Barba to SL - were not taking him are we?

[Tommygilf]

30 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I reckon a medical will dictate any Lomax offer.  Lads carrying some scar tissue.

Indeed, he was good for England at the 4 nations however and will be a good signing whomsoever he signs for should he manage to avoid injury.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, he was good for England at the 4 nations however and will be a good signing whomsoever he signs for should he manage to avoid injury.

Saints have offloaded Walker and I can see the same for a few there to pay Barba's Marquee contract.  It's going to be interesting to see if he serves his ban here though.  IMO, he should.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Lowdesert said:

Saints have offloaded Walker and I can see the same for a few there to pay Barba's Marquee contract.  It's going to be interesting to see if he serves his ban here though.  IMO, he should.

Completely agree. They've reciprocated on similar issues such as Segeyaro's registration. Got to be professional, the NRL is not a NFL style independent game, its our biggest international partner. I'd have preferred it to go through the RLIF.

[DavidM]

Got to serve his ban to send the right message 

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Got to serve his ban to send the right message 

Suppose the question is when does the ban start?

He has surely missed a dozen games since his ban now? He may have left and got another job, but you could say the ban impacted that.

If Cronulla had sacked him and he only just signed now surely that would be ban served?

[DavidM]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Suppose the question is when does the ban start?

He has surely missed a dozen games since his ban now? He may have left and got another job, but you could say the ban impacted that.

If Cronulla had sacked him and he only just signed now surely that would be ban served?

Yeh fair point of debate 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Yeh fair point of debate 

I think it gives Saints a fair case for appeal. Just because tge NRL dish out unorthodox bans doesnt mean it should be the same here.

[Futtocks]

To show mutual trust and good faith, the RFL and the NRL should make a decision on what his remaining ban should be at this point.

I doubt very much that St Helens would play him while the ban stands, but his time in France should surely count for something.

[Honor James]

21 hours ago, Mattrhino said:

A bit like Segeyaro who was probably too good for SL they are only going to come if they are in trouble or out of favour. So we might as well get them while we can. I just hope he is a bit more loyal than Segeyaro a stays in comp for at least a full season.

Sandow isn't in the same league as Barba and Segeyaro.

So to you it's OK, I guess, that our competition is all too frequently and openly seen and accepted (by an awful lot of Brits and certainly DownUnderites), as a handy bolt-hole for out-of-favour NRL players who (being not yet absolutely beyond their sell-by date) can serve penance time, until one or other of the NRL coaches (short of cash but needing a top-up) thinks: "Oh well, he's probably learned his lesson by now."

OK - it's a point of view.

But me?   I'd rather watch my team lose than "sell my birthright for a mess of pottage", and I'll be right at the front cheeering louder than anyone.

[Lowdesert]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

I think it gives Saints a fair case for appeal. Just because tge NRL dish out unorthodox bans doesnt mean it should be the same here.

I would imagine, based on the NRLs initial statement, 'registration' is the key word.  

They said that his ban would start, when he came back from 'other sporting commitments'.  That would have been RU but if Saints just play him, I can see the NRL including SL into their 'other sports' category.

How is this unorthodox Dave?  I can't see how it is.

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I would imagine, based on the NRLs initial statement, 'registration' is the key word.  

They said that his ban would start, when he came back from 'other sporting commitments'.  That would have been RU but if Saints just play him, I can see the NRL including SL into their 'other sports' category.

How is this unorthodox Dave?  I can't see how it is.

Because when Hock took his 2 year ban he could have gone away and worked as a bricklayer for two years and then signed for a club and his ban wouldnt then start. His club Cronulla have played 12 full games since his ban. Had he not been banned he could have still been at Cronulla and played in those. His ban meant he couldnt and he didnt.

Time served as far as im concerned.

[Scubby]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Because when Hock took his 2 year ban he could have gone away and worked as a bricklayer for two years and then signed for a club and his ban wouldnt then start. His club Cronulla have played 12 full games since his ban. Had he not been banned he could have still been at Cronulla and played in those. His ban meant he couldnt and he didnt.

Time served as far as im concerned.

This is a very good point. You cannot ban someone for a period and then just enforce it as and when outside your own competition and country. Legally Saints could push this through if they desire IMO. 

