Discretion vs Consistency? No-fault Stand Down Policy

[Graham]

“The NRL has opted not to enforce their controversial no-fault stand down policy in the case of Parramatta winger Maika Sivo.

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg is expected to allow the Fijian to take his place for the Eels in round one despite a looming court date.

Sivo’s case is due to be heard on the 12th of March in Fiji which is the same day as the Eels open their season against the Bulldogs.
 

The original plan from the NRL to wait for the court case to play out rather than enforce the no-fault policy hit a major snag when the case was adjourned from February 17 to March 12.

The NRL are allowed to use discretion in cases carrying a sentence less than 11 years under the no-fault policy and have done so here, just as they did in the case of West Tigers’ Josh Reynolds.”
https://www.zerotackle.com/nrl-hands-down-decision-on-maika-sivos-playing-future-52710/

Surely a rule is a rule? This 11 years business seems a bit arbitrary.

If you apply it sometimes and not others it does imply you are making a judgement on the player’s actions.

[DavidM]

50 minutes ago, Graham said:

“The NRL has opted not to enforce their controversial no-fault stand down policy in the case of Parramatta winger Maika Sivo.

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg is expected to allow the Fijian to take his place for the Eels in round one despite a looming court date.

Sivo’s case is due to be heard on the 12th of March in Fiji which is the same day as the Eels open their season against the Bulldogs.
 

The original plan from the NRL to wait for the court case to play out rather than enforce the no-fault policy hit a major snag when the case was adjourned from February 17 to March 12.

The NRL are allowed to use discretion in cases carrying a sentence less than 11 years under the no-fault policy and have done so here, just as they did in the case of West Tigers’ Josh Reynolds.”
https://www.zerotackle.com/nrl-hands-down-decision-on-maika-sivos-playing-future-52710/

Surely a rule is a rule? This 11 years business seems a bit arbitrary.

If you apply it sometimes and not others it does imply you are making a judgement on the player’s actions?

Arbitrary , bizarre , questionable legally , dependent on what side of bed Greenberg got out of it . The inconsistency and sweeping nature of this - ripping away a livelihood when they’re legally innocent and protesting that innocence just seems totally wrong and immoral to me . Who made this guy judge jury executioner way beyond his  brief , and how does he get to pass judgement when the facts haven’t been examined in due  legal process ?

[Graham]

We agree on this David. I know there are others that go along with this no-fault stand down, but by applying it there’s an unfortunate implication that is against the rule of justice and denies the player the right to play.

If or when someone is found guilty they will have been fairly treated and deserve their punishment.

This no-fault rule comes over as a punishment. Now, on top of that it is sometimes applied and sometimes not.

[Graham]

[Graham]

So here we go again...

Curtis Scott has been cleared to play in R1 for Raiders, this despite his tazering and  the charges against him.

According to what I read the NRL don’t judge the charges to be serious enough to warrant standing him down under their no-fault stand down policy.

 

[Graham]

So now we have an organisation that has to determine whether or not it’s employees are fit to serve, by categorising the length of the possible jail term as a factor. The issues problems with their policy are bigger then they realise. 

[Graham]

The offences Curtis Scott has been charged with carry 5 years imprisonment each if found guilty, just like the main offence for Dylan Walker did. 

How can the NRL justify one 5 year offence being stood down but not the other?

Defenders of this policy explain this.