For all the Leaguies out there who have been keeping up with the news, you will know that the big story at the moment is Blake Ferguson.
The New South Wales state of Origin team have now lost 2 players in the last week as a result of misbehaviour involving alcohol.
Last week, James Tamou was stood down from Origin II after being charged for drink driving. Blake Ferguson is the second player to be stood down following a booze session with Josh Dugan on Sunday night following the team announcement and amidst allegations of indecent assault.
Laurie Daley has been quoted as saying about the NRL that 'we are very supportive of people who make mistakes and if they are willing to work hard and get themselves back on track, there is opportunities for them.'
I would argue that herein lies a huge problem in the NRL - the giving of second and third and fourth chances to players that consistently bring the game into disrepute, particularly players who are extremely talented.
Although Dugan has done nothing this time the Dragons were very quick to offer Dugan a lifeline following his behaviour earlier in the year. While Daley suggests that the NRL is supportive of players who want to work hard and get themselves back on track, it seems more to me like Clubs are out there to profit from the loss of other clubs. As I argued yesterday, the Raiders have been disadvantaged by taking a hard stance in regard to player misbehaviour, while the Dragons have benefited from this. Also, for someone who is recovering from an ankle injury, Dugan doesn't seem too serious about getting himself back on track.
This morning Phil Rothfield has suggested that some players don't respect the State of Origin jersey and that some players do not deserve to be playing State of Origin football. Isn't it becoming about more than that though? Player behaviour should be about so much more than not disgracing the Blues jersey - it should be about being a good representative of your club, for the community and for the children that idolise you.
Over my years watching NRL I have seen and read about countless incidents involving our players - from allegations of sexual assault, pyromania, drink driving, indecent exposure and indecent assault. It's not getting any better though - this suggests to me that the NRL isn't doing its job properly and needs to take a harder stance.
So I'll ask again - NRL, when are we going to get serious about player behaviour?
Your thoughts?
Until next time,
Love,
P.S. This blog comes in the context of another big NRL story this morning - George Burgess has been stood down by the Bunnies for being charged with damaging a vehicle on Monday.
Congrats on the blog Mary.
ReplyDeleteI feel there are two different issues here. Let's deal with the somewhat easier one first. Players who break the law or are charged with breaking the law. In this instance the Police have formed an opinion and the NRL is within its rights to suspend or de-register players for this. Certainly if convicted that stance becomes even clearer.
But what about players who don't break the law but are just idiots who act like idiots especially on the drink? Well they haven't broken the law so it's unreasonable for the NRL to step in and suspend the player. They may have broken their club's rules or not followed their club's directives. It might make for a poor headline but really how can you legislate against idiocy. If a club makes the decision to sack a player because he is consistently breaking rules that is entirely their choice. They also have to weigh up the fact that the player may end up at a competitor. It's the same in any workplace in Australia except that these issues tend to make the back page of the newspapers.
Matt!
ReplyDeleteI am so excited that you are one of the first people to comment on my blog.
The second issue that you have written about is certainly the harder of the two. Player behaviour is a key issue for the NRL at the moment and it's clear that the players aren't learning from people's earlier mistakes.
Do you think a more united stance is needed between the Clubs? At the moment each of the Clubs has their own policy (I assume) in regard to player behaviour. However, I think the policies would all be fairly similar and that's it is a bit unfair for another club to be able to benefit from another club taking a strong stance in regard to player behaviour. I understand that it's the same in any workplace, except these players are in the public eye and are seen as role models for their clubs and for the communities.
Some have suggested a three strikes policy... what do you think about that?
I agree with most of that, but the hardest thing is determining what deserves to be de-registered and what is just a media beat up. You spoke about a three strikes policy but you can do three minor things that aren't sackable offences, nobody is perfect after all and we all make mistakes (let he without sin cast the first stone).
ReplyDeleteI think in Dugan case it more of a bad attitude than anything else but if you look at Ben Barba and Bulldogs case where Todd Greenberg was praised for the way he handled it was so puzzling for me .... he covered up whatever Ben did by calling him 'sick' and got him the very best of help but would the same help be offered to one of there lower grade players? And James Tamou unlicensed and drink driving with others in the car! what Dugan did was nothing compared to that and I wont even start on those who have assaulted woman and I'm not just talking about Robert Lui
No doubt the message NRL clubs are sending is the better player you are the more chances you'll get .....
Mike!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you - obviously an offence punishable by law is in a completely different category to perhaps disgracing yourself in a night club at night.
I understand your point about minor misdemeanors - but perhaps that is an area where all the clubs can work together. If the Clubs all had Beahvioural Policies which were consistent then they would be in charge of deciding what is enough of an offence to get someone sacked from a club. Also, even if they are minor, we don't really need people in our game who have indiscretion after indescretion.
The biggest problem I think is inconsistency. Clearly players with more talent are given more chances and are more heavily protected than say under 20's players who have been removed from clubs for far less than some of the incidents we have been hearing about lately.
Thanks for the comment! :)