The bad behaviour thread

between the two extremes, I'm always going to be a lot more OK with telling an innocent man to sit on the sideline with full pay until the matter is resolved because he might've been guilty, than allowing a criminal to parade around in an NRL branded spotlight until he's hailed off to jail because he might've been innocent.

just as a side note though, am I really supposed to feel sorry for a man, who by the time this reaches a verdict, will have most likely already earned more money at 27 than most of us make in our lifetimes, missing a couple extra payments on the top? spare me.

surmo13 wrote:between the two extremes, I'm always going to be a lot more OK with telling an innocent man to sit on the sideline with full pay until the matter is resolved because he might've been guilty, than allowing a criminal to parade around in an NRL branded spotlight until he's hailed off to jail because he might've been innocent.

just as a side note though, am I really supposed to feel sorry for a man, who by the time this reaches a verdict, will have most likely already earned more money at 27 than most of us make in our lifetimes, missing a couple extra payments on the top? spare me.

It's not that simple and it doesn't make the decision right.

There are a thousand hypothetical scenarios for both women and men to lie in these cases.
And if we are going to play hypothetical's and go to extremes do it properly both ways e.g. what if some innocent bloke loses his wife/kids and tops himself in the meantime??

All we are saying is that when the case isn't clear cut, as this case appears to be e.g. it's he said - she said and with no clear evidence of consent or otherwise); you have to let the people who have the capability and authority to make these decisions, do their job and decide whether the person charged is guilty or not.

Not going to comment on what I think if JDB is guilty because everyone is in agreement about how severe his punishment should be if the case....but as I said a few weeks ago, this is hardly a walk in the park for either party while the courts decide and letting the bloke go about his usual occupation is certainly no reward.

What's more frustrating is the NRL claiming this will in some way or another draw a line in the sand and influence how other players behave.

If (and that is a big IF) JDB is innocent, are other players meant to stay locked up in their homes just in case they are accused of something that isn't able to be disproven and thus needs to go through due legal process that could take 12-18 months?

Yes, this rubbish. This is clearly not all the assaults that have been made public but a good proportion of them. There are so many more that are never reported and so little chance of making the accusation stick. Women are not making accusations because they enjoy it. They are doing it because they don't think what has happened is consensual. In almost all cases the case is not conclusively decided but the cases fall over when it becomes too hard to claim it was beyond the benefit of the doubt. If sometime over the next 18 months it is decided that there is not enough evidence to suggest that Jack de Belin is guilty, it does not make him innocent. It just means these things are incredibly harrowing and difficult to prove. One side of the dispute is almost always older, wealthier, more well-known and stronger than the other party. The women who make the complaints have very little to gain and a lot to lose through a process which is entirely unpleasant.

You never hear the names of the women. Nobody ever talks about how this affects their careers or talks about how it might affect their families and workplaces. All the focus is on the player.

So the advice to people to establish and maintain enthusiastic consent is warranted. Players who are not able to maintain their integrity or avoid complaints of sexual assault should take some responsibility. The courts are notoriously difficult places to resolve these disputes. Responsibility should be placed on men to make sure they don't happen in the first place. It is not hard to do. It basically means don't be a dick. If she is not enthusiastically into it the whole time. Then you probably shouldn't be there. I have never seen a player in this situation prove their innocence successfully. I am not saying they are all guilty... but they are also far from innocent.

If the NRL maintains their stance that serious disputes need to be resolved before the players play, then I imagine a whole heap less of them will happen. Proven guilty or not.

