**Official** NRL 2010 thread

[Ausage]

Haha spare me. Obviously you've never read a Melbourne newspaper. The scuitiny of AFL players in Melbourne is far greater than the scruitiny of NRL players in Sydney. The difference is that AFL players, and RU players, have learned to temper their behaviour because they're not ****ing stupid, unlike the vast majority of league players.

That's not to say that AFL and RU players don't **** up, they just don't do it as often as league players because they're clearly not as dumb.

Complete garbage particularly the bold. Not hard to understand where this sort of attitude comes from given the amount of exposure RL "scandals" seem to generate though. That or you're trolling.

Why is it that when this happened it was towards the lowest listings on realfooty? Forget the front page of The Age I had to look hard to find the thing in the damn sports section.

Why is a perfectly legal group *** encounter with a young woman considered a non event for AFL players but a outrageous expose when League players do it.

I'll tell you why it happens, because the media in the country is balls deep in the running of the game giving it one last rogering before it's banished forever.

 

[benchmark00]

Complete garbage particularly the bold. Not hard to understand where this sort of attitude comes from given the amount of exposure RL "scandals" seem to generate though. That or you're trolling.

Why is it that when this happened it was towards the lowest listings on realfooty? Forget the front page of The Age I had to look hard to find the thing in the damn sports section.

I'll tell you why it happens, because the media in the country is balls deep in the running of the game giving it one last rogering before it's banished forever.

Haha when that Lovett thing happened it was plastered across every Victorian news medium available!!

You're living in a Sydney bubble. I get Sydney media so I can understand how someone who has only lived here could have that opinion, but it is ignorant. Having lived most of my life getting Victorian media, the Sydney coverage of NRL ain't got **** on the Melbourne focus on AFL.

 

[howardj]

Yep

- It was a pose (and therefore last probably all of two seconds) not the act of getting head
- There was no ***ual gratification
- It was done at a private party, not in public
- The guy has a clean slate
- He was remorseful

And yet, oh no, rip away his livelihood for essentially a victimless, distasteful prank.

 

[morgieb]

Murphy, I'm not sure on the Melbourne media, but do you think a group *** scandal from 7 years ago (which wasn't even rape, btw) would've made front page news in Melbourne, if it happened to an AFL player?

 

[benchmark00]

Yep

- It was a pose (and therefore last probably all of two seconds) not the act of getting head
- There was no ***ual gratification
- It was done at a private party, not in public
- The guy has a clean slate
- He was remorseful

And yet, oh no, rip away his livelihood for essentially a victimless, distasteful prank.

Since when has ***ual gratification, or lack thereof, been a defence for anything?

What he did broke the law, do you dispute that?

 

[benchmark00]

Murphy, I'm not sure on the Melbourne media, but do you think a group *** scandal from 7 years ago (which wasn't even rape, btw) would've made front page news in Melbourne, if it happened to an AFL player?

Yes, absolutely, if it came out the way the Matthew Johns thing did.

And it's a grey area with regards to whether it was rape or not ftr, but will not go into it.

 

[Ausage]

Haha when that Lovett thing happened it was plastered across every Victorian news medium available!!

You're living in a Sydney bubble. I get Sydney media so I can understand how someone who has only lived here could have that opinion, but it is ignorant. Having lived most of my life getting Victorian media, the Sydney coverage of NRL ain't got **** on the Melbourne focus on AFL.

My opinion came only from the websites I was viewing the day it happened. I kid you not it was not easy to find the story. Showed it to a couple of colleagues (who I regularly argue with on this topic) and they agreed it was very strange.

The problem I have is with this narrative that states that RL has a cultural problem, while AFL/RU just have the occassional dead**** who is swiftly dealt with by the authorities.

 

[howardj]

Since when has ***ual gratification, or lack thereof, been a defence for anything?

What he did broke the law, do you dispute that?

Not a defence. On the contrary, I am saying that it would have been more obscence if he was seeking that.

As for breaking the law, there are degrees.

