Gelling back for Wire.

[Dave T]

This makes me feel uneasy. 

Just saying this is now a police matter doesn't seem the right thing to me. If this is still playing out then I feel the suspension should still be in place. 

Disappointed in the club here based on what we know. 

[Harry Stottle]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This makes me feel uneasy. 

Just saying this is now a police matter doesn't seem the right thing to me. If this is still playing out then I feel the suspension should still be in place. 

Disappointed in the club here based on what we know. 

Don't disagree with you Dave I don't think he should be allowed back, what he has reputedly reported to have done should banish him from anywork environment, I certainly would not want to work with him.

But have Warrington put their needs before their sense, they to me are certainly missing his Maverick style, he and young Ashton give the team some bounce from the norm we have witnessed from Warrington in the recent couple of seasons, not surprisingly when they came on the scene this year they were both new to the club, now that they are missing it has reverted very noticeably reverted back to the old form.

[Hela Wigmen]

Can’t help but think that this is a onfield decision, given Ashton’s injury, rather than anything else. 

 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

This makes me feel uneasy. 

Just saying this is now a police matter doesn't seem the right thing to me. If this is still playing out then I feel the suspension should still be in place. 

Disappointed in the club here based on what we know. 

Be interesting to know if SL/clubs have any guidelines similar to the NRL 'stand down' policy whereby any offence that if found guilty exceeds a maximum of 11 years in prison then by default they can't play, regardless of any indication of guilt or innocence.

[Lowdesert]

38 minutes ago, Dave T said:

This makes me feel uneasy. 

Just saying this is now a police matter doesn't seem the right thing to me. If this is still playing out then I feel the suspension should still be in place. 

Disappointed in the club here based on what we know. 

Not sure about that.  Lets wait and see the results of the Police investigation.  I think the decision for Wire to play him might speed that process up.

[Dunbar]

As I have said before, a really tricky one this.

If he had committed the alleged misdemeanor in the work place then of course he would be suspended but is it right to suspend someone for an incident away from work when he has not been found guilty. 

I hate the NRL no fault stand down policy... it potentially punishes the innocent and I can see that being the case here if we suspend on suspicion. 

The ironic thing is that we pretty much let people back into the game after being proved guilty of these types on incidents so we could end up in a position where we punish the innocent and let the guilty play.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Not sure about that.  Lets wait and see the results of the Police investigation.  I think the decision for Wire to play him might speed that process up.

I hope this decision is based purely on legal steer, but I think this is another example that shows how difficult it is for the game to police these matters. 

I would hope that the club has conducted its own inquiry though, and if there is a case of violence he should be dismissed. I don't think there should be any hiding behind a police investigation, these things are bigger than Rugby.

[Lowdesert]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I hope this decision is based purely on legal steer, but I think this is another example that shows how difficult it is for the game to police these matters. 

I would hope that the club has conducted its own inquiry though, and if there is a case of violence he should be dismissed. I don't think there should be any hiding behind a police investigation, these things are bigger than Rugby.

Yes agree entirely.  He could also be completely innocent.

 

[fevtom]

I wonder if Warrington perhaps know something the rest of us don't. I find it hard to believe they would welcome him back if they thought everything we have read and heard is true.

Even if he does give them a lift on the pitch, I can't see this working out well for them in the longer term.

[RP London]

1 minute ago, fevtom said:

I wonder if Warrington perhaps know something the rest of us don't. I find it hard to believe they would welcome him back if they thought everything we have read and heard is true.

Even if he does give them a lift on the pitch, I can't see this working out well for them in the longer term.

i wondered that too. Police investigations could take longer than an internal club one for many reasons and maybe the club have been able to come to a conclusion faster due to that.. maybe.. 

Its just too difficult to say and to an extent you have to trust the club a little bit. But you also have to ask if one of our members of staff got into trouble for this would he get sacked... i would guess it would be tough to do that if it is not work related, the bit then comes into bringing the name into disrepute or not being able to do your job due to you being locked up etc. 

If he is guilty then i have no sympathy for him, if he is not we do have to be careful not to punish the innocent. 