Matthew Johns and six unidentified Cronulla Sharks players http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2569925.htm

Unidentified Bulldog players https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Canterbury-Bankstown_Bulldogs#Gang_rape_allegation - not enough information to sustain the case

Greg Bird - https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/greg-bird-guilty-of-assault-over-girlfriend-glassing/news-story/404ff3c2e448943cfcf8cf50fa933239?sv=c18c3cfd759b56ea4c4cb61e78ffdb98 - guilty of violent assault and lying to cover it up

Jack de Belin and Callin Sinclair -- https://www.9news.com.au/2018/12/17/15/38/callan-sinclair-junior-rugby-player-charged-alleged-sexual-assault -- charge in progress

Unnamed NRL player -- https://www.triplem.com.au/story/ex-nrl-player-charged-with-sexual-assault-46872 -- dont know what happened'

Dane Tilse and other Newcastle Knights players- https://www.theage.com.au/national/knights-players-assaulted-me-student-20050223-gdzndu.html -- Women is unsure whether to proceed with the complaint

Scott Bolton -- https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/01/07/north-queensland-cowboys-prop-scott-bolton-has-no-conviction-recorded-after-guilty-plea/ -- challenges in sustaining indecent assault charge but common assault charges stick

Jarrod Hayne - https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/new-rape-claim-made-against-rugby-league-star-jarryd-hayne-ng-b881023356z two rape charges - ongoing challenges in him answering to charges

Zane Musgrove & Liam Coleman - https://www.nrl.com/news/2018/12/07/wests-tigers-forward-zane-musgrove-charged-with-indecent-assault-over-hotel-incident/ - charge awaiting outcome.

Blake Ferguson - https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/blake-ferguson-convicted-of-indecent-assault-at-cronulla-nightclub-2230-20131211-2z64p.html -- charged with indecent assault (CCTV footage)

Anthony Lafferanchi https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/laffranchi-sex-charge-dismissed/news-story/cd9862e1fa1a93b669c8d740465cc84b?sv=c95bf12f2aa38d597a4c3b408e8d7f13 -- not enough evidence to sustain the case

Tevita Latu - https://www.smh.com.au/national/dumped-sharks-player-wins-assault-appeal-20060710-gdnxin.html - violent assault breaking a young woman's nose but charge downgraded

Anthony Cherrington --- https://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/footballer-avoids-jail-for-assault/news-story/7c2ccd406de6a16b5f8ff0cd1063ce1b

Thaiday, Boyd & Hunt --- https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/broncos-sex-complaint-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-20080927-geae7s.html -- complaint withdrawn due to public pressure

Crockett --https://web.archive.org/web/20071016003919/http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/crockett-in-court-on-rape-charges/2007/09/04/1188783209668.html --- complaint withdrawn because of problems with evidence

Balmain Tigers -- https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/tigers-vow-to-probe-rape-claim/news-story/924677dab0e635c526c87feda18d2d1f?sv=616e45d65736824e010e2d29e6afc8c9 -- no details on what happened -- did not go to trial

Buramada wrote:Yes, this rubbish. This is clearly not all the assaults that have been made public but a good proportion of them. There are so many more that are never reported and so little chance of making the accusation stick. Women are not making accusations because they enjoy it. They are doing it because they don't think what has happened is consensual. In almost all cases the case is not conclusively decided but the cases fall over when it becomes too hard to claim it was beyond the benefit of the doubt. If sometime over the next 18 months it is decided that there is not enough evidence to suggest that Jack de Belin is guilty, it does not make him innocent. It just means these things are incredibly harrowing and difficult to prove. One side of the dispute is almost always older, wealthier, more well-known and stronger than the other party. The women who make the complaints have very little to gain and a lot to lose through a process which is entirely unpleasant.

I have no idea what the purpose of showing the news article examples was??
If it was to prove the NRL has a sexual assault problem which is any worse than other young men of a similar demographic.....then sorry to say this doesn't achieve what you are after.

Also, you have thrown out some very significant but sloppy generalisations in the above paragraph.
I fully support making it easier for women to report sexual assaults and to make the ordeal easier.
But for what it's worth, I personally think the rules the NRL has introduced today, shine more spotlight and make it harder for women.

And as I said before, something you seem to be skimming over is that there are a multitude of reasons for women (and men) to lie in these situations.
Maybe they are married, maybe they seek money, maybe they are regretful, maybe they made an accusation in the heat of the moment and feel they have to continue going deeper and deeper with their story.
Not suggesting any of that is the case here - just pointing out very real possibilities you are continually skimming over.

Buramada wrote:
You never hear the names of the women. Nobody ever talks about how this affects their careers or talks about how it might affect their families and workplaces. All the focus is on the player.

