the transcript is only partial and doesn't go into the context of the argument.

as for should they be allowed to play, well that is surely the job of a RFL panel to discide as to whether convicted players have brought the game into disrepute. baring in mind these players are role models to youngsters and are effectively paid entertainers who are recieving our money.

if convicted players are found to have brought the game into disrepute then the RFL should act accordingly.

no unless otherwise stated in the players contract. unless its work related ie bus driver drink driving etc it was completely un related and should be treated as so unless they can not un-forfill their duties ie playing

I say they should be publicly pilloried, stretched on the rack then hung, drawn and quartered. That will teach them.

Hang 'em, then hang 'em again just so they get the message. Then make them sign for an NFP club.

Although it would be hard to tell if Leon Pryce has had his neck stretched.

Hang him by his Sourav Gangulys

The RFL should take a leaf out of the NRL's book and ban them from the competition. It sends out a strong signal to all the other players in the league as well as the player(s) who get banned.

I`m all for giving people a 2nd chance in life within reason, obviously certain things are beyond this.

If you brought in a rule where it was 2 strikes and your out then i don`t think any player could have any arguement against this, what i mean by 2 strikes and out is things like being charged by the police twice or two court convictions during your career and on the 2nd charge or conviction then your out of RL worldwide.

*cough a certain saints player would fit that criteria cough*

IMO any conviction, whether a custodial sentence or not, of a violent or drug related nature should be treated by the RFL as bringing the game into disrepute and severe bans should be handed out accordingly (in the region of 6 to 12 months - and if necessary the bans to commence on the players release from prison). A second conviction of a violent or drug related nature should then result in a lifetime ban from the sport.

However, we all know how spineless the RFL are once a club turn up with their army of lawyers claiming their star player shouldn't be banned on the basis of a mistake in their private life.

Ultimately it is down the the morals of those in charge at a club. If they feel that a players actions are not in keeping with the image of the their club, then they should sack the player (and if possible keep hold of his registration). If those in charge have no morals or backbone then they will make their excuses and allow the player to continue at the club.

nah, as previously stated if you go to jail, you can't play rugby, although i did once play against Garth prison inmates at rugby union once years ago (they never play away for some reason!)

if you bring the club into disrepute, then it's a board decission to sack suspend or fine, apart from that let em play rugby i say.

drug offences are automatic ban any way, RFL would be open to litigation for restriction of trade if it started banning people willy nilly

Violent criminals should play rugby league, might teach some discipline

A fair few already do, it seems.

how awesome would it be if the rfl banned people who got charged in court and a splinter "convict league" was formed!!

imagine the game superleague XIII v convict XIII "battle for freedom" hahaha

"**** ***** has paid his debt to society and now he wants revenge"