I feel that the players of quite a few professional sports are cosseted and have an unreal view of the world. We cannot compare other jobs to this "work" as a standard job is entirely different. They train for maximum fitness which boosts testosterone levels, add to this an average 12 hour week of work some of which is recovery only, they are young reasonably wealthy and have insecurities, it is a recipe for disaster for some lads. For every Joynt, Sculthorpe, Roby and Lomax there is a Hock, Hardaeker, Tomkins and Moore, you perhaps do not want some of these lads at your wedding but you want them in the trenches.
My opinion is the NRL have been vindictive with Barba and it is personal.
As a few have posted, so much for the mental health campaign.
God forbid but would Greenberg have the top job if Ben did go the same route as Terry Newton?
I understand fully your feelings for his family.
I cannot condone his actions in any way, shape or form.
There are a lot of variables here Roy and her staying in St.Helens may have been for numerous reasons. Without being judgemental Roy she is still defending him and that is her decision. Is it when we feel let down by truly great players that it somehow hurts us personally and anger takes over, whatever Roy we are all human and prone to mistakes.
There are no positives with this decision it is lose lose.
But you're missing the point.
You are accusing the NRL of victimisation despite them basing their decision on far more facts than we have.
Plus at the risk of repeating myself, every single Rugby authority in Australia have done the same, what does that tell you about what he did?
With respect Bobbie Goulding had more than his fair share of chances and blew every one of them, he's hardly a poster boy for a good argument.
And everyone is ignoring Barba isnt the first, wasn't Todd Carney denied a registration in the NRL last year?
I agree it's a lose lose situation and sad for everyone
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Last edited by Bronco; 16th February 2019 at 09:11.
Horrible incident overall and terrible for all parties. There are no winners here. The santimonious cries from a few are a bit silly. Sure, almost all men would proudly vow never to hit a woman, but I suspect the amount of relationships where they can genuinely claim to have never argued physically is far, far smaller. It happens a lot, both ways as well, just people don't admit that kind of thing in public. Note, none of that is a defense of Barba, as I clearly don't know anything of their relationship or history.
The reaction by the rugby authorities is ridiculous however. The NRL banning him for life, when they have so, so many players in a similar position who are never banned and plenty more who are treated very leniently. They also do ridiculously soppy redemption stories very frequently, including a Matt Lodge one recently. An utterly deplorable character, allowed back and used in PR by the NRL, painted as a brave man who has been through an incredible ordeal.
As for the RFL, so keen to bend over backwards to please the NRL by supporting their ban. They wouldn't think twice about ignoring a ban the other way. Especially silly from them given good old Zac is on his 14th last chance and still isn't banned for life. He's also commited crimes far worse than Barba.
This is where the whole concept of sport having a social conscience becomes very suspect. Should sport be banning bad people over non-sporting issues? Or is that up to the law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system? I can totally understand clubs punishing players who degrade their reputation, but don't see how a sport can be judgemental over certain players, then ignore the acts of others. Like the mental health initiatives sport is central to. Sport causes a lot of the pressures that create issues, yet is always there rolling out the mental health propaganda. Clubs and competitions act ruthlessly whenever there is an advantage to be had. There is never any consistency or reference to prior cases.
I understand fully Buddy, he was sacked for breach of contract. How does anyone know that it was for assaulting his partner or not?
We are all basing our knowledge on limited facts and hearsay. It is safe to say the NRL have drawn a line in the sand and are adopting zero tolerance on bad behaviour.
The Bobby comment is an example of double standards, Sean Long is not a poster boy for anyone`s moral compass yet his indiscretions were overlooked.
If this policy is a defining moment in our sports history that`s for the better, then I shall gladly admit to being wrong, time will tell.
]If they don't ban the next indescresion in the same way then I will be with everyone in criticizing the NRL. I would imagine a few will think twice after this punishment though
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Last edited by Bronco; 16th February 2019 at 09:11.
These things are rarely identical though, so many factors to consider. The incident should be used as a bench mark but the punishments may differ depending on circumstances. If 100% like for like then I agree
Things to consider
Where the incident was
How sustained it was
How severe it was
The impact on the victim
The history of the culprit
The evidence available of what happened
The contrition of the culprit
Previous indiscretions
The age of the culprit
And probably many more
Therefore the bans will differ accordingly
Great post
I think RL should protect its image, but in doing so they open themselves up for criticism, they need the skills to issue relevant and justified punishments.