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Because when Hock took his 2 year ban he could have gone away and worked as a bricklayer for two years and then signed for a club and his ban wouldnt then start. His club Cronulla have played 12 full games since his ban. Had he not been banned he could have still been at Cronulla and played in those. His ban meant he couldnt and he didnt.

Time served as far as im concerned.

Yes, fair point.  But it doesn't apply to the Hock scenario, in that he was banned for a 'period'.  Barba has been given 'matches', whatever that period becomes.  Also, this 'other' sporting commitments kicks in for the NRL. 

This doesn't happen in SL.  If a player is banned at the final game of the season for 6 games, that doesn't come in until the next season when qualifying games tot up and if NRL deem SL as 'other', then he has to do the time. 

Working as a Brickie doesn't count, although if he can do some plastering I've got a boatload for him.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

Yes, fair point.  But it doesn't apply to the Hock scenario, in that he was banned for a 'period'.  Barba has been given 'matches', whatever that period becomes.  Also, this 'other' sporting commitments kicks in for the NRL. 

This doesn't happen in SL.  If a player is banned at the final game of the season for 6 games, that doesn't come in until the next season when qualifying games tot up and if NRL deem SL as 'other', then he has to do the time. 

Working as a Brickie doesn't count, although if he can do some plastering I've got a boatload for him.

I think the case absolutely has to be that he was banned for 12 games for Cronulla. He has missed 12. All this talk of NRL games is a nonsense as internationals and world club games should count (if he was a Test player). 

Picking and choosing when a ban starts is quite frankly wrong imho. He has missed 12 games and wasnt allowed to play in them if he wanted. What he dod in the meantime is irrellevant.

[Lowdesert]

On 26/05/2017 at 6:54 PM, Dave T said:

I think the case absolutely has to be that he was banned for 12 games for Cronulla. He has missed 12. All this talk of NRL games is a nonsense as internationals and world club games should count (if he was a Test player). 

Picking and choosing when a ban starts is quite frankly wrong imho. He has missed 12 games and wasnt allowed to play in them if he wanted. What he dod in the meantime is irrellevant.

He hasn't missed 12 games at all.  He was released from his contract by Cronulla, after being found positive for drugs in Nov 2016 after the GF.  No more games where due until March 2017.  Cronulla had a change of mind, Jan 2017, resigned him and submitted this to NRL who did not ratify his registration. This is important as he was now unregistered free agent.  Even if there were Internationals, or any other games, these wouldn't have been counted as he was not a registered professional NRL player.

NRL sentence was given 1 Feb 2017.  Cronulla were informed by Barba, he was cancelling his contract with them, the very next day, 2 Feb, and he had already accepted a long term offer with Toulon.  This clearly shows he had been planning a move.

Based on this, he wouldn't have been eligible to play NRL until early June 2017.  If he'd have stayed at the club that was trying to support him he would have been nearly ready to go.  He didn't.

 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

He hasn't missed 12 games at all.  He was released from his contract by Cronulla, after being found positive for drugs in Nov 2017 after the GF.  No more games where due until March 2017.  Cronulla had a change of mind, Jan 2017, resigned him and submitted this to NRL who did not ratify his registration. This is important as he was now unregistered free agent.  Even if there were Internationals, or any other games, these wouldn't have been counted as he was not a registered professional NRL player.

NRL sentence was given 1 Feb 2017.  Cronulla were informed by Barba, he was cancelling his contract with them, the very next day, 2 Feb, and he had already accepted a long term offer with Toulon.  This clearly shows he had been planning a move.

Based on this, he wouldn't have been eligible to play NRL until early June 2017.  If he'd have stayed at the club that was trying to support him he would have been nearly ready to go.  He didn't.

 

Do bans only apply to registered players?

Had he not got his ban he could have still been at Cronulla playing in the dozen games they have played. He was banned though so couldnt play - and went off to do different things.

You cant punish people again.

What if his club had sacked him and bo club would sign a player while he has his ban? It could never be served.

You seem peeved that he went off to Unio , but ultimately that came about because he was banned from playing RL.

[Lowdesert]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Do bans only apply to registered players?

Had he not got his ban he could have still been at Cronulla playing in the dozen games they have played. He was banned though so couldnt play - and went off to do different things.

