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.

You have some strange moral compass! If a mate of mine started pssing into his mouth in a public toilet in front of me for a laugh he wouldn't be a mate for very long! Maybe I'm just old fashioned and the youth of today, not that carney is young, find pssing into your mouth funny?
The fact it was done by a professional sportsman pssed out of his head when he knew he was on a last chance and yet he was happy to take the risk of it being seen publicly tells you all you need to know about Todd Carney. To say it wasn't for public consumption, though being in a public toilet would suggest otherwise, somehow makes his behaviour not damaging to his club and code is nonsense. In this day and age players know that everything they do is likely to be seen, especially if you have a track record of being a dckhead.
Pleased NRL is shut of him, good luck to Catalans if they sign him.

There is a difference between what is morally right and wrong and what is legally right and wrong.

You are arguing morals, FA is arguing legals.

For example, in years gone by it was legal for the age of concent to be 12, then 10, 13, then 16, .
Now as you can see the law is arbitrary, based on morality. Morality is a personal choice, legal is the limits of what society will permit.

Society will allow you to wee into your own mouth if that floats your boat, you however from your moral stance would ban this.
If you and enough like minded people could be bothered then your morality would match the law, but it would be a tough ask as it may very well go against European laws on the right to a private life.

Arguing Morals, is different to arguing legals. Morality is unique to yourself, your morals on weeing in your own mouth may agree with mine, but our morals on say swearing maybe quite different. Therefore the law provides a uniform level that we all agree to abide by even if we do not agree with it and if we don't abide by it we can expect the long arm of the law on the shoulder.

Would be an interesting court case of pssing in your mouth in a public place is an indecent act, even in a men's toilet. I suspect it is.

Then let them deal with that.

I dont have an issue with what he did. At all. Really dont care. Dont think the NRL should have been involved at all. Personally i dont think a sports league should involve itself in anything that happens off the field. I think we have a legal judicial system and that should be where players who break the law should be dealt with. I think the sport itself is by any measure amoral. I think leagues and competitions simply tie themselves in knots and are on a hiding to nothing trying to police behaviour in a players private life. And i mean that for anything, not little things like this, but real actual serious crimes. Its for the judicial system. We are just a game.

However, if the decision is taken for a player to be, in effect, banned from one competition, ours should not be a safety net. Or if it is to be we come out and say, we are just a sport, we are entirely amoral, we do not make judgements we leave that to the legal system, and if Carney gets a visa, he plays, and that goes for our players aswell. If you arent in prison you, play.

What we shouldnt do is the situation we have now and leave it to the RFL to make a decision on each individual case because we are left then with the image that whilst the NRL do not accept such behaviour, the RFL have judged it to be ok.

There are other decisions outside of the legal, sporting and moral and those decisions are commercial.

I would doubt the NRL would be banning a player for moral purposes, as you say that would tie itself in knots. However the moral compass (even if hypocritical) does have an impact on the commercial side. If the NRL feel that wee boy was becoming such a distraction as to hurt the competition overall commercially, whether that be in terms of keeping sponsors or attracting new ones, then there is an arguement to ban him from the competition for the overall good of the competition.

But that is the NRL, I think in the SL because of EU laws on restraints on trade, banning a player for being a commercial liability would be left down to individual clubs or some kind of collective agreement would be required a bit like the cap. Not leagally enforcable, but enforcable by the rules of the competition.

However, that would be a mine field in terms of proving that hiring this fella would reduce sponsorship and commercial interests enough to have an effect on all members.

I agree moralality should not stop him playing directly. However commercial interests if effected would have to be considered.

Personally I don't think commercial interest care about wee boy, just as they did not care about dogger lover at Warrington. It may all be distastful, but not enough to stop people watching, playing and most importantly paying into the sport.