Have you ever considered that may be what is best and that hopefully they are getting well and truly cared for by their friends and family?
Yeah the focus is on the player but that isn't a good thing....

Buramada wrote:
So the advice to people to establish and maintain enthusiastic consent is warranted. Players who are not able to maintain their integrity or avoid complaints of sexual assault should take some responsibility. The courts are notoriously difficult places to resolve these disputes. Responsibility should be placed on men to make sure they don't happen in the first place. It is not hard to do. It basically means don't be a dick. If she is not enthusiastically into it the whole time. Then you probably shouldn't be there. I have never seen a player in this situation prove their innocence successfully. I am not saying they are all guilty... but they are also far from innocent.

Again a whole heap of lazy generalisations here but in particular, how does someone that is innocent take responsibility for being accused of something??
Lock themselves away?

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case in this instance but unless you were there, you have absolutely no idea either and no right to assume most of these people accused are guilty.
As I pointed out, there are plenty of scenarios for an innocent person to be accused.

Buramada wrote:
If the NRL maintains their stance that serious disputes need to be resolved before the players play, then I imagine a whole heap less of them will happen. Proven guilty or not.

So by your logic, the existing 11+year jail sentences are less of a deterrent than being stood down by the NRL??

Oz Sport Mad wrote:
If (and that is a big IF) JDB is innocent, are other players meant to stay locked up in their homes just in case they are accused of something that isn't able to be disproven and thus needs to go through due legal process that could take 12-18 months?

do you... know how this stuff works? somebody isn't charged with rape because some-one says "he did a rape!" and everybody just goes 'well off to court then, i guess', the police investigate the claim and need to be able to obtain enough evidence to be able to argue in a court of law that he did what he is accused of before they even think of bringing charges. Rape charges have by far the worst percentage of accusations to court cases, according to a survey from the american justice system, only 4% of rape accusations actually make it to prosecutors, so I'd wager that the players that can manage a night out without sticking their dick in some-one will have absolutely nothing to fear.

surmo13 wrote:between the two extremes, I'm always going to be a lot more OK with telling an innocent man to sit on the sideline with full pay until the matter is resolved because he might've been guilty, than allowing a criminal to parade around in an NRL branded spotlight until he's hailed off to jail because he might've been innocent.

just as a side note though, am I really supposed to feel sorry for a man, who by the time this reaches a verdict, will have most likely already earned more money at 27 than most of us make in our lifetimes, missing a couple extra payments on the top? spare me.

Nicely articulated

surmo13 wrote:between the two extremes, I'm always going to be a lot more OK with telling an innocent man to sit on the sideline with full pay until the matter is resolved because he might've been guilty, than allowing a criminal to parade around in an NRL branded spotlight until he's hailed off to jail because he might've been innocent.

just as a side note though, am I really supposed to feel sorry for a man, who by the time this reaches a verdict, will have most likely already earned more money at 27 than most of us make in our lifetimes, missing a couple extra payments on the top? spare me.

This is so wrong just about every level, in my opinion.

If the courts don't deem him dangerous enough to hold him in a cell until the trial, then why should the NRL do the rugby league equivalent? The law works as innocent until proven guilty, the NRL is working as the opposite - you are basically saying you are ok with being guilty until proven innocent which goes against the very fabric of society.

That last comment... lol...Its almost as if you are jealous of his earning capacity and profile. Just because he has worked hard to put himself in a position where he earns more than the prime minister doesnt mean he should be denied the opportunity to continue to earn that and more (until found guilty).
I bet if he was a bronco you would be carrying on like a muppet about ur star player being stood down without a criminal record.

The sad thing with his is - his image will be tarnished forever now, found innocent or not. If found not guilty, as people have mentioned, he will be able to sue the NRL and the girl for drastically damaging his character and drastically reducing his earning capacity.
It is also really sad that the accuser's name always gets held out of these things. If the courts are able to mask the accuser's identity, then the courts etc should be doing their best to mask the accusee's identity too, especially if they are a high profile person.

I just don't know what the right answer is for this one. Under the rules that are in place now, Anthony Laffranchi would have missed the entire 2007 season, and up to April 23 2008.