You cant punish people again.

What if his club had sacked him and bo club would sign a player while he has his ban? It could never be served.

You seem peeved that he went off to Unio , but ultimately that came about because he was banned from playing RL.

Apparently not, as he wasn't registered when they issued the ban - Cronulla were still awaiting his applications ratification.

He hasn't been punished Dave, because he hasn't been there to serve a punishment.  The first chance he would have had, to start it, was the beginning of NRL in March 2017.  

Union has nothing to do with my reasoning at all.  I know some discussions have been made, in the past, between RU and NRL, regarding banned players looking to find a way out.  I read a piece but can't find it now.  My stance stays the same, he should serve his ban.

As previously said, imo, we SL is being used in this instance, to escape his ban.  Again, imo, he wasn't thinking straight, his agent chipped away at Toulon and they gave him a get out ticket which was triggered Nov 1.  

Edit: Sharks coach Shane Flanagan has previously said Barba's best-case scenario was to return to the NRL after the club's bye in round 14 in June.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Apparently not, as he wasn't registered when they issued the ban - Cronulla were still awaiting his applications ratification.

He hasn't been punished Dave, because he hasn't been there to serve a punishment.  The first chance he would have had, to start it, was the beginning of NRL in March 2017.  

Union has nothing to do with my reasoning at all.  I know some discussions have been made, in the past, between RU and NRL, regarding banned players looking to find a way out.  I read a piece but can't find it now.  My stance stays the same, he should serve his ban.

As previously said, imo, we SL is being used in this instance, to escape his ban.  Again, imo, he wasn't thinking straight, his agent chipped away at Tlulon and they gave him a get out ticket which was triggered Nov 1.  

He was banned from playing in the NRL - he didnt play, what exactly do you want him to do?

12 games have passed - he didnt play - because he was banned. 

It is a bizarre ban - why would any club now sign him up in the NRL for him to serve the 12 match ban - he may literally never be able to play again in the NRL if they insist he has to serve it in that comp when registered with a club.

If he wanted to stay at Cronulla and play in the WCS game vs Wigan, ge couldnt - why not? Because he was banned!

He has served his ban. 

[Lowdesert]

36 minutes ago, Dave T said:

He was banned from playing in the NRL - he didnt play, what exactly do you want him to do?

12 games have passed - he didnt play - because he was banned. 

It is a bizarre ban - why would any club now sign him up in the NRL for him to serve the 12 match ban - he may literally never be able to play again in the NRL if they insist he has to serve it in that comp when registered with a club.

If he wanted to stay at Cronulla and play in the WCS game vs Wigan, ge couldnt - why not? Because he was banned!

He has served his ban. 

The ban was 12 matches.  No games have been played, where he was part of the NRL.  The 1st match ban would have been March 2017, the 12th would have been 14 June 2017 - which is the date his Coach, Flanagan indicated.  That didn't and couldn't include the WCS because he left Cronulla 2 Feb 2017 and that game was around 18 Feb 2017 and Barba was with Toulon.  

The NRLs statement, 1 Feb 2017, indicates the status of that ban.

Its quite clear what NRL want him to do, which is serve a ban they imposed.  If he chooses not to, then that's his call.  

He has not served any ban.  Flanagans and the NRLs statements confirm that.  

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

The ban was 12 matches.  No games have been played, where he was part of the NRL.  The 1st match ban would have been March 2017, the 12th would have been 14 June 2017 - which is the date his Coach, Flanagan indicated.  That didn't and couldn't include the WCS because he left Cronulla 2 Feb 2017 and that game was around 18 Feb 2017 and Barba was with Toulon.  

The NRLs statement, 1 Feb 2017, indicates the status of that ban.

Its quite clear what NRL want him to do, which is serve a ban they imposed.  If he chooses not to, then that's his call.  

He has not served any ban.  Flanagans and the NRLs statements confirm that.  

Which is why it is unorthodox.

Does any other sport in the world ban you but make you stay - in effect banning you from doing anything for that period? 

The NRL even refuse to register people that they havent banned. They are a bit silly.

At the end of last year Barba was told he cant play in the NRL for 12 matches. He hasnt played. Now coming up to round 13 he is told the previous 12 dont count because he was in France? 