[Dave T]

Just now, scotchy1 said:

The game cant police these matters. It doesnt have the ability, expertise or power to do so. So it shouldn't 

It could take literally years before it goes to court, he could lose a massive part of his career only to be found innocent 

It's for the courts to deal with, let them do so.

I am ok with the principle of allowing the justice system to carry out its work, that is what it is for, but I expect the club has had a conversation about this with him. If they know he has behaved inappropriately, he should be out, irrespective of whether police charges come or not. Obviously if somebody denies any wrongdoing then there is little that can be done. 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

If he admits it then obviously it's a different matter, they can make the decision a bit earlier

Yeah, I'm talking about instances where a club may have a different tolerance level to incidents that may or may not attract police charges. As I always say in these kind of things, clubs should be free to make their own decisions based on their own principles and they can live or die by them and their customer base, sponsors etc. can judge them.

[Mr Frisky]

Innocent until proven guilty - too many peoples lives are destroyed from false allegations these days.

Let him play Rugby and let the police or whoever investigate off field events. 

[Eddie]

Classic social media kangaroo court. He should play unless he is convicted of an offence. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Eddie said:

Classic social media kangaroo court. He should play unless he is convicted of an offence. 

Well no.

The club didn't suspend him because of social media. They suspended him because of an incident that involved the police and being arrested on suspicion of a very serious charge.

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Well no.

The club didn't suspend him because of social media. They suspended him because of an incident that involved the police and being arrested on suspicion of a very serious charge.

I mean some of the comments above saying he should be banned, not what the club has done. It’s their prerogative whether they play him at this stage or not. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

6 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I mean some of the comments above saying he should be banned, not what the club has done. It’s their prerogative whether they play him at this stage or not. 

Aside from Harry, nobody is saying he should be banned. My take on it is absolutely everybody should be assumed innocent until guilt is proven. However, the NRL stand down policy is there for the most serious crimes and is to protect the player involved as much as it is to protect the club's/competion's reputation. Standing a player down isn't a sign of perceived guilt despite how some wrongly interpret it. 

[Cheshire Setter]

The truth of the matter is, no one apart from Gelling and the other party know exactly what happened.

I expected the club to stand him down based the nature of the allegation, which is what they did.   I would find it hard to believe they would be confident enough to put him back in the squad if they didn’t have an idea about how the investigation was going to pan out, so maybe they expect it to turn out well for him.   Then again, we do look desperate at the moment in terms of results so who knows.

Of course if it turns out he is guilty of a major offence and we just took advantage of his availability I’d be very miffed, considering we sell ourselves on being the self-styled people’s club.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Cheshire Setter said:

The truth of the matter is, no one apart from Gelling and the other party know exactly what happened.

I expected the club to stand him down based the nature of the allegation, which is what they did.   I would find it hard to believe they would be confident enough to put him back in the squad if they didn’t have an idea about how the investigation was going to pan out, so maybe they expect it to turn out well for him.   Then again, we do look desperate at the moment in terms of results so who knows.

Of course if it turns out he is guilty of a major offence and we just took advantage of his availability I’d be very miffed, considering we sell ourselves on being the self-styled people’s club.

I think this matches my thoughts exactly. 

I think there is a perception that we have done this purely for rugby reasons, when that should not be near the top of the list here. 

Completely agree with your last line.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

However, the NRL stand down policy is there for the most serious crimes and is to protect the player involved as much as it is to protect the club's/competion's reputation

Could you expand on that, how does the NRL policy protect the player?

[hunsletgreenandgold]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Could you expand on that, how does the NRL policy protect the player?

Sure. I think it's kind of obvious a player who has a serious criminal investigation hanging over them won't be in the right mindset to play week in week out regardless of if the no fault stand down policy existed or not. What the NRL have said in these cases is (De Belin for example) - "This policy ensures he doesn't play but he can be around the team, be at training during the week and most importantly can take the services of that club via the welfare and services available to him. We think it's important for the club and player to have the opportunity to continue in the environment. We do have a responsibility of player welfare and we want to have a clear partnership with all clubs. They'll be able to train with the team." 

