Was it consensual?

Only in Rugby League

Look who's back,f00k off back to the union forums you vichy c..t.

the internets is not a place for obnoxious name calling... please behave yourself.

Wouldn't be a big loss to the Raiders if they sacked him. He's been very average since 08 and i dont know how he's made the NSW team on the occasions he has. Some of their younger guys are better than him and will keep improving whereas he's going downhill.

Macmackenzie, cjloves and the nazi.

Nice collection of union/AFL trolls there...

Huge surprise. lol

I think it's newsworthy, just not as newsworthy as it's being made out to be. Yes, i'm asking "is it that bad". Not as bad as killing someone? That's the understatement of the century, it's not even as bad as spray painting graffiti on someone's house or telling your dear old granny she's a c**t. The only reason it's considered worth ending his career for is because he's famous and he's embarrassed his employers.

Joel Monaghan has been sacked by the raiders, but the bulldogs have apparently offered him a contract and the captaincy for 2011, if he signs the headlines will read MONAGHAN ACCEPTS HEAD JOB FROM DOGS

Fantastic

I feel sorry for the NRL, its clubs and their welfare and education departments who spend a lot of time, effort and money "educating" players on how to behave. Only to be let down again and again.




I was going to say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but that would be inappropriate for this thread.

I agree with the first point to a large extent; but we are talking about young blokes (and a large sample of them from many varying backgrounds) of the ages say 16 (at the lower end of the range) through their 20s, to about 30 or just over at the top end (very few players over 30 have any issues other than maybe getting drunk in public occasionally - I'm not about to throw a stone so to speak about that one...we have all been there and done it at sometime when we were younger and sillier...)

Further for the sake of parity, it should be pointed out that the AFL has had a far worse year for these things than the NRL. Anyone thinking otherwise need go no further than the link at LU about the same thing which documents a litany of shockers for the AFL in 2010. The difference again with the two sports in this sense is the transparency in the rugby league media compared to the "bury it" attitude of the AFL media - contrast the alleged Collingwood post GF sexual assault, the investigation and reporting of which has gone very, very quiet, which in many ways seems to be mirroring the Milne/Montagna 2004 case in the AFL (which it was revealed this year involved interference in the police investigation from the St Kilda AFL club).

The stringing of incidents together though is largely a product of the media.

It is all about individuals in the public eye, because of their sport, making individual decisions (some of them influenced by alcohol and/or drugs). In some cases, like Monaghan's, remarkably stupid, abhorrent and dangerous ones. Dangerous in the sense that he placed his entire career and his family's livelihood at stake because he is sure to be sacked come Monday of this week (and likely de-registered by the NRL).

Just to add to that, the AFL media - and the general media here in Australia seems to take its lead from that (of course paid for advertising and editorial content then enters the picture, something the AFL has confirmed it has as part of its contracts) - tend to treat all of these incidents ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.

Only when they manifest in something as uniquely rotten as the culture at the West Coast Eagles AFL club, check that one out sometime, does a whole club get tarnished so to speak. And in that case absolutely rightly so, given a man's death was involved in the case of a just retired player (Mainwaring) and this was the club that produced and cultured Ben Cousins after all.

Still, they are all treated as individual cases by the media.

The "NRL scandals" so to speak, appear to have no such luxury. They all seem to be dealt with at the start of the TV/radio broadcast or newspaper/internet listing as "In another NRL scandal, such and such did this..." Over time, this has its effect on your average mug punter or even more so, the casual and detached observer relying on the odd soundbite for their viewpoint.

However, given the ratio of such incidents appears similar if not exceeded by the AFL, some measure of journalistic objectivity would suggest any such AFL scandal would be preceded by the same such introduction. Regrettably, it seems to be missing.

Check it out for yourself sometime...

Should be easy for you, JB.

These young blokes (and older ones) you refer to are being constantly educated by clubs and the NRL about behaviour. They have player welfare officers etc. etc. One such education session at the beginning of the year involved social media networks and the choice of "friends" on your pages.

You are very right about the media however. I mean, how often have you heard anything these days being referred to as "yet another NRL scandal" etc. etc. Melbourne with money, Friend at the Roosters, Brothels with Roosters players. etc. etc. They do make things sound epidemic, which they aren't, but there are a lot more incidents that never reach the media..... thankfully. Let he who is without sin talk about what you've named a "bury it" attitude in another sport. You are far too intelligent OD to be that naïve to think they don't.

I'm also not sure why you feel the need to use parity in your argument. Who cares what the AFL do? When others use any form of parity they are called trolls, BLTs or the incredibly offensive Vichys.

I know you'll get the jist Old Geezer.

So you agree with me but still want to have a chop after that 1988 SFS thing I took you up on... lol

I take it back, feather duster.

Thanks for the intelligence comments though.

The parity comment is in showing an accurate picture of the sporting media landscape in Australia to those who may not be familiar with it...including our many friends in other parts of the world. I am not sure there is a problem with that in any exercise in objectivity.