I was so depressed last week, and so unsure of “the truth” that I was not of a mind to think much about the “alleged” Greg Bird incident. But with the Sharks doing well and my spirits lifting, I have thought more about the incident, though I fear I am no closer to uncovering the truth (nor is anyone else, from the looks of it).
But thinking about it, the main conclusion I can draw is that the whole incident stinks. It reeks from all angles. The putrid wake of this incident is leaving a smelly trail of waste throughout the Sharks, the Shire, and the whole NRL.
There are plenty of things to not like about this, but in order to make any sense of this incident I had to break down exactly what is bothering my olfactory nerves, and see what possible consequences I can foresee from each separate, sordid, smelly part.
I don’t like that the Sharks are without Bird for the finals.
I make no apologies for this being the part of the whole affair that I dislike the most. In our best season in years, with a team building momentum on field going into the finals, we suddenly find one of our super stars is out, for the whole finals series.
Sure we are a good team anyway without Bird, and we can win games without him, and can even win the whole competition without him. Sure we looked “galvanised” by adversity on Friday. But there is no person who watches Rugby League seriously who could deny Bird adds a significant amount to any team, in attack and defense.
The most annoying thing would be to lose the grand final by 1 or 2 points, thinking Bird could have made that difference.
I don’t like that the Sharks could be without Bird for the future.
It is one thing to say that we could still win from here in 2008, because we are going into the finals from at least third place. But it is hard to win week to week in the NRL, and it requires a strong squad (which we will have) built around some genuine gamebreakers (which we may have one less of).
The Sharks and Ricky Stuart did their recruiting, contracting and preparing for 2009 and beyond assuming Bird would be an integral part of the team, and now he may not be. Any team has to adapt to their circumstances, but realistically, losing a star player suddenly for a long period of time can really hurt a team (look at the Bulldogs and SBW, Prince and the Titans this year and last, or the Broncos and Lockyer from last year to the start of 2008).
I also dislike that these two concerns (the Sharks run into the 2008 finals, and their future without Bird) actually motivate other people (non Sharks fans) to want Bird sacked. If they hate the Sharks so much, and think Bird has caused all of this, they should celebrate him as the harbinger of Sharky doom.
Who can Sharks fans blame for either of these things I don’t like (assuming they don’t like them as well)? It’s too hard to say at this point. The “blame” will be spread between Bird, Zappia, the NRL, the media, public outrage and Sharks sponsors with no clear culprits. It seems a bit counterproductive to blame anyone at this point. It’s not as if we have lost this year yet, let alone 2009…
I don’t like that an incident happened.
This seems obvious, but what I mean is that something damaging to Milligan has obviously occurred, as opposed to a “set up” that seems to get NRL players in trouble but has no real substance. Because Milligan has clearly been injured in some way, most people are saying that the “most important thing” is her welfare. This I do like. It is nice, and a comforting reminder of our humanity. It is also complete bull s%$#.
If this had not been about an NRL star, no one would have heard of Milligan, or cared, other than her immediate family. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many other people are badly hurt or killed every day that don’t attract any sympathy. We say that her welfare is the most important thing because it would be nice if it was. But most of us are realistic enough to know that other factors are making this incident important.
Some people are so good at fooling themselves though, that they are outraged that Milligan has been hurt. So outraged at the injustice of a young lady being hurt (though it happens every second of every day) that they want justice now! These people need to take a deep breath, steady themselves, ask what they are really annoyed at, and consider logical solutions to address their grievances. So clearly an incident did happen.
If the incident involved violence, as many incidents do, then we already have the systems for investigating and dealing with such injustices, and the NRL, the Sharks, the media and the public are not involved in such systems.
I don’t like that Bird has a “history”.
Frankly, I believe an unhappy mixture of history, bad publicity and a series of unfortunate events can lead to the sorts of things I don’t like about this incident. That is reason enough to not like Bird’s history.
For many years I liked that the Sharks were considered squeaky clean. Then Nik Kosef won a premiership. And Terry lamb. Robbie O. Andrew Johns. Virtually the whole stinkin’ dogs of 02 (except Price, their “good guy”, though he got a ring…). The Roosters won with the aid of Gould carping on enough to have the rules changed, then set about exploiting the rule change with a ruthless new coach.