Laffranchi played his first SOO game on May 21 2008, and played for Australia and NSW in 2008 and 2009. It is almost certain he would never had played for NSW or Australia had the current rules been in place, even though the charges were ultimately dropped. That clearly isn't fair.

On the other hand, I agree with Buramada. They get paid what they do because of broadcast deals, so anything that comprimises the amount of the broadcast deals is a real issue. While things might not be illegal, players need to be smarter, and ask themselves "would I feel comfortable justifying myself to a headline of what I've done on tomorrow's front page if I do this and it gets out". If the answer is no, then don't do it, whether it's legal or not. And that's not just the big issues. The players are going to get unfairly treated by the media if they take a piss in the bushes, tell a racist or sexist joke on Mad Monday, or are rolling drunk at a music festival. If you don't want to risk the money, fame and women that comes being a NRL player, then even though it's reasonably minor, don't take a piss in the bushes, tell racist and sexist jokes, or drink too much at music festivals.

I personally don't think everything that has gone on this off season is a bad reflection on the game. I think they are are bad reflection on the people involved. But that's not the issue. As a nation as a whole, there are enough people who think it does reflect on the game. I think that's stupid, but that's the way it is and where the goalposts are right now. Until there is a change in the position of the goalposts, these players need to play what's in front of them.

Regarding your third paragraph - sure mate in a perfect world that would be ideal.

But if 2 young blokes want to spit roast a glamour and shes up for it, why should they have to consider it ever making a newspaper? They have every right to be able to party privately etc.. yes they are stupid getting hammered out in public in this day and age but 99% of them can do it without coming across as total fuckheads.
The partying is fine, ive seen 100s of NRL plays out on the piss just having a good time. Its the very small minority that act like fuckwits when out on the piss - they are the problem.

If they arent doing something illegal then they can do what ever the fuck they want IMO just like anyone else IMO. Its their anti social actions that get them into trouble not just the action of partying.

So I sort of agree with you but sort of dont? haha

if it was my choice, i would have let JDB/st george handle untill the courts decided unless there was obvious video evidence otherwise or a guilty plea

but despite that, i personally can't say that NRL is being unreasonable, their press conference yesterday was impressive and beattie in particular looks to be doing all he can for what he believes is the best for the game. they seemed to be more concerned with protected the brand and being fair to all parties (not just players) then simply being consistent which will ultimtately lead to many more meltdowns by fans in the future but that doesn't make it wrong, its hard to be consistent when none of these cases will be like for like.

if JDB is innocent, is it unfair to him ? yes absolutely. i personally think the game should look at compensating any player who is found not guilty for any potential damage to future earnings. well if anything, i think the RLPA should at the very least be demanding that for its players but that won't happen.

There's no problem at all with having a threesome. Just be smart about it, and more importantly, be a decent human being. Don't do it with someone who might be so drunk that maybe they're not able to legally provide consent. Lock your bedroom door so your mates don't come in filming it (or hang around mates who won't come into your room and film you having sex). Don't have 10 of your mates around you clapping you on while you root a chick then stir your porridge.

If you like to dress up as a chicken and get whipped while wearing a gag ball, that's fine too as far as I'm concerned, but do yourself a favour and don't film it and lock your door. This has absolutely nothing to do with the right to party privately. It's about facing consequences for your actions. On your 18th birthday you had the right to take a chick home and bang her in your parents house, and you did that weighing up the risk of what your mum would say if she caught her sneaking out the next morning. This is exactly the same except the consequences are probably more.

JDB is absolutely entitled to the presumption of innocence of what he has been charged with, but lets not kid ourself here. From the day these players set foot in a NRL club, they have drummed into them the consequences of their actions, and they only need to look at what has happened in the past to the likes of Carney, Dugan etc for things that weren't illegal. They have made a decision by their actions based upon the risk and level of consequence.

Apparently this morning Zane Musgrove's contract won't be registered before his court hearing, Napa fined 10% of his salary, and Scott Bolton gets 10 weeks + 5% of his salary as a fine.

