Official Andrew Fifita

Greg86

Great White
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
253
Location
Sunshine Coast
this will be his second game out, push for another 2 and a hefty fine
Yeah, even a massive fine of $100,000 with the small clause of $50,000 to be suspended.

Therefore it sounds quite a lot but it's only 50% if he is good going forward.

If he still ****s around we sack him and fine the rest of the $50,000.
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,674
Reaction score
2,295
But to have a standard you need rules in place if we give him eight games off and then next year another player does it and the club gives them six it becomes unfair.

The problem is there is no standards it all made up by pressure from the media.

There are rules in place. Most cases are different but so the punishments are too.

I'm sick of this "unfair" bull****. What gave you this expectation of fairness? Nothing works like that.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
64
Location
Brisbane
There are rules in place. Most cases are different but so the punishments are too.

Bull **** caps there is very little in place, they have things like bringing the game into disrepute etc all umbrella terms its a bloody lottery.

I'm sick of this "unfair" bull****. What gave you this expectation of fairness? Nothing works like that.

Why should anyone even the players not expect fairness across the league and penalty's to be the same and the NRL to enforce them, saying nothing works like that is a poor excuse.

As for SKD I couldn't care less we don't have to play him yet
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,674
Reaction score
2,295
Bull **** caps there is very little in place, they have things like bringing the game into disrepute etc all umbrella terms its a bloody lottery.



Why should anyone even the players not expect fairness across the league and penalty's to be the same and the NRL to enforce them, saying nothing works like that is a poor excuse.

As for SKD I couldn't care less we don't have to play him yet

So we need a specific line in the rule book for every dumb**** thing a footballer could do?

"Rule #400635: Don't threaten to smash a referee.
Rule #400636: Don't threaten to snap a referee's phone.
Rule # 400637: Don't piss in your own mouth and photograph it."

Penalties can't all be the same. Where is the precedent for what Andrew & David did to go off where the circumstances are identical?

These Clubs are operating multi-million dollar businesses under a billion dollar governing body. They should be able to operate without a handbook detailing everything their employees can and cannot do and what the appropriate punishment is for all those.
 

Thresher

Jaws
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
24,559
Reaction score
3,253
Location
Melbourne
footy show will probably get the scoop

Smith goes onto the show live to explain why he has deemed it appropriate to bring back the lash for David and capital punishment for Andrew.
 

slide rule

Jaws
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
460
Location
General Admission
So we need a specific line in the rule book for every dumb**** thing a footballer could do?

"Rule #400635: Don't threaten to smash a referee.
Rule #400636: Don't threaten to snap a referee's phone.
Rule # 400637: Don't piss in your own mouth and photograph it."

Penalties can't all be the same. Where is the precedent for what Andrew & David did to go off where the circumstances are identical?

These Clubs are operating multi-million dollar businesses under a billion dollar governing body. They should be able to operate without a handbook detailing everything their employees can and cannot do and what the appropriate punishment is for all those.

That's cool. But when the clubs don't hand out tough penalties the NRL shouldn't be up in arms about it either.

If we make a business decision to have Fifita back for the finals because we think we have a better chance of winning with him there, so be it.
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,674
Reaction score
2,295
That's cool. But when the clubs don't hand out tough penalties the NRL shouldn't be up in arms about it either.

If we make a business decision to have Fifita back for the finals because we think we have a better chance of winning with him there, so be it.

I had to double check that came from you and Jimbob wasn't using your avatar.

Of course they can up in arms about it. If its a bull**** penalty (in any case, not just this one) then they should override the Club.

This gives Clubs the control of themselves they want, with a safety net in place should a club dish out a rubbish, overly self-serving penalty.
 

slide rule

Jaws
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
460
Location
General Admission
So we're just meant to guess at what might be considered sufficient?

If I were running the club I wouldn't have given them any time on the sideline. I would have fined them but people in the media have been calling for 12 months. Where in the middle of that is considered sufficient by the NRL? There's a big difference between punishment A and punishment B.
 

SharkShocked

Bull Shark
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
2,304
Reaction score
41
As if the Sharks haven't been in talks with the NRL the entire time and what they feel is fair and appropriate.

PLEASE.
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,674
Reaction score
2,295
So we're just meant to guess at what might be considered sufficient?

If I were running the club I wouldn't have given them any time on the sideline. I would have fined them but people in the media have been calling for 12 months. Where in the middle of that is considered sufficient by the NRL? There's a big difference between punishment A and punishment B.

I don't think it's a situation where the NRL have conducted their own investigations and come up with a magic number that the Club has to guess.

My understanding is we handle it then send a breif off to the NRL who look it over and if they believe that based on that we've arrived at a satisfactory conclusion its all good. If not I guess they conduct their own investigation (similar to when Souths forgot to mention Burgess paid off the bouncer in the US) and dish out their own punishment based off of their findings.

Its not all cloak and daggers, secret guessing games and **** from the NRL.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
5,963
Reaction score
64
Location
Brisbane
So we need a specific line in the rule book for every dumb**** thing a footballer could do?

"Rule #400635: Don't threaten to smash a referee.
Rule #400636: Don't threaten to snap a referee's phone.
Rule # 400637: Don't piss in your own mouth and photograph it."

Penalties can't all be the same. Where is the precedent for what Andrew & David did to go off where the circumstances are identical?

These Clubs are operating multi-million dollar businesses under a billion dollar governing body. They should be able to operate without a handbook detailing everything their employees can and cannot do and what the appropriate punishment is for all those.

Well now your being silly caps lol and its not even drinking time no reason to do that all you need is a rule on intimidating and threatening a
official and a minimum sentence etc then one for direct violence and so on down the line.

Its not that hard.

Your right the amount of money that is involved in the game there is no reason players shouldn't have a handbook and a structure to work from.
 

slide rule

Jaws
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
20,479
Reaction score
460
Location
General Admission
As if the Sharks haven't been in talks with the NRL the entire time and what they feel is fair and appropriate.

PLEASE.

In which case, it's really an NRL punishment being administered by the club, thus the NRL can wash their hands of any inconsistencies in penalties which may arise between different clubs.
 

Capital_Shark

Kitty Master
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
17,674
Reaction score
2,295
Well now your being silly caps lol and its not even drinking time no reason to do that all you need is a rule on intimidating and threatening a
official and a minimum sentence etc then one for direct violence and so on down the line.

Its not that hard.

Your right the amount of money that is involved in the game there is no reason players shouldn't have a handbook and a structure to work from.

Well there will be a precedent set soon I guess. But you can't preempt all the silly things a footballer may or may not do, and all the circumstances that may or may not go into that situation. Better off dealing with each situation as it arises on a case by case basis.

The players have been given no end of education and training on a range of issues from domestic violence, respect towards women and officials, how to conduct themselves on social media and a host of other commonsense life issues for a number of years dating back to well before the $1B deal. **** still happens. You can't script life no matter how many rules you put in place.
 
Top