Jump to content

Gelling back for Wire.

Dave T

Recommended Posts

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

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. 

I don't think the leagues reputation is in tatters if a player continues to play and is subsequently found guilty. How they deal with guilty players is a much more important factor in the perception of the wider public. 

I understand your points but the assumption of innocence is a foundational principle of civilisation and one that should not be compromised just to try and protect the reputation of a sporting body.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris


hunsletgreenandgold

hunsletgreenandgold

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I don't think the leagues reputation is in tatters if a player continues to play and is subsequently found guilty. How they deal with guilty players is a much more important factor in the perception of the wider public. 

I understand your points but the assumption of innocence is a foundational principle of civilisation and one that should not be compromised just to try and protect the reputation of a sporting body.

I just think it's important to remember this only relates to cases where if found guilty they're facing 11 or more years in prison - I think you can safely assume it ends any kind of NRL career if found guilty, so pretty irrelevant what they say or do after the matter. 

I don't disagree that it appears to punish someone purely based on allegations - but as these cases are thankfully rare but potentially damaging, I can understand why they've taken this stance. It will be interesting to see if any player who has been stood down and then found not guilty mounts a legal case against the NRL on some level of discrimination. 

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

It will be interesting to see if any player who has been stood down and then found not guilty mounts a legal case against the NRL on some level of discrimination.

In such a scenario, I would suggest it would be almost inevitable.

Although Jack de Belin has already challenged the rule and in May 2019 the courts found in favour of the NRL and ARL that the stand down ruling was lawful.

If he (or someone else) is subsequently found innocent then I would imagine it would blow up again though.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Hullfan

Hullfan

Posted
Posted

As a few have said, he's innocent till proven otherwise. Let him get on with his career. Who's to say the allegations haven't been made up yet by the person in question, wouldn't be the first time. Hope he gives hull a good slapping aswel on Thurs 

Father Ted

Father Ted

Posted
Posted

Gelling was arrested and is the suspect of a possible crime. Warrington suspended him. Now Warrington has lifted the suspension and he's available for selection suggesting their investigation is complete and are awaiting the result of the Police findings. Perhaps it is now uncertain that the CPS will proceed with the case.

He's innocent until proved otherwise so unless he's charged it's perhaps best to give the club and the player the benefit of doubt. 

 

Chris22

Chris22

Posted
Posted

Given the cuts to the CPS, it is unlikely that Gelling would face trial until 2021 at the earliest. I am unsure on this one, the offence with which he has been charged is a very serious one. However, at present, he has not been convicted of anything.

If Gelling is found not guilty, he would lose over 12 months of his career, when in the eyes of the criminal law, he had not committed an offence. Equally, if he is guilty, then it is uncomfortable that a player who has committed such an offence played for so long in the competition. It's not an easy one to deal with.

We don't know Warrington's reasoning, but I hope it was based on principle rather than on-field needs.

Leeds Wire

Leeds Wire

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

Given the cuts to the CPS, it is unlikely that Gelling would face trial until 2021 at the earliest. I am unsure on this one, the offence with which he has been charged is a very serious one. However, at present, he has not been convicted of anything.

If Gelling is found not guilty, he would lose over 12 months of his career, when in the eyes of the criminal law, he had not committed an offence. Equally, if he is guilty, then it is uncomfortable that a player who has committed such an offence played for so long in the competition. It's not an easy one to deal with.

We don't know Warrington's reasoning, but I hope it was based on principle rather than on-field needs.

I don't wish to be rude to you Chris, but you (and others) admit in your posts that you don't know the story.

I wish people would stop speculating as it serves no purpose. It doesn't affect the situation in any way at all. 

This whole thread is basically this: If he's done something terrible then it's awful, but nobody actually knows, so wait until you do.

MrPosh

MrPosh

Posted
Posted
12 hours 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.

It's difficult to argue with that. But I'm also quite uneasy about judging each case on its merits - especially when the cases and judges are different. I'd worry that we'd get inconsistencies. 

This leads me to think perhaps the best course of action is for clubs not to be involved at all - just check they've not broken rules related to the game. But this is a case where I'd be uneasy about that. 

3 hours ago, Hullfan said:

As a few have said, he's innocent till proven otherwise. Let him get on with his career. Who's to say the allegations haven't been made up yet by the person in question, wouldn't be the first time. Hope he gives hull a good slapping aswel on Thurs 

Crass. 

People called Romans they go the house

CiderWire

CiderWire

Posted
Posted

I am sure the club did not take this decision lightly  and am sure that they have the depth of squad to cope with Gellings absence. The question is, 'have they acted with integrity?'. If so, there may well be underlying reasons for lifting his suspension that none of us will be privvy to. 

We must let the coach and board at Warrington do their jobs, let the police do theirs and, it seems, let Gelling do his. He's in for a hell of a rough ride mind!

  • 4 months later...
Dave T

Dave T

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I know this was discussed on the various threads at the time, but whilst I appreciate 'innocent until proven guilty', it doesn't make me comfortable that he has been playing for the club with this hanging over him.

Mr Frisky

Mr Frisky

Posted
Posted
On 09/03/2020 at 08:36, 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. 

Innocent until proven guilty??

Tonka

Tonka

Posted
Posted

Love the way the headline writer just throws in "allegedly" to try and cover their ###### but ends up writing a nonsensical headline:  "Anthony Gelling charged with allegedly inflicting grievous bodily harm"

Man of Kent

Man of Kent

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Tonka said:

Love the way the headline writer just throws in "allegedly" to try and cover their ###### but ends up writing a nonsensical headline:  "Anthony Gelling charged with allegedly inflicting grievous bodily harm"

No need for 'allegedly'. 'Charged' makes that implicit! 

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.