Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Thelmus, post: 3091581, member: 8988"] But isn't that precisely the point. 1 is a criminal action, the other a failure to follow procedure in an investigation of a matter involving persons not directly involved in the Nrl itself. Bearing in mind that both the club and Nrl affirmed in media interviews that he did NOT engage in any physical violence. What this says is a sanction upheld in laws is less in terms of suspension than an action that is purely procedural to the Nrl itself. So long as fiffita cooperates. One is based purely on his employer's contractual obligations placed upon him and in no way subject to further sanction, the other a criminal act committed in a foreign country, that brings not only his contractual obligation into play, but also diminishes through it, the club's brand, the Nrl brand, and our national reputation. You would argue the two are not related because one focuses on cooperation with a league entity, the other not, yet both are by their nature violations of just that. No player is sanctioned to commit assault (no matter how minor). Being inebriated doesn't excuse it, nor are there any mitigating factors other than its minor nature. In fiffita's defence, the action committed is MINOR. But it remains a criminal action. That is why. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 69 (members: 0, guests: 69)