is pretty hefty on it own. DUI imo can be as bad DV with what can and has happened to victims in the past but the stigma around still is not as bad.

i do think the raiders would have had enough information pre dogs game to make the call of a 1 game suspension, they decided to pick the game in where they don't play a fellow fringe top 8 team, it certainly makes sense to do that from their point of view

Did anyone read the article that had some hints that there was more to it than just him driving home drunk? From the article and I believe it was from Molan, it was made to read like there were some home issues as to why he left the house at the time he did. I find it quite strange that he's called the police on himself. Like that's a pretty bizarre thing to do. Not knowing the full facts I think losing his test jumper is punishment enough.

I read something weird about him trying/wanting to "prove a point" and was driving around in circles not actually going anywhere and reported himself to police ??

Contrast Papallis slap with a feather to Terepo's 3 NRL games + $15,000 + suspension from the Auckland 9s. Papalli is a repeat offender as well. Piss weak effort from a piss weak club.

Suspended from a test and and club game is about right IMO, but the process from the Raiders was clearly a rort.

wizard333 wrote:Contrast Papallis slap with a feather to Terepo's 3 NRL games + $15,000 + suspension from the Auckland 9s.  Papalli is a repeat offender as well.  Piss weak effort from a piss weak club.

Terepo's was different though. Charged with careless driving and failing to give a breath specimen and then not telling the club until after the court appearance. Your not comparing apples with apples.

Piss weak, its what, his third DUI?????? Its at least his second with some other driving shit in there

Pieman wrote:Piss weak, its what, his third DUI?????? Its at least his second with some other driving shit in there

It's his first DUI. He also was fined for driving on a suspended licence when he hadn't paid a parking fine. Oh and that time he threw a bottle of moisturiser at another motorist.

Thought it was 2nd DUI, and that moisturizer was reported to be a 1 litre bottle.
What was he doing buying supplies for a knock shop ? That's a fuckin big bottle of moisturizer.

No Worries wrote:Thought it was 2nd DUI, and that moisturizer was reported to be a 1 litre bottle.
What was he doing buying supplies for a knock shop ? That's a fuckin big bottle of moisturizer.

In fairness to Papali he does have a magnificent complexion.

you cant class the test as a suspension. With the court case pending he should never have been in the frame for selection based on the precedent QLD Mal set last year. Poor old Semi has missed a full tournament and this test and his case has been dismissed/dropped.

Any drink driving infringment should be auto 2 NRL games and high range like Papali 4 weeks.

Shanbon wrote:you cant class the test as a suspension. With the court case pending he should never have been in the frame for selection based on the precedent QLD Mal set last year. Poor old Semi has missed a full tournament and this test and his case has been dismissed/dropped.

Any drink driving infringment should be auto 2 NRL games and high range like Papali 4 weeks.

Papalii's was not high range by the legal definition (0.15) as he blew 0.123. I would agree though with the suspensions you suggest. While I'm a big believer in being innocent until proven guilty, I haven't heard of anyone ever getting off for DUI, so I think you can make an exception to a rule of having to wait for the court case to be heard and I think the suspension should be when you are charged, not after the court appearance.

If you do a Peni Terepo and don't tell the club and NRL, maybe that penalty can be doubled or something.

I actually agree that any suspension should be for x NRL games + any games until the following NRL game (so that things like the Ennis/Tuquiri State of Origin debacles don't happen again), but as the rules state now, if he was suspended for a high tackle on the weekend the Test could count as suspension, so I think you should count it to be consistent with that (until the rule is changed).

Radradra should have been eligible for 4 Nations selection last year since the court case wasn't held yet (well apart from the being a Fijiian issue). Fifita definitely should have been eligible.

As I understand it, after something like this happens, the NRL Integrity Unit is advised, and they will review the penalty issued by club, and if they feel appropriate, add on additional penalties. Personally I think since the Raiders did the whole, "oh we haven't got time to have a fair hearing", which was a load of bullshit, then the Integrity Unit should now be able to say that for the next 12 months, since the Raider's disciplinary process was inadequate, that they lose the right to have an intra-club hearing which has the penalty reviewed by the Integrity Unit.

Instead next time, they hearing is directly with the Integrity Unit (which the club can attend as observers), and they issue the penalty. If the club wants to put further penalties after that they can, but the hearing is first with the Integrity Unit. The club also has to pay an admin fee (say $10K per Integrity Unit member per day or some other strong disincentive) for this having to occur. The club has a history of having disciplinary enforcement that is biased towards their on field requirements.

Imagine the outrage (and rightly so IMO) if the court case was held on Thursday of GF week, and the club said they'd have the disciplinary meeting Monday, because there was no time to do so before the weekend.

No Worries wrote:Thought it was 2nd DUI, and that moisturizer was reported to be a 1 litre bottle.
What was he doing buying supplies for a knock shop ? That's a fuckin big bottle of moisturizer.

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.

I'm going to throw this out there and I fully expect it will be treated with utter hysteria and extreme outrage that I could even suggest such a thing.......but how's about we leave the disciplining of these blokes to the actual authorities i.e. not the NRL??

Not sure why a double punishment is even deemed necessary for football players and the fact the NRL/clubs have no consistency or appreciation of when the punishment should be applied is IMO purely a result of the NRL/clubs becoming involved in something that is beyond their scope of expertise and/or responsibility.

ryno_ wrote:

As my wife calls it - April's supply.

I get the feeling that you're a child of the 80's or 90's not that far different from my vintage. In which case if the April you refer is about having had fantasies about April O'Neil from TMNT, then a litre sounds about right.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:I'm going to throw this out there and I fully expect it will be treated with utter hysteria and extreme outrage that I could even suggest such a thing.......but how's about we leave the disciplining of these blokes to the actual authorities i.e. not the NRL??

Not sure why a double punishment is even deemed necessary for football players and the fact the NRL/clubs have no consistency or appreciation of when the punishment should be applied is IMO purely a result of the NRL/clubs becoming involved in something that is beyond their scope of expertise and/or responsibility.

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.

Dip wrote:

I get the feeling that you're a child of the 80's or 90's not that far different from my vintage. In which case if the April you refer is about having had fantasies about April O'Neil from TMNT, then a litre sounds about right.

Correct vintage - I remember a fancy dress 21st years back where one of the more "plain Jane" looking girls from school had gone with her boyfriend and some of his mates in a group theme as the TMNT, her as April, he was Michelangelo. Hadnt seen her since school and she had definitely grown into her looks since graduating. Long story short, after the speeches and the old folks left it turned into the typical loose 21st party and me and my gf (now wife) walked in on April getting a good ol' pounding by Raphael - Michelangelo nowhere to be seen. Cowabunga!

ryno_ wrote:

Correct vintage - I remember a fancy dress 21st years back where one of the more "plain Jane" looking girls from school had gone with her boyfriend and some of his mates in a group theme as the TMNT, her as April, he was Michelangelo. Hadnt seen her since school and she had definitely grown into her looks since graduating. Long story short, after the speeches and the old folks left it turned into the typical loose 21st party and me and my gf (now wife) walked in on April getting a good ol' pounding by Raphael - Michelangelo nowhere to be seen. Cowabunga!

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

Sounds like she got a Master Splinter as well.