Its just weird.

[Lowdesert]

Just now, Dave T said:

Which is why it is unorthodox.

Does any other sport in the world ban you but make you stay - in effect banning you from doing anything for that period? 

The NRL even refuse to register people that they havent banned. They are a bit silly.

At the end of last year Barba was told he cant play in the NRL for 12 matches. He hasnt played. Now coming up to round 13 he is told the previous 12 dont count because he was in France? 

Its just weird.

No!  He wasn't NRL registered to enable him to be banned and no games had been played then.  

What's weird is that his Cronulla registration was delayed, or appeared to be according to Barba.  Maybe they wanted to make an example of him?  

Certainly put Wood in a pressured situation in his position with SL.  I can see a sideways step.

[Dave T]

8 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

No!  He wasn't NRL registered to enable him to be banned and no games had been played then.  

What's weird is that his Cronulla registration was delayed, or appeared to be according to Barba.  Maybe they wanted to make an example of him?  

Certainly put Wood in a pressured situation in his position with SL.  I can see a sideways step.

Which brings me back to my question of can only registered players serve a ban?

So how does he serve an NRL ban? Who would sign him knowing they have to pay him when he is banned for 3 months?

It is a crazy situation and had "

Cronulla sacked him he wouldnt have been able to serve his ban using your logic.

Bans really should be easy. He was banned for 12 rounds. He hasnt played on Rounds 1 to 12 (because he was banned)- it is irrelevant what he did during that time.

I should add, id be perfectly happy if Saints had to wait another 10 weeks or so before he could play for them

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Which brings me back to my question of can only registered players serve a ban?

So how does he serve an NRL ban? Who would sign him knowing they have to pay him when he is banned for 3 months?

It is a crazy situation and had "

Cronulla sacked him he wouldnt have been able to serve his ban using your logic.

Bans really should be easy. He was banned for 12 rounds. He hasnt played on Rounds 1 to 12 (because he was banned)- it is irrelevant what he did during that time.

I should add, id be perfectly happy if Saints had to wait another 10 weeks or so before he could play for them

Yes, but I'm sure there will be some anomaly.  

Your 2nd point is one area where this is easily confused, in that he has been given 'matches', not 'a period of time'.  

Cronulla thought about it, after deregistering him after he'd been caught, and gave him a 2nd chance by re-signing him in Jan 2017.  It was a gesture backing him as they would've had to wait until June to play him.  They also provided a raft of help to get him right again, but immediately the NRL got wind of him speaking to Toulon, they issued a statement on 1 Nov and he then dumped Cronulla the next day.

Hock got 2 years.  That means just that, 2 years out of the game.  NRL gave 12 matches.  That means 12 NRL matches.  This is not 'my' logic and it is simple, but seeing that there were no matches for him to play, he had to wait until their season recommended.

I reckon Saints will play him, the RFL will do nothing and Barba will have a ban waiting for him in the NRL when/if he returns.  Maybe this will rear its head shortly.  But, imo, taking a player yet to serve a ban for drug abuse sends the wrong message to all society, let alone sport.

 

[Dave T]

None of that makes sense. Had he not been banned he could have signed for anyone and played.

There is a very simple test here - could he have played the season opener with Cronulla - answer is no, because he was banned. 

Could he have signed for Roosters and played in their first six games? Answer is no, because he was banned!

It is wrong to say he hasnt served a ban or hasnt been affected by it. 

Anyway, we have both said our piece, lets agree to disagree and see how it pans out rather than going round in circles.

[Lowdesert]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

None of that makes sense. Had he not been banned he could have signed for anyone and played.

There is a very simple test here - could he have played the season opener with Cronulla - answer is no, because he was banned. 

Could he have signed for Roosters and played in their first six games? Answer is no, because he was banned!

It is wrong to say he hasnt served a ban or hasnt been affected by it. 

Anyway, we have both said our piece, lets agree to disagree and see how it pans out rather than going round in circles.

No Dave, you just don't get the ruling and it's simple to understand.  

Flanagan and the NRL both say he hasn't served a ban and I would take their view over yours.  The former would have been picking him to play and the latter would be enforcing the ban.