Drinking driving - sacked for that? Minor assault - sacked for that? Cruelty to animals - sacked and disgracef for that? Even with that there are degrees. I mean I would regard bashing an animal at the upper end of the scale...not what Monaghan did.

 

[morgieb]

Having said that, league's been pretty good this year with off-field scandals. The only one I can think of was Houston and Wicks pushing drugs, and possibly this one (unsure whether it happened this year though).

 

[benchmark00]

My opinion came only from the websites I was viewing the day it happened. I kid you not it was not easy to find the story. Showed it to a couple of colleagues (who I regularly argue with on this topic) and they agreed it was very strange.

The problem I have is with this narrative that states that RL has a cultural problem, while AFL/RU just have the occassional dead**** who is swiftly dealt with by the authorities.

Lovett being briefly in court is not even a story though, when the story actually broke it was absolutely everywhere, he was even sacked by his club, whilst Manly let Brett Stewart continue playing!

When Greg Bird (for example) went to court it wasn't on the back pages, because that stuff is boring. When the story breaks it's the big issue.

 

[Ausage]

What he did broke the law, do you dispute that?

Isn't beastiality legal in ACT?

 

[benchmark00]

Not a defence. On the contrary, I am saying that it would have been more obscence if he was seeking that.

As for breaking the law, there are degrees.

Drinking driving - sacked for that? Minor assault - sacked for that? Cruelty to animals - sacked and disgracef for that? Even with that there are degrees. I mean I would regard bashing an animal at the upper end of the scale...not what Monaghan did.

I'll take a different approach then.

If you owned a company which sponsored Canberra, would you want your name associated with that type of thing? Wouldn't you be more likely to take your money elsewhere?

 

[morgieb]

Isn't beastiality legal in ACT?

Exactly, which makes the sacking a much more of a grey area.

 

[benchmark00]

Isn't beastiality legal in ACT?

Sort've (as in it's not explicitly illegal), but animal cruelty is not legal. Every court in the country would consider sticking your knob in a dogs mouth cruelty.

 

[benchmark00]

My previous post:

Beastiality is not explicitly illegal in the ACT, true. Animal cruelty is though!!

"ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 1992 - SECT 7
Cruelty

A person commits an offence if the person commits an act of cruelty on an animal.

Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units, imprisonment for 1 year or both."

 

[Prince EWS]

Sort've (as in it's not explicitly illegal), but animal cruelty is not legal. Every court in the country would consider sticking your knob in a dogs mouth cruelty.

The photo seems to suggest he just flopped it out and the dog decided to lick it. He probably covered it in something. It doesn't look like he was forcing the dog, and the dog wasn't in any pain or discomfort,

I'm not denying it was gross, but I don't reckon it was cruel as such.

 

[Ausage]

If you owned a company which sponsored Canberra, would you want your name associated with that type of thing?

Hell no. And then there was that thing with the dog

 

[benchmark00]

The photo seems to suggest he just flopped it out and the dog decided to lick it. He probably covered it in something. It doesn't look like he was forcing the dog, and the dog wasn't in any pain or discomfort,

I'm not denying it was gross, but I don't reckon it was cruel as such.

If I was to stick my member in your mouth without you realising what was going on, would you consider that a cruel act? Can't believe you're even disputing it, it's 100% cruelty (even if it's not likely he'd get a massive sentence), and it's really the main reason the ACT hasn't introduced a piece of legislation regarding beastiality, because it's captured in the Animal Welfare Act.

Have it on good authority that it was a schmacko the dog was getting off ftr.

 

[Prince EWS]

If I was to stick my member in your mouth without you realising what was going on, would you consider that a cruel act? Can't believe you're even disputing it, it's 100% cruelty (even if it's not likely he'd get a massive sentence), and it's really the main reason the ACT hasn't introduced a piece of legislation regarding beastiality, because it's captured in the Animal Welfare Act.

Have it on good authority that it was a schmacko the dog was getting off ftr.

There was consent IMO.

 

[Ausage]

There was consent IMO.

It should have known you don't go back to a blokes apartment for cookies, schmackos and milk.