Official Andrew Fifita

[Deleted member 3365]

Miss two weeks and do an anger management course. There done let's move on.

 

[Tank]

Use the 20k to buy the ref a f******* backbone and some ticker. FFS

 

[evertonshark]

This 8 weeks thing though. Either the suspension has been pre - determined before the facts have been heard which is just wrong and why and how do the smh know this OR the smh is just making stuff up.

Either way the whole saga is getting beyond ridiculous

 

[snowman]

if he misses 8 weeks it is ridiculous

we should agree to 3-4 weeks if anything

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

3-4 weeks should have been done last week. Klemmer and graham got the same.

If nobody was threatened then they shouldnt get any worse than they did

 

[D.D]

I love how they say officials from both sides back the ref, but are unsure wether Fifita said Smash it or you, but confirm Fifita was yelling and asking for the phone back.... Errr then this is what Fifita is saying and there not sure at all if the refs statment is true...

 

[snowman]

if the roosters name skd we should name fifita

 

[Tank]

if the roosters name skd we should name fifita

100%

 

[sharkyboy]

if the roosters name skd we should name fifita

Yep. **** em.

I'd love flanno to come and call the NRL out on it and I'd back him for it but it'd just make things worse unfortunately

 

[slide rule]

It's weird how it's up to the club to decide the punishment but the NRL will come over the top if deemed insufficient.

Is that the actual way that it works or is that just media talk?

Obviously a club is going to act in their best interests and just try to do something that doesn't look too inadequate but also doesn't effect them too badly. It's also highly influenced by the media attention that any particular incident gets rather than the seriousness. There's a bit of wiggle room there and it's all a bit wishy washy. It's not certainly not going to ensure consistency across the comp.

 

[slide rule]

Yep. **** em.

I'd love flanno to come and call the NRL out on it and I'd back him for it but it'd just make things worse unfortunately

The club should just name him and shut up. Send someone else out into the media to fight the battle and ask the questions.

 

[snowman]

seriously, 10 counts of domestic violence gets you named, but an alleged threat gets you wiped out

seriously

he actually laid hands on a WOMAN, but there is insufficient evidence against a threat to a man or his phone

the moral compass on the ****s at the nrl is that ****ed up im surprised they can walk to the car park properly

 

[Thresher]

In a situation where the club is directed by the NRL to decide on and execute an 'adequate' punishment leaves the club open to legal recourse.

It could also end up with a player feeling uncomfortable at the club.

The NRL can then wash their hands and walk away.

If we're going to be forced into making an unfair penalty the NRL should do it themselves.

 

[Proud Shark]

seriously, 10 counts of domestic violence gets you named, but an alleged threat gets you wiped out

seriously

he actually laid hands on a WOMAN, but there is insufficient evidence against a threat to a man or his phone

the moral compass on the ****s at the nrl is that ****ed up im surprised they can walk to the car park properly

IMO it doesn't add up, and I'm starting to get the impression that the legality of the skd situation has the nrls hands tied punishment wise, due to the fact that it is a police matter.

I read somewhere that the code just received a grant for 250k to help battle domestic violence, in light of that it makes no sense that if they had the ability to act or punish him that they haven't.

I don't know the ins and outs of the legal system but thats the only way I can make sense of the difference in treatment between both cases.
Like you said though, if they are just choosing not to punish him, their moral compass is well and truely ****ed and some heads at nrl hq will need to roll before they regain any respectability.

 

[IronShark]

seriously, 10 counts of domestic violence gets you named, but an alleged threat gets you wiped out

seriously

he actually laid hands on a WOMAN, but there is insufficient evidence against a threat to a man or his phone

the moral compass on the ****s at the nrl is that ****ed up im surprised they can walk to the car park properly

The NRL is being dictated to by the power brokers who then direct their media underlings to drive their agenda.

Does anyone seriously believe the SKD and Fifita dramas would be handled the same way if the situations were reversed? There is no doubt that the Fifita's acted inappropriately but there is massive conjecture about the seriousness of their actions. Yet they are stood down before any chance of recourse.

On the other hand, there are court proceedings supporting serious criminal charges of violence against SKD but he is not only free to play, he is openly welcomed back by the Roosters and the wider Rugby League media.

Anyone still want to tell me there is no agenda against our Club? Seriously?

 

[deano the p]

seriously, 10 counts of domestic violence gets you named, but an alleged threat gets you wiped out

seriously

he actually laid hands on a WOMAN, but there is insufficient evidence against a threat to a man or his phone

the moral compass on the ****s at the nrl is that ****ed up im surprised they can walk to the car park properly

It's worse than my directions on where to meet at Shark Park.

 

[slide rule]

IMO it doesn't add up, and I'm starting to get the impression that the legality of the skd situation has the nrls hands tied punishment wise, due to the fact that it is a police matter.

I read somewhere that the code just received a grant for 250k to help battle domestic violence, in light of that it makes no sense that if they had the ability to act or punish him that they haven't.

I don't know the ins and outs of the legal system but thats the only way I can make sense of the difference in treatment between both cases.
Like you said though, if they are just choosing not to punish him, their moral compass is well and truely ****ed and some heads at nrl hq will need to roll before they regain any respectability.

That certainly does have something to do with it and to an extent it's probably fair enough.

The main thing that originally got my back up were the calls for Fifita to be stood down for the Canterbury game, when there was obviously not enough time to even carry out preliminary inquiries as to validity of the claims.

Even though it's not a criminal matter there should still be a fair process undertaken by both the Penrith JRL and the NRL and/or Sharks. Calls for him to be stood down prior to that being done are still unfair, IMO.

 

[gallenisgod]

roosters have deep pockets to be able to buy the media off and make stories go away. thats the only difference with how the two situations have been handled.

 

[jim schwarz]

C'mon Sharks management ......grow a couple!
For years now through the ASADA BS et al, we've bowed to 'official' pressure
Name the Fafitas to PLAY this Week!!

 

[slide rule]

I wonder if they'll both be dealt the same penalty?

The allegations seem worse against Andrew than David.

Would be good to get David back at the very least.