When the Sharks got that coach and I realised we could actually win, I also realised that NRL teams are not rewarded for being squeaky clean. I still like the tough, honest players. But having players with history, who are hated wherever they go, for on field or off field incidents, is not in itself a bad thing. I would prefer Gallen didn’t get suspended for stupid contrary conduct, but I’ve learnt I can love him for his toughness despite being a “grub”, and the more the papers, referees and rival fans pick on him, the more I love him.
Similarly, I’d prefer Bird had no shady past. Although Shane Marteene was a d%^$ and a crap player, he didn’t deserve to get kneed in the head. And Bird did deserve his hefty suspension. But he will pay for on field incidents just like every other player does, and he is not yet in the Jason Stevens league when it comes to suspensions, and everyone seems to love Stevo (especially Jason Stevens).
And what about Bird’s off field history? It would be “nice” if it wasn’t there, because that is feeding into the public outrage that is driving the lynching of Bird agenda.
It would be “nice” if everyone was always polite, consumed alcohol in moderate levels, and behaved “responsibly”. But in the real world, not everyone is nice. We even have different standards of what nice is. For some reason, Fevola dressing up in a nightie with a sex toy hanging out of his pants has been seen as poor taste. But in some areas, that may be the epitome of taste and humour.
So if Bird’s history does include some “allegedly” unsavoury events, that is really just tough for everyone that doesn’t like him. Not liking someone is a poor reason to deprive them of their livelihood. If his history has on field indiscretions, they are taken care of by the referees and the NRL judiciary.
If his off field history includes “alleged” (I love that word, don’t you? How many syllables do you say it with?) illegalities, they are treated by the same systems that deal with all illegalities. Again, these do not need input from media, the public or employers (unless as witnesses).
The only other issue then with Bird’s history is if it is contributing to any “disrepute”. I will deal with disrepute’s reputation later (yes, there’s more…).
I don’t like that Bird is involved with this incident.
Again, this sounds obvious, but what I dislike is that Bird has driven Milligan to hospital after she was injured at his place, and then has been arrested. This is about all I can gather from the articles about the incident without crashing into ambiguities and inconsistencies. But it is enough to have me worried.
Like most people, I am happy to say that if Bird is guilty of a serious crime, he should do the serious time. This seems straightforward. And if he is completely innocent of any significant wrongdoing, he should also be free from significant penalty. This just naturally to me seems the other side of the coin (“disrepute” notwithstanding).
But the “facts” as they stand, unsupported by supposition and innuendo, do not seem to me to point very firmly in either direction. And hence Bird’s culpability, and career, hang very much in limbo. This I do not like.
I want to know Bird is innocent, have him back, and get on with my Sharks supporting life. Failing that, I want to know he is guilty, deserves his lynching, and has been caught by an efficient and impartial justice system.
Sadly, if the truth “is out there”, it seems a little too elusive for even Fox Moulder, let alone Fox news, to uncover at the moment.
This leaves us with only the bare and inconclusive facts, and a lot of conspiracy theories.
(Just for the record, what do I think of these theories? I dislike ‘em…)
Theory 1- Bird “glassed” Milligan
A charge of grievous bodily harm means the police suspect Bird of some serious violence, though not necessarily glassing. Discussion of this theory is best played out in the courts. If guilty of this one, his future is beyond the NRL’s hands.
Theory 2- Bird assaulted Milligan.
This is again a matter for the courts, but that hasn’t prevented a lot of commentary about not blaming Milligan for staying with her abusive partner. Apparently this is common. I would imagine its more common to say that when it is known that one of the partners is abusive. We all tend to stay with our partners when their not abusive, assuming we still love them (as Milligan says of Bird).
Theory 3 – Bird tried to blame a “mate”.
If it adds to the evidence that he is guilty, and the police have this attempt to shift blame on record, it will be used in court. The actual “evidence”, as quoted by the papers, a text message saying “my manager is sorting this $%^& out” is a bit ambiguous, to say the least.
The supposed testimony to police from Milligan and Bird that Watson was involved should again come out in court. If this turns out to be the case, assuming Watson didn’t want to be blamed (I have a mate who is a Roosters fan who I swear would have gone to gaol for Freddy if anything like this had happened to him), it does seem a low act.
But a “low” act, while not nice, is like a grubby spit, rub of the head wound, or grab of the wheels. Not what we like our football stars to be doing, but not something that should eliminate them from the game. We would not have much left of the NRL if we did. And if we counted betrayal of friends on the list of dismissible offences, a lot of people would be unemployed.