I'm sure many will look at those kind of comments as the NRL just saying what they think they need to but I actually think it is in the best interests that in these rare serious cases, players aren't allowed to play but equally aren't alienated/ostracised from their team mates when at this stage they are innocent. 

 

 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Sure. I think it's kind of obvious a player who has a serious criminal investigation hanging over them won't be in the right mindset to play week in week out regardless of if the no fault stand down policy existed or not. What the NRL have said in these cases is (De Belin for example) - "This policy ensures he doesn't play but he can be around the team, be at training during the week and most importantly can take the services of that club via the welfare and services available to him. We think it's important for the club and player to have the opportunity to continue in the environment. We do have a responsibility of player welfare and we want to have a clear partnership with all clubs. They'll be able to train with the team." 

I'm sure many will look at those kind of comments as the NRL just saying what they think they need to but I actually think it is in the best interests that in these rare serious cases, players aren't allowed to play but equally aren't alienated/ostracised from their team mates when at this stage they are innocent. 

 

 

Funnily enough I think this is almost the worst of all cases... you can be around the club and train but you can't play.

It must be soul destroying.

It really does sound like a cop out to say that we are doing what is best for your welfare.  Surely the best placed to decide if a player is in the right mindset is the club and player.

The career of a top level player is short and to take away a good proportion of that on the assumption of guilt is just plain wrong. 

If they are proven guilty then punish them. Until they are proven guilty, they are innocent.

[Lowdesert]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I am ok with the principle of allowing the justice system to carry out its work, that is what it is for, but I expect the club has had a conversation about this with him. If they know he has behaved inappropriately, he should be out, irrespective of whether police charges come or not. Obviously if somebody denies any wrongdoing then there is little that can be done. 

I agree with that somewhat but there are 2 sides.  If the Player (the club asset) is costing a good amount of money and is, say, ‘Marquee’ standard, then the Club might just risk the pain of the fans and media.  If he was a journeyman, grafter type bench forward they would be more likely to bin him.

Gelling falls between the two, i’m guessing, and won’t be on mega bucks, so I would think it’s more likely the club have questioned him thoroughly.  

Anyway, I hope it’s still playing on his mind and his colleagues for this weekend.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Funnily enough I think this is almost the worst of all cases... you can be around the club and train but you can't play.

It must be soul destroying.

It really does sound like a cop out to say that we are doing what is best for your welfare.  Surely the best placed to decide if a player is in the right mindset is the club and player.

The career of a top level player is short and to take away a good proportion of that on the assumption of guilt is just plain wrong. 

If they are proven guilty then punish them. Until they are proven guilty, they are innocent.

We all know that when serious cases go to trial it can be a long drawn out process before it actually has it's day in court. I understand from your perspective that not allowing a player to play in the meantime appears to assume guilt but just on that point, let's say a player is found guilty - not only is the league's reputation in tatters for letting a now convicted <insert heinous crime> play the game there's also the impact on the victim who had to see their attacker continue on, celebrating wins/tries etc whilst their life was in turmoil. Standing a player down does nothing to the accused except stopping them playing a game - they still get paid, they have a huge support network round them and ultimately if they're found not guilty they have been allowed to retain a relationship with their club to hopefully get back playing ASAP. Josh Reynolds wasn't stood down when he was accused but didn't play after the accusations came out and has been very open about the state of mind that put him in. I can only imagine what that must be like with a much more serious crime hanging over a player. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I agree with that somewhat but there are 2 sides.  If the Player (the club asset) is costing a good amount of money and is, say, ‘Marquee’ standard, then the Club might just risk the pain of the fans and media.  If he was a journeyman, grafter type bench forward they would be more likely to bin him.

Gelling falls between the two, i’m guessing, and won’t be on mega bucks, so I would think it’s more likely the club have questioned him thoroughly.  

Anyway, I hope it’s still playing on his mind and his colleagues for this weekend.

Yeah, this is where it comes back to my point about clubs being able to make their own choices and living or dying by them.

My personal view is that I don't want a player playing for my club who has been arrested on suspicion of something so serious, until that has been exhausted, but I also appreciate that that could be timely and difficult to put into practice. If he plays and is then charged, I will be very disappointed in Warrington, so I hope they have had decent legal steer on this.