Napa's seems harsh in my opinion.

good post dip

my opinion has probably always been footy players are paid to play footy not be role models


but when players argue that want a piece of the pie, that has to include the players understanding they have to be accountable for their actions because the pie include broadcast deals and their media profiles, they are role models whether they like it or not and the way they treat women is more important now then ever before.

if you were to believe thurstans book re the bulldogs coffs harbour scandal, then they wern't only not guilty due to not being enough evidence but actually innocent due to not breaking any law but if that happened today and guys really did treat a women that badly after the event, are we all gonna really accept that they would get no punishment due to what the law is ? please, the games goes beyond what us guys think footy players are paid for, what women think of footy players is important and we can't just ignore that. there might be less the 1% of players who will ever do anything that makes people thing league players treat women like shit but that small % is still enough to influence people, especially if those players are still just out there playing like nothing ever happened. whether us long term footy tragics think that way or not

I agree with that... but thats not what happened.

He is saying she consented to it all - in a private apartment. She is saying he raped her and she tagged along with them until she could get away safely.

In his case (and from his point of view - speculating that he didnt actually rape her), having a 3some in a private apartment is fine and no one would expect her to go to the cops the next day or what ever. If you believe him, what they did was totally acceptable and reasonable.

If they have to consider the level of risk of every single thing they do, or the absolute worst case scenario, then they are never ever picking a chick up and going to a private place with her. That is totally unrealistic and totally unreasonable I reckon.

If he didnt do it, then he should be allowed to earn money to his full capacity imo. If he did do it, fuck him he can rot in jail. But that has to wait until after his court case verdict.

Dip wrote:Apparently this morning Zane Musgrove's contract won't be registered before his court hearing, Napa fined 10% of his salary, and Scott Bolton gets 10 weeks + 5% of his salary as a fine.

Napa's seems harsh in my opinion.

timing hurt Napa, if it released 6 months earlier, he probably gets nothing (trying to remember if burgess got a fine ? ) but the sequence of events was always gonna lead to a line in the sand judgement

Pieman wrote:I agree with that... but thats not what happened.

He is saying she consented to it all - in a private apartment. She is saying he raped her and she tagged along with them until she could get away safely.

In his case (and from his point of view - speculating that he didnt actually rape her), having a 3some in a private apartment is fine and no one would expect her to go to the cops the next day or what ever. If you believe him, what they did was totally acceptable and reasonable.

If they have to consider the level of risk of every single thing they do, or the absolute worst case scenario, then they are never ever picking a chick up and going to a private place with her. That is totally unrealistic and totally unreasonable I reckon.

If he didnt do it, then he should be allowed to earn money to his full capacity imo. If he did do it, fuck him he can rot in jail. But that has to wait until after his court case verdict.

I'm happy to go along with Surmo (I think it was) here. In a case as serious as this, I'm happy to go with the decision that where the police have investigated it and believe the lady in question, then I think it is much better that the interest of the game and the several hundred other players are protected by JDB sitting on the sideline on full pay rather than risk a rapist playing.

IF the judge/magistrate believes JDB and he is found innocent, then JDB should have the right to seek damages from the said lady for his potential loss of earnings and mental anguish or whatever.

The NRL's job is to protect the game. I can't criticise them for choosing to protect the broadcast rights, and rights of all other players by sitting the player out, which is a far bigger risk to me, than the risk of the game not being as good because a potentially innocent player, one of the best players in the game, is not able to showcase his skills.

So Bolton decided not to take the reduced sentence of 6 weeks if he did the walk of shame around the clubs with his CCTV footage and just rest up for 10 weeks instead ?

No Worries wrote:So Bolton decided not to take the reduced sentence of 6 weeks if he did the walk of shame around the clubs with his CCTV footage and just rest up for 10 weeks instead ?

nah apparently he has agreed to it and will meet with seniors from all clubs at magic weekend and it will halve his penalty

RE: Musgrove, where does that leave the Tigers as far as meeting the May 1 deadline of 29 contracted players ?

No Worries wrote:RE: Musgrove, where does that leave the Tigers as far as meeting the May 1 deadline of 29 contracted players ?

i would say he can't be part of it