It sucks that people treat friends badly, cheat on their partners, and lie to family and friends. But it happens. It is also really hard to “prove”, and not something that is generally the business of anyone other than the (former/theoretical) friends involved.
Theory 4 – Bird lied to his “club”.
Actually, sometimes this is extended to Bird lied to every staff member of the Sharks, and every fan. Or he may as well have. Just for the record I don’t feel he lied to me.
The two or three words he has ever spoken to me were polite, and he was supporting his supporters. I’m not sure anyone would think he was being polite to everyone at the club at that time. He may have lied to Zappia. He may not have. Zappia may not even know if that is the case yet or not.
Another theory with inconclusive evidence, but the courts won’t be deciding on this one. This is really Zappia’s call, if he feels Bird has lied to him. Ricky Stuart already seems to be backing Bird, but has not really said what he feels should happen if Bird lied to him and/or Zappia. Nor should he say. It is the sort of in house conversation that should be kept in house. As in, it is not my role, or yours (unless you’re reading this Zappia, by the way, hi . Try not to sue me. All of this article is alleged), or any one else’s.
If I may indulge in a little wild speculation (or a little more, some may say), if Zappia feels Bird has lied, he will not be “embarrassed”, he will act in the best interests of the club. He will discipline his wayward star, as he must, but he won’t sack him if it means we lose money, and a rival NRL team gains Bird. Sponsors and the NRL may force his hand or give him some outs, but I’m sure (reasonably) he is thinking of the Sharks long term future.
Speculation from outraged fans (incensed one way or another) are hopefully not going to sway his mind, and probably just adds to his distress at whatever decision he has to make (if Bird has lied, which I’m not saying he has).
Theory 5- Bird is being unfairly targeted.
Possibly. Not all police are as upstanding as we would like them to be (neither are all NRL players, or forum writers), and they may be picking on him with very little reason. But this is really wild speculation, way beyond the scope of any evidence we have seen.
Anyway, that is why we have separate police and judiciary processes in the justice system (yeah, I’ve seen “Law & Order”. Of course, the Australian justice system is not very close to the U.S.A.’s). The media are almost certainly targeting Bird with everything they can, unfairly or not. That is their job, and it is ours to see past their crap.
Rival fans will target Bird. That is also their job. If you think that is unfair, I hope you’ve never booed an opposition player or referee. None of these influences will have any effect on an impartial judicial system, and hopefully not on a partial (to the Sharks) Zappia.
The NRL is so used to dealing with players when 15 times as many rival fans want to see them hung as home fans want to see them saved, that they won’t rush to upset the Sharks. They will try to support Zappia in his decisions. Of course, everyone will go along with a court guilty verdict.
Anyone who wants a guilty verdict when Bird is found innocent in court wants to examine why they are targeting him.
And the last thing I don’t like is bringing the game into disrepute.
Don’t get me wrong here. I don’t feel the game is devastated by bad reputations of players. To a certain degree, I feel that any news is good news for the NRL itself. Most big organisations suffer a fair mix of good and bad publicity, and small organisations would kill for a % of it.
Some will argue that it affects junior development, and mothers don’t want their sons growing up to be thugs like Bird, and kids lose their heroes etc etc. Some of this is probably true, but I’d like to see market research on any of this before coming to any firm conclusions. I’d guess that cultural traditions, demographics, advertising, TV exposure and junior development programs all have as big an influence as bad press.
What I don’t like about disrepute is the notion of disrepute. I’m not sure why the NRL feels the need to control club discipline to the point that they can deregister a player. I understand that other occupations have their version of “disrepute”, but it more correctly a breach of codes of behaviour.
Suspected breaches of codes of behaviour do result in many allegedly normal people being “Stood down” before their behaviour is fully investigated. Sometimes, sadly, this is to protect the employer’s reputation (read- the government’s in many cases), but it is also often to limit risk to other stakeholders.
We probably don’t want police under investigation for corruption, or teacher’s being investigated for inappropriate behaviour with students, to still be working while they are being investigated. Even if the vast majority are usually found innocent, protection of vulnerable stakeholders balanced against fairness to employees requires us to pay those under investigation but keep them away from potential victims. But who are the victims that the NRL is protecting?