Sean longs indiscretions where before things were tightened up and how much did they know at the time?
It is true in society that some people are judged by different standards than others depending on how much you like them. Shame on people for this
I have seen so called evidence of a man being physically aggressive with his partner only to find out she was the abusive one and her marks were defensive ones from the man. Society is quick to blame the man though, not realising females can abuse men and more likely to get away with it. I don't think that is the case here though
That is exactly what the NRL are doing it is reported many major sponsors are unhappy and as with top athletes or footballers who do wrong they pull out! no one denies that Barba had talent, but we have to accept he has made some wrong choices, and this latest one is serious & demands to be treated in that way.
The world has moved on people. Assault is no longer deemed as an acceptable part of a marriage / partnership.
We can all look back and say in the past X and Y was part and parcel of life. But society changes and the rules of how you conduct yourself have also changed. Smaking kids / casual rasism and sexism / random acts of violence to friends / family /strangers just don't have a place in most of today's societies.
Sure in 1990 Barba would have got away with it, but it's 30 years later and things have moved on.
As for suggesting that domestic violence is part and parcel of many relationships, yes it is but it is far from the majority position.
An estimated 1.9 million adults aged 16 to 59 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year, according to the year ending March 2017 Crime Survey for England and Wales (1.2 million women, 713,000 men).
Latest estimates showed that for each of the categories of abuse, women had significantly higher prevalence compared with men. As in previous years, women were twice as likely to have experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16 (27.1%) than men (13.2%)
So chances are most people you know are not slapping their wives about but some do. Do we want those who can't stop their primal instincts to set the standard or the majority of decent blokes who would never consider using violence to enforce their will.
Things have changed, some for the better I.M.O., some not.
Just after the Joel Tomkins incident occurred we were over in Wakefield and talking to an ex Wakefield and Featherstone half back, in his mid 60's. He said "Chuffin Hell, if they'd had video phones when we played we'd never have had a team on the field"
What really enhances my disrespect for Barba is that he never seemed to be overly aggressive against well built athletic opponents on the field of a contact sport. Some players are barn pots who just can't control their aggression, which obviously have to be dealt with. However, Barba didn't appear to be one of those. He wouldn't start a scrap with a player who might hit him back. However, he appears to have had no issue with belting his partner. An appalling individual, who seemed charming enough when I met him, but who is obviously a coward and a bully. I was sorry he left Saints, but I am honestly glad he's gone. I don't want or expect my heroes to be perfect, but I certainly don't advocate them being wife beaters. Some things are more important than sport.
I don't recall one post claiming he hasn't done something reprehensible and that there shouldn't be a punishment.
Those critical of his lifetime ban have been generally questioning the severity of the ban, and the lack of an independent judicial hearing to decide the punishment.
Prez I am not condoning any person who beats up a woman or many women, but the list of sports people who have assaulted women does not contain many cowards in their sport, Boxers Ali, Frazier, Bruno, Tyson, Hagler, both Sugar Rays, Mayweather are just some of the many famous men in their sport who were certainly not cowards in the ring and any lad who takes the field in our sport are not cowards no matter what they do off the field.
It is natural for anyone to be disappointed or angry when an idol lets their image of them down, hanging a supposed tag on them is not the answer.
We'll have to agree to disagree mate, no worries. Any guy who batters a woman is a coward in my eyes I'm afraid, the fact that he may have the physical attributes and attitude to beat up a man doesn't change this for me. Regarding hanging a tag on Barba, I rather think he's done that to himself. I respect your opinion, just don't agree.
Nobody is condoning it, I think the point is it's rarely that simple, but when it is I would agree
What about a woman who beats a man, domestic violence works both ways we should remember
I think a heavy ban if the story is proved due to integrity of the sport, lifetime is harsh, I think there should always be a way back in, maybe 5 years with some pre requisite courses required.
I agree with the thing about women beating men. Everyone knows what a misogynist is, but who knows the term for a man hating woman (it's misandrist) hardly everyday parlance, is it? Maybe coward wasn't the term I should've used re Barba but beating up a woman is hardly brave.