At last!!!!! someone who gets it.

There is a pretty big difference between standing by your players when they havent behaved, and importing those who are only available because their behavior has seen them banned from another competition.

You are drawing a false equivalence between two entirely different situations.

And you can pick and choose who you allow to play, we do it all the time, and in fact this is happening right now. The reason Les Catalans havent announced Carney's signing yet is the RFL have refused to ratify it so far.

Hetherington has said (consistantly) that SL should not be signing players who are banned from the NRL, whether that be Greg Bird, Todd Carney or any other player "deregistered" from the NRL. Right now that decision is taken on a case-by-case basis by the RFL. He is arguing for a hard and fast rule saying they shouldnt.

Now you may disagree with that, but the actions on Leeds in respect of Bailey, Hardaker or anyone else not deregistered from a competition are entirely irrelevant.

But that's my point, Carney was sacked for his misdemeanour whilst Hetherington has stood by his. I've no doubt that Carney's previous had a hand in his current situation rather than the one off incident of 'peegate', however, in my mind Leeds would have been perfectly justified in sacking Hardaker for his homophobic comment, yet didn't.

All I am saying is that you cannot draw comparison between one offence and another, they are all offences. You either let all players who have commited them play, or none of them.

That s just nonsense really isnt it. Should we treat a player who got a speeding ticket the same as one who drink drives? A player who got in to a scrap the same as one who stabbed someone?

There are obviously offences of a different nature which would require a punishment of different severity.

Leeds could have sacked Hardaker, that they didnt is nothing to do with not wanting SL to import players banned from the NRL. There is no link here.

None of Hardaker, Bailey or any other leeds player or player signed by Leeds have been banned from playing in a different competition.

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.

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.

Not really



See Smokey's posts for someone who gets it.

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.

No, see his post's for someone who agrees with you.

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.


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.

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

Crime was never mentioned.

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.

You can pick and choose and we do.

You mean someone who agrees with you?

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.

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 ed 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?

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 y 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.

So why is GH so worked up (allegedly) about it?

Your missing the point entirely. If this had been his first offence he'd have got a slap on the wrist but it was in fact the end of a very long line of drunken non professional behaviour that the club and NRL had finally had enough of. NRL is in a massive battle with afl to be the number one footy code in Australia. Unlike afl the NRL has a very unfriendly media that loves to drop sht on the game at any opportunity. They are drawing lines in the sand and letting players know that if they want to earn the big $'s they have to have a conduct that helps grow the game not damage it.

On its own being wrecked and pssing in your mouth and that being shared with the world is not a hanging offence but for carney on his 4th last chance and with the NRL laying down new expected code of conduct for players it was always going to be his fi penal hurrah. No one to blame but Todd, he is a dckhead, always has been, very likely always will be. His dad died of korsakoffs (alcohol related) dementia and the apple has clearly not fallen far from the tree sadly,

I'm hardly missing that point, given I made it myself in my last post. You must have missed it.


That's the same point, with embroidery. Do you have any point about what I actually said?

Leeds have had one of the worst league performances since GH came to the club. Major players are coming close to the end of their careers and are going to be almost impossible to replace. GH made an ar5e of himself over the RFL Hardaker investigation.

Rather than taking a look at the problems facing Leeds, much easier to point to the Challenge Cup and stick your nose into what other clubs might be doing with a "disgraced" player.

Yes my point is you can't say it was some harmless spoof for a laugh photo. It was totally unacceptable behaviour by a very well paid too professional sportsman that brought his club, a club in dire straights reputation wise as is, and the NRL into disrepute. Just like pretending to have oral with a canine. End of day carney is a dckhead who can't control himself, if a SL club want to take a punt on reforming him then that is their gamble. Hetherington had no problems employing players who have done far worse than carney and should consider his own glass house before throwing stones.

I can, because that is exactly what it was. And would have been had it not gone public.





It really wasn't, though. This sort of OTT self-righteous hyperbole is of course what the internet is great at, but it doesn't make it true. It was what he did in private, and you may not think it funny but he is entitled to do, within the law, whatever he wants in private. It isn't "unacceptable". It was just one momentary stunt that may have briefly amused. He should have known better as if he'd grown up he'd have realised that equally stupid people will put it on Youtube but stupidity isn't rare.


I keep having to stress this for some reason, but no, he did not bring anyone into disrepute, it is a matter of opinion as to whether the stunt is or is not funny but it harms no-one and was not meant for public viewing. The release of it into the public domain is what has caused the shiitstorm. If he does stunts like that in private with his mates and they find it funny, where is the harm?

Your problem is you have caught the internet virus and want the incident to be so bad no civilised human can tolerate it, so that you can roundly condemn it as THE WORST THING EVA when in fact it is in the scale of things, nothing much at all.


Agreed.