“Disrepute” is a ruse. It is a get out clause for clubs to sack a player for entirely internal discipline reasons, and not have that decision hurt them by the player just going somewhere else. Or at least that’s what I thought it was. The only two cases I can think of, involving Latu and Carney, seemed to be like that.
If every club had asked the NRL to invoke disrepute, there would be a lot of players out of the game. Buster would be gone, for one.
What has me worried is that the NRL have looked into having Bird deregistered in Super League as well, if found guilty. If he is guilty of something serious, surely he will do gaol time and struggle to get a passport.
Are we banning all ex-cons from playing top grade NRL and Super League, or is this a bit of hysteria? If he is guilty of something “less serious”, why is he the one to suffer more than others? It reeks, as does all of this, of something fishy. Added to that is the Shark’s standing down of Bird until his day in court (after the Grand Final). All the media commentators agree this is reasonable, since the allegations are so serious.
Gallen wanted to know why Laffranchi could play and Bird couldn’t. Combined with the threat of international deregistration, it adds up to something not quite right, compared to other cases of disrepute, but I can’t figure out what.
It seems like prejudging, which implies they know something about Bird’s guilt that we don’t. But would that really require the NRL and the Sharks to take the actions they have? Particularly the Sharks, if they win a premiership with a player later found guilty of an off field incident, will it hurt them so much? I’m not sure how I’d feel as a Sharks fan about that. But I will be ropable if we lose a grand final by a whisker and he is found innocent. If this is why they have made this decision, they are estimating that it is more likely that a guilty Bird will give us a premiership, than that a missing, innocent Bird will cost us the grand final. That shows a fair bit of confidence in the team I suppose.
Since the club has not been really clear to fans about why Bird is not playing, I can only speculate, but in cases where we are not told everything, I would guess internal politics are at play.
Sponsors, board members, a new boss and a coach growing in stature will all wield different influence, and I can’t possibly know why any or all of these wouldn’t want Bird playing. All I can do is hope they are doing the right thing, and can be open and accountable when the time is right. Oh, and I can stay alert and check that they are open and accountable.
Finally, lest I sound like a whingeing old fart (too late), I should point out what I do like. There is nothing about this incident that I like except maybe Gallen still backing his mate. What I do like, though, is the phenomenal effort every player (Bird included) and club official has put in to get the Sharks to where they are right now.
And I do like the thought of the coming finals series.
And our 2008 premiership.
But thinking about it, the main conclusion I can draw is that the whole incident stinks. It reeks from all angles. The putrid wake of this incident is leaving a smelly trail of waste throughout the Sharks, the Shire, and the whole NRL.
There are plenty of things to not like about this, but in order to make any sense of this incident I had to break down exactly what is bothering my olfactory nerves, and see what possible consequences I can foresee from each separate, sordid, smelly part.
I don’t like that the Sharks are without Bird for the finals.
I make no apologies for this being the part of the whole affair that I dislike the most. In our best season in years, with a team building momentum on field going into the finals, we suddenly find one of our super stars is out, for the whole finals series.
Sure we are a good team anyway without Bird, and we can win games without him, and can even win the whole competition without him. Sure we looked “galvanised” by adversity on Friday. But there is no person who watches Rugby League seriously who could deny Bird adds a significant amount to any team, in attack and defense.
The most annoying thing would be to lose the grand final by 1 or 2 points, thinking Bird could have made that difference.
I don’t like that the Sharks could be without Bird for the future.
It is one thing to say that we could still win from here in 2008, because we are going into the finals from at least third place. But it is hard to win week to week in the NRL, and it requires a strong squad (which we will have) built around some genuine gamebreakers (which we may have one less of).
The Sharks and Ricky Stuart did their recruiting, contracting and preparing for 2009 and beyond assuming Bird would be an integral part of the team, and now he may not be. Any team has to adapt to their circumstances, but realistically, losing a star player suddenly for a long period of time can really hurt a team (look at the Bulldogs and SBW, Prince and the Titans this year and last, or the Broncos and Lockyer from last year to the start of 2008).
I also dislike that these two concerns (the Sharks run into the 2008 finals, and their future without Bird) actually motivate other people (non Sharks fans) to want Bird sacked. If they hate the Sharks so much, and think Bird has caused all of this, they should celebrate him as the harbinger of Sharky doom.
