See if you can spot the difference in these statements.
NRL's Statement 1 on George Burgess (Monday 28 March 2022) following his "sexual touching charges":
"The NRL will allow Burgess to keep playing while he is before the courts, and the 29-year-old will be up for selection when the Dragons face the Parramatta Eels this weekend in round four."
So, as not to prejudice Burgess's criminal proceedings case (i.e. sexual touching), the NRL will wait the outcome of that case before taking any action for possible breaches of NRL rules" it said in its statement.
NRL Statement, 28 March 2022
"The National Rugby League [NRL] has advised the St George Illawarra Dragons that player George Burgess will be permitted to continue playing in the NRL Premiership while subject to criminal proceedings."
"The policy gives the NRL chief executive discretion to apply the policy for offences that carry less than 11 years' jail."
"The decision in no way forms a judgement on the allegations against Burgess, which are serious, and the NRL reserves the right to impose a no-fault stand-down in the future."
NRL Statement 2 on Dylan Brown (Wednesday 7 June, 2023) following his "sexual touching charges":
"The NRL has today advised the Parramatta Eels that Dylan Brown is subject to a No-Fault Stand Down Condition under the NRL Rules."
"New South Wales Police charged Dylan Brown with several counts of sexually touch without consent following an incident at Double Bay on Saturday 3 June 2023."
"The NRL decision should in no way be interpreted as a view on the innocence or guilt of the player."
Can anyone see the subtle difference despite the exact same charges?
Replies
so they want to prejudice browns case ???
Yes one IS Subject to the Standdown Rule AND the Other Was NOT
Surely our club can at least ask what the hell was the difference between the two charges that caused them to make their decision. Answer one Club was the socalled Pride of the League (a term i hate )to it just the Eels . In saying that as i said in a earlier post more Brain Power might have been appropriate by on D Brown
Neither case is subject to the automatic stand down policy, however both cases are subject to the stand down policy IF the NRL chooses to use its 'discretionary power' - which, all cases are subject too.
The discretionary power seems to be just a safe guard for the NRL to play Judge.
Brissy the only difference, at least from our perspective without all the facts, seems to be the CCTV footage - there was none in Burgess' case.
It was reported yesterday, and take with a grain of salt as the journos could just be getting excited, that Abdo made the ruling on Brown after seeing the CCTC footage.
Would love Bourbs & ME's opinion on that if true, you'd think Abdo should not be ruling on any evidence until court as DB's side wouldn't have had an opportunity to present their own evidence yet.
Reading between the lines it sounds like Brown has done something, probably not 5 touches in 60 seconds with two hands as per his lawyers comments, but the way the lawyer worded it made it sound as if there is something there.
None of which justifies why one is a stand down and one isn't, unless the NRL changed any part of the stand down policy in the off-season to include 'any charge' against women?
NOS, that simply can't be the case - the part of the statement where they say thay aren't forming a judgment on the allegation, simply doesn't allow them to do so and there's no way they'd have access to the footage forming part of the Police brief of evidence - imagine your employer going to see the Police and them handing over any evidence they have in a case against you, just doesn't happen. And in any case, Dylan's lawyers said the CCTV doesn't support the allegations - even more reason for the NRL to NOT stand him down if they are apparently viewing the evidence!
Also NOS, re the Burgess one, the fact there was no CCTV footage I think is a negative for him ie. no evidence to the contrary, which appears to possibly be the case in Dylan's matter. So that would lead me to have more doubt over the Burgess allegation than the Brown one where the lawyers have refuted the CCTV footage showing anything almost immediately.
Great point there, Brissy - so, Abdo seeing the CCTV before making a ruling has been misreported then, and that misreporting makes DB sound guilty.
Good point re the alleged victims, NOS. Of course you can't condone the allegations if proven true. There's no place for that sort of harassment in today's society.
And he won't be found guilty in 3 weeks unless he pleads guilty, which it appears he won't be. If he pleads not guilty it will be adjourned for a hearing date which could be months away, so if the NRL play hardball with this stand down he's pretty much a big chance of being gone for the year. It's a disgraceful call from the NRL in my opinion given the previous precedent they'd set for exactly the same offence. Just mind boggling that they think one case can be different to the other - the only thing they should be looking at is the offence - sexual touching. Now if it was Dylan getting done for 5 counts on 5 separate occasions with 5 separate women, there may very well be cause for the stand down, but not for 5 alleged offences in 60 seconds. How long did Burgess allegedly grope his victims arse for? Could have been 3 minutes, who knows.
Now here's my disclaimer in all of this. While it appears the NRL has ballsed this up massively and the Eels should be tackling this head on, that depends on what they know from Dylan. No doubt he's been hauled in for some answers, and here's where we start drawing a very long bow - if he's suggested that he's done it once and will plead guilty, then maybe they consider the stand down fits the crime rather than waiting for an NRL imposed sanction after the sentencing. But if he's adamant nothing happened, they should be attacking the NRL today to have this overturned citing the Burgess matter as the precedent.
Very good point in regards to your disclaimer there, Brissy.
Its my understanding that St George took it upon themself to stand Burgees down from playing the week after it was reported. Then the NRL came out with this staement allowing him to play until after it went to court.
Thats the only reason i can think of as to why they stood Dylan Down, maybe we should have rested him this week and see what the NRL did after that.
If Abdo looked at footage, he should see the Tiktok video of Brown out on Saturday night dancing next to a girl, he sort of moved his hand in a dance move near her ass but that is it. It is a different part of the night, but the suit he was wearing and the fact he wore a suit at all is worth a stand down hahahaha. Plus the dance moves he had put the game into disrepute.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 13 Next