People seem to mistake the requirements for criminal convictions and civil penalties.
For Barba to be charged by the police requires a level of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. To sack and deregister a player is a civil action. If the player tried to take his employer or registering body to court over breach of contract etc, they would only need to prove on the balance of probabilities that his behaviour was a breach of their rules.
I doubt the best lawyer in the world could prove on the balance of probabilities that with cctv footage he has not breached his contract and has not breach NRL standards.
I think the professional response from the IU and Greenberg would have been to make a short statement stating the NRL abhors violence against women and takes this matter extremely seriously, and that Barba has been de-registered indefinitely until a full disciplinary hearing takes place.
Instead, we've had Greenberg making a succession of media appearances spewing soundbites like "Barba needs to find a new vocation", "Barba will never return under my watch" and "There's no place for him"
It may be that a disciplinary hearing would ultimately ban him for life. But if it does so, it will be because a panel of independent and unbiased experts have carefully considered all the facts of the case and deem it the right decision, and are aware that this level of punishment sets a precedent. It wouldn't be an individual with an apparent grudge making a hasty and emotion-led sweeping decision.
To add, I've no doubt the NQC have every right - legal and moral - to sack him, and have acted soundly throughout this.
I think that’s a pointless article to be honest.
In the real world (outside of fame and celebrities) employers manage there employee not there families as well. Especially not when the employee has brought shame on the organisation.
I feel for his partner and kids, I really do, but as to why the NRL should financially support them after sacking there dad/partner I really don’t understand. Do that and your basically removing huge responsibility from the player, the same responsibility every decent family man has.
For me again this is something Ben should have considered before acting like a total tool.
It might sound harsh but the Barba’s Family issues are her and his problem, just like they was when he was playing. Ainslie begging for him not to be sacked for the same reasons is also equally weak.
Bad behaviours have consequences, unfortunately for Ben his impact on 5 other people.
Just read this after the requote above. I think it’s typical liberal hogwash.
When anyone gets sacked from a job, it’s not the employers responsibility what happens to his family. A Valeter at my showroom got sacked for stealing gear and selling it on EBay to fund a drug habit (recreational use of cocaine, a habit not an addiction) and that doubtlessly had an effect on his family situation (married with 2 young kids)
He made his bed etc.
He never got a second chance to steal, but he’d been in trouble for coming in drunk/drugged up in one instance. I dint know where/what he’s doing now but the motor trade is pretty close, so I’d doubt he’s in the motor trade anymore. Some staff wanted the police involved at the time (grudges maybe, or had stuff stolen themselves (not necessarily by him)) but the decision was made to just sack him.
Just so you know, I don’t feel bad about it.
I can just imagine the uproar if Rimmer suddenly decided he was judge, jury and executioner on disciplinary matters. Regardless of the facts of the case or the eventual punishment, Greenberg is setting a dangerous precedent and embarrassing himself really.
All it needed was registration suspended pending a formal investigation. If it's sine die eventually then that's fine but there's a process for a reason.