Who can Sharks fans blame for either of these things I don’t like (assuming they don’t like them as well)? It’s too hard to say at this point. The “blame” will be spread between Bird, Zappia, the NRL, the media, public outrage and Sharks sponsors with no clear culprits. It seems a bit counterproductive to blame anyone at this point. It’s not as if we have lost this year yet, let alone 2009…
I don’t like that an incident happened.
This seems obvious, but what I mean is that something damaging to Milligan has obviously occurred, as opposed to a “set up” that seems to get NRL players in trouble but has no real substance. Because Milligan has clearly been injured in some way, most people are saying that the “most important thing” is her welfare. This I do like. It is nice, and a comforting reminder of our humanity. It is also complete bull s%$#.
If this had not been about an NRL star, no one would have heard of Milligan, or cared, other than her immediate family. If you doubt this, ask yourself how many other people are badly hurt or killed every day that don’t attract any sympathy. We say that her welfare is the most important thing because it would be nice if it was. But most of us are realistic enough to know that other factors are making this incident important.
Some people are so good at fooling themselves though, that they are outraged that Milligan has been hurt. So outraged at the injustice of a young lady being hurt (though it happens every second of every day) that they want justice now! These people need to take a deep breath, steady themselves, ask what they are really annoyed at, and consider logical solutions to address their grievances. So clearly an incident did happen.
If the incident involved violence, as many incidents do, then we already have the systems for investigating and dealing with such injustices, and the NRL, the Sharks, the media and the public are not involved in such systems.
I don’t like that Bird has a “history”.
Frankly, I believe an unhappy mixture of history, bad publicity and a series of unfortunate events can lead to the sorts of things I don’t like about this incident. That is reason enough to not like Bird’s history.
For many years I liked that the Sharks were considered squeaky clean. Then Nik Kosef won a premiership. And Terry lamb. Robbie O. Andrew Johns. Virtually the whole stinkin’ dogs of 02 (except Price, their “good guy”, though he got a ring…). The Roosters won with the aid of Gould carping on enough to have the rules changed, then set about exploiting the rule change with a ruthless new coach.
When the Sharks got that coach and I realised we could actually win, I also realised that NRL teams are not rewarded for being squeaky clean. I still like the tough, honest players. But having players with history, who are hated wherever they go, for on field or off field incidents, is not in itself a bad thing. I would prefer Gallen didn’t get suspended for stupid contrary conduct, but I’ve learnt I can love him for his toughness despite being a “grub”, and the more the papers, referees and rival fans pick on him, the more I love him.
Similarly, I’d prefer Bird had no shady past. Although Shane Marteene was a d%^$ and a crap player, he didn’t deserve to get kneed in the head. And Bird did deserve his hefty suspension. But he will pay for on field incidents just like every other player does, and he is not yet in the Jason Stevens league when it comes to suspensions, and everyone seems to love Stevo (especially Jason Stevens).
And what about Bird’s off field history? It would be “nice” if it wasn’t there, because that is feeding into the public outrage that is driving the lynching of Bird agenda.
It would be “nice” if everyone was always polite, consumed alcohol in moderate levels, and behaved “responsibly”. But in the real world, not everyone is nice. We even have different standards of what nice is. For some reason, Fevola dressing up in a nightie with a sex toy hanging out of his pants has been seen as poor taste. But in some areas, that may be the epitome of taste and humour.
So if Bird’s history does include some “allegedly” unsavoury events, that is really just tough for everyone that doesn’t like him. Not liking someone is a poor reason to deprive them of their livelihood. If his history has on field indiscretions, they are taken care of by the referees and the NRL judiciary.
If his off field history includes “alleged” (I love that word, don’t you? How many syllables do you say it with?) illegalities, they are treated by the same systems that deal with all illegalities. Again, these do not need input from media, the public or employers (unless as witnesses).
The only other issue then with Bird’s history is if it is contributing to any “disrepute”. I will deal with disrepute’s reputation later (yes, there’s more…).
I don’t like that Bird is involved with this incident.
Again, this sounds obvious, but what I dislike is that Bird has driven Milligan to hospital after she was injured at his place, and then has been arrested. This is about all I can gather from the articles about the incident without crashing into ambiguities and inconsistencies. But it is enough to have me worried.
Like most people, I am happy to say that if Bird is guilty of a serious crime, he should do the serious time. This seems straightforward. And if he is completely innocent of any significant wrongdoing, he should also be free from significant penalty. This just naturally to me seems the other side of the coin (“disrepute” notwithstanding).
