If that is the case then why didn't GH complain when Monaghan signed for Wire? He was sacked by his club and no other club was allowed to register him in Aus so came over here.
im not sure specifically about Monaghan, but from Memory didnt he choose to come over because the publicity rather than he being banned?
Hetherington certainly said the same about Bird going to Bradford
Has Carney committed an offence with this latest incident? It may leave a bad taste in the mouth (pun intended) but is it a crime? Arguably, what Hardaker did in the first incident is a crime.
No, it isn't. There have been players in the domestic competition who have committed the crimes that Carney has. simply because the powers that be didn't ban them from the competition has absolutely no bearing. What the NRL choose to do with their players is co-incidental. What would Hetheringtons position of been had Carney had committed exactly the same offences and not been banned, but decided he wanted to get out the limelight. Hetherington would have been the first on the plane to tempt him!
It's hypocrisy. I take it that Gary sent out the same letter to clubs when Gareth Hocks ban was coming to an end. You cannot pick and choose.
Strawman.
Hetherington has stated we shouldnt accept players banned from the NRL, it isnt coincidental but entirely the point.
Had Carney not been banned then a rule that says SL clubs cannot sign banned players would have been irrelevant.
McDermott is going. I actually think he is more relaxed because of it, and seems to have let the shackles go. He apparently asked to finish the season, and that is what they agreed.
In principle I don't see there is. The issue is simple, having done whatever the player did, is it possible for him to be rehabilitated back into a RL team, or should he be banned permanently from earning his living as a pro RL player.
The RFL could ban Carney but it has not, so he is eligible to play in SL, or the Championship. Like he could play in the USA, Samoa or anywhere else.
It would be hypocritical in the extreme to say a player should be banned from playing - unless he is one of our own in which case he shouldn't, we should "stand by" him.
In principle, as in reality, there is a huge difference between keeping a player who isnt indefinitely de-registered from a competition guilty of an offence/offences not deemed worthy of indefinite de-registration, and importing one who has been indefinitely de-registered and guilty of an offence/offences deemed worthy of indefinite de-registration.
Not at all. The issue seems to be whether a player who is not legally banned from a competition should nevertheless not be signed for what can only be described as "moral" reasons. Deregistration from one other competition is what's irrelevant, but either you can't see it. , or you're just confused. If you think you disagree, and still maintain deregistration in NRL is what's important, as opposed to whatever actions led to deregistration, then clearly you feel if he had done exactly the same thing yet NOT been deregistered, then there would be no issue at all in signing him if he wanted to sign.
The de-registration part is the important part because it was what was put forward as the defining factor. Hetherington hasnt said that we should be some moral arbiter and judge a players behaviour as worthy of acceptance in to SL. It is in fact the very antithesis of what he has put forward. That is the situation right now and the one he has argued against.
Hetherington has put forth that Carney not be allowed in to SL by virtue of his ban from the NRL. Not because he vexed in his own mouth, but because he is subject to an indefinite de-registration from the NRL.
And yes, had Carney not been de-registered i would have had no problem with him signing. I think what he did was stupid but the NRL entirely over-reacted. However i also dont think we are, or should present ourselves as 2nd class or hold ourselves to a lower standard of behaviour. SL isnt a 2nd choice, it isnt 2nd class, it isnt a dumping ground for other peoples problem players and isnt grateful for the scraps not deemed worthy of the NRL table.
Lol.given the scum earning decent money playing SL I am not sure there is any moral ground for SL chairman to be suggesting someone shouldn't be signed from Australia on immoral behaviour grounds. End off day if he can get a visa and a SL club wants to take a punt on the dckhead then their risk.
Can anyone point me in the direction of Hetherington's outrage when Hull signed Leon Pryce and Feka Palaeeasina? When Hull KR signed Ulugia and Cockayne?
No doubt he "buried bad news" when Bailey and Walker were sent down.
Has Carney been officially banned from playing in the NRL or is it just no NRL team want to sign him because it's pretty much nailed on that the NRL would refuse to register him if they did?
And yes, had Carney not been de-registered i would have had no problem with him signing. I think what he did was stupid but the NRL entirely over-reacted. However i also dont think we are, or should present ourselves as 2nd class or hold ourselves to a lower standard of behaviour. SL isnt a 2nd choice, it isnt 2nd class, it isnt a dumping ground for other peoples problem players and isnt grateful for the scraps not deemed worthy of the NRL table.
Allowing him to play here is not "holding ourselves to a lower standard of behaviour". If he was offered a gig by another NRL club then IMHO he would be registered by the NRL and if they refused then I am sure he would win any court challenge.
The NRL was allowing him to play NRL AFTER he had done all the previous things he had done, so the sum total of those was not enough to turn him unfit in the NRL's eyes.
Then, a picture is leaked of a purely private incident, which was nothing more than a puerile grossout joke, the "joke" being a photo set up to make it look as if he was peeing into his own mouth (although he actually wasn't). It's actually I suppose mildly amusing in a grossout way, and i have seen what I would say is far worse on many grossout shows and films. In itself it is absolutely no more than a puerile gross prank, and of little consequence in the general scheme of things. I get the faux moral outrage that the Twitterati and forum warriors and media built up into an hyperbolic storm of criticism but in the cold light of day his "last straw" offence was actually something and nothing. The situation was in some ways similar to a soccer player on a yellow card de-shirting after scoring, knowing that while the act is of little consequence, he was on a final warning and the result was bound to be a red. In other ways it was different as the act was done in private and not meant for public viewing. What people do in private should be allowed to remain private. Many people I understand enjoy a golden shower (I am not one of them) and many around the world drink urine as a daily routine. So stripped down to its basics, what are we saying - that we all think the concept of Carney drinking his own urine is so bad that he cannot be allowed to play rugby? What is so bad about what he did? It is a serious question, as I don't believe that, given any intelligent thought, there was anything.
Had he pulled his todger out on the pitch and done it in front of the main stand then that would be different, but no such thing happened.
Therefore you are saying that you'd condone everything he'd done previously, but you'd ban him for this spoof private photo, doing something which isn't really objectively heinous, because you personally think people shouldn't hint at urine drinking? Even as a joke? I am not being arsey here btw I am trying to get you to think about what in objective reality was so bad about what HE DID if it had remained private as it should have.