But the “facts” as they stand, unsupported by supposition and innuendo, do not seem to me to point very firmly in either direction. And hence Bird’s culpability, and career, hang very much in limbo. This I do not like.
I want to know Bird is innocent, have him back, and get on with my Sharks supporting life. Failing that, I want to know he is guilty, deserves his lynching, and has been caught by an efficient and impartial justice system.
Sadly, if the truth “is out there”, it seems a little too elusive for even Fox Moulder, let alone Fox news, to uncover at the moment.
This leaves us with only the bare and inconclusive facts, and a lot of conspiracy theories.
(Just for the record, what do I think of these theories? I dislike ‘em…)
Theory 1- Bird “glassed” Milligan
A charge of grievous bodily harm means the police suspect Bird of some serious violence, though not necessarily glassing. Discussion of this theory is best played out in the courts. If guilty of this one, his future is beyond the NRL’s hands.
Theory 2- Bird assaulted Milligan.
This is again a matter for the courts, but that hasn’t prevented a lot of commentary about not blaming Milligan for staying with her abusive partner. Apparently this is common. I would imagine its more common to say that when it is known that one of the partners is abusive. We all tend to stay with our partners when their not abusive, assuming we still love them (as Milligan says of Bird).
Theory 3 – Bird tried to blame a “mate”.
If it adds to the evidence that he is guilty, and the police have this attempt to shift blame on record, it will be used in court. The actual “evidence”, as quoted by the papers, a text message saying “my manager is sorting this $%^& out” is a bit ambiguous, to say the least.
The supposed testimony to police from Milligan and Bird that Watson was involved should again come out in court. If this turns out to be the case, assuming Watson didn’t want to be blamed (I have a mate who is a Roosters fan who I swear would have gone to gaol for Freddy if anything like this had happened to him), it does seem a low act.
But a “low” act, while not nice, is like a grubby spit, rub of the head wound, or grab of the wheels. Not what we like our football stars to be doing, but not something that should eliminate them from the game. We would not have much left of the NRL if we did. And if we counted betrayal of friends on the list of dismissible offences, a lot of people would be unemployed.
It sucks that people treat friends badly, cheat on their partners, and lie to family and friends. But it happens. It is also really hard to “prove”, and not something that is generally the business of anyone other than the (former/theoretical) friends involved.
Theory 4 – Bird lied to his “club”.
Actually, sometimes this is extended to Bird lied to every staff member of the Sharks, and every fan. Or he may as well have. Just for the record I don’t feel he lied to me.
The two or three words he has ever spoken to me were polite, and he was supporting his supporters. I’m not sure anyone would think he was being polite to everyone at the club at that time. He may have lied to Zappia. He may not have. Zappia may not even know if that is the case yet or not.
Another theory with inconclusive evidence, but the courts won’t be deciding on this one. This is really Zappia’s call, if he feels Bird has lied to him. Ricky Stuart already seems to be backing Bird, but has not really said what he feels should happen if Bird lied to him and/or Zappia. Nor should he say. It is the sort of in house conversation that should be kept in house. As in, it is not my role, or yours (unless you’re reading this Zappia, by the way, hi . Try not to sue me. All of this article is alleged), or any one else’s.
If I may indulge in a little wild speculation (or a little more, some may say), if Zappia feels Bird has lied, he will not be “embarrassed”, he will act in the best interests of the club. He will discipline his wayward star, as he must, but he won’t sack him if it means we lose money, and a rival NRL team gains Bird. Sponsors and the NRL may force his hand or give him some outs, but I’m sure (reasonably) he is thinking of the Sharks long term future.
Speculation from outraged fans (incensed one way or another) are hopefully not going to sway his mind, and probably just adds to his distress at whatever decision he has to make (if Bird has lied, which I’m not saying he has).
Theory 5- Bird is being unfairly targeted.
Possibly. Not all police are as upstanding as we would like them to be (neither are all NRL players, or forum writers), and they may be picking on him with very little reason. But this is really wild speculation, way beyond the scope of any evidence we have seen.
Anyway, that is why we have separate police and judiciary processes in the justice system (yeah, I’ve seen “Law & Order”. Of course, the Australian justice system is not very close to the U.S.A.’s). The media are almost certainly targeting Bird with everything they can, unfairly or not. That is their job, and it is ours to see past their crap.
Rival fans will target Bird. That is also their job. If you think that is unfair, I hope you’ve never booed an opposition player or referee. None of these influences will have any effect on an impartial judicial system, and hopefully not on a partial (to the Sharks) Zappia.
The NRL is so used to dealing with players when 15 times as many rival fans want to see them hung as home fans want to see them saved, that they won’t rush to upset the Sharks. They will try to support Zappia in his decisions. Of course, everyone will go along with a court guilty verdict.
Anyone who wants a guilty verdict when Bird is found innocent in court wants to examine why they are targeting him.
And the last thing I don’t like is bringing the game into disrepute.
Don’t get me wrong here. I don’t feel the game is devastated by bad reputations of players. To a certain degree, I feel that any news is good news for the NRL itself. Most big organisations suffer a fair mix of good and bad publicity, and small organisations would kill for a % of it.
Some will argue that it affects junior development, and mothers don’t want their sons growing up to be thugs like Bird, and kids lose their heroes etc etc. Some of this is probably true, but I’d like to see market research on any of this before coming to any firm conclusions. I’d guess that cultural traditions, demographics, advertising, TV exposure and junior development programs all have as big an influence as bad press.
What I don’t like about disrepute is the notion of disrepute. I’m not sure why the NRL feels the need to control club discipline to the point that they can deregister a player. I understand that other occupations have their version of “disrepute”, but it more correctly a breach of codes of behaviour.
Suspected breaches of codes of behaviour do result in many allegedly normal people being “Stood down” before their behaviour is fully investigated. Sometimes, sadly, this is to protect the employer’s reputation (read- the government’s in many cases), but it is also often to limit risk to other stakeholders.
We probably don’t want police under investigation for corruption, or teacher’s being investigated for inappropriate behaviour with students, to still be working while they are being investigated. Even if the vast majority are usually found innocent, protection of vulnerable stakeholders balanced against fairness to employees requires us to pay those under investigation but keep them away from potential victims. But who are the victims that the NRL is protecting?
“Disrepute” is a ruse. It is a get out clause for clubs to sack a player for entirely internal discipline reasons, and not have that decision hurt them by the player just going somewhere else. Or at least that’s what I thought it was. The only two cases I can think of, involving Latu and Carney, seemed to be like that.
If every club had asked the NRL to invoke disrepute, there would be a lot of players out of the game. Buster would be gone, for one.
What has me worried is that the NRL have looked into having Bird deregistered in Super League as well, if found guilty. If he is guilty of something serious, surely he will do gaol time and struggle to get a passport.
Are we banning all ex-cons from playing top grade NRL and Super League, or is this a bit of hysteria? If he is guilty of something “less serious”, why is he the one to suffer more than others? It reeks, as does all of this, of something fishy. Added to that is the Shark’s standing down of Bird until his day in court (after the Grand Final). All the media commentators agree this is reasonable, since the allegations are so serious.
Gallen wanted to know why Laffranchi could play and Bird couldn’t. Combined with the threat of international deregistration, it adds up to something not quite right, compared to other cases of disrepute, but I can’t figure out what.
It seems like prejudging, which implies they know something about Bird’s guilt that we don’t. But would that really require the NRL and the Sharks to take the actions they have? Particularly the Sharks, if they win a premiership with a player later found guilty of an off field incident, will it hurt them so much? I’m not sure how I’d feel as a Sharks fan about that. But I will be ropable if we lose a grand final by a whisker and he is found innocent. If this is why they have made this decision, they are estimating that it is more likely that a guilty Bird will give us a premiership, than that a missing, innocent Bird will cost us the grand final. That shows a fair bit of confidence in the team I suppose.
Since the club has not been really clear to fans about why Bird is not playing, I can only speculate, but in cases where we are not told everything, I would guess internal politics are at play.
Sponsors, board members, a new boss and a coach growing in stature will all wield different influence, and I can’t possibly know why any or all of these wouldn’t want Bird playing. All I can do is hope they are doing the right thing, and can be open and accountable when the time is right. Oh, and I can stay alert and check that they are open and accountable.
Finally, lest I sound like a whingeing old fart (too late), I should point out what I do like. There is nothing about this incident that I like except maybe Gallen still backing his mate. What I do like, though, is the phenomenal effort every player (Bird included) and club official has put in to get the Sharks to where they are right now.
And I do like the thought of the coming finals series.
And our 2008 premiership.
Everythings too long to read