Paul Kent: NRL decision to fine and suspend Corey Norman is out of step with reality
The NRL’s lack of sense in punishing Corey Norman for defending James Segeyaro against a four-on-one attack is astounding, PAUL KENT writes.
Dragons
Don't miss out on the headlines from Dragons. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Last Saturday the NRL fined Corey Norman $20,000 and suspended him for one game for his decision to defend himself and his mate against an assault by four drunk men.
Clearly the NRL would have preferred Norman left his mate, James Segeyaro, to deal with the four men himself.
The NRL believed Norman should have refused to retaliate for being punched in the face, as he did the first time but not the second, and that he should somehow have known that the assault being inflicted on Segeyaro would end in no serious injuries to Segeyaro, or that the four men would not turn on him after they finished with Segeyaro.
Four against two is never good odds in a street fight but it sure beats the hell out of four against one.
The problem with the NRL is nobody there has ever stepped off the footpath.
They live in a textbook world, dealing in theory.
Street fights are dangerous and can be life threatening. There are no rules of engagement.
Segeyaro was being four-outed by men the NRL agrees had called him a “n***er” to provoke the incident.
The NRL agrees the men were engaging in “anti-social behaviour”, which is one way to put it. Police believe the four men were the instigators and on Monday the police confirmed to me that Norman and Segeyaro “were not believed to be the aggressors”.
But instead of standing shoulder to shoulder with his mate it seems the NRL considers it proper behaviour for Norman to turn his back on Segeyaro and then line up to be praised for walking away from headquarters on Monday.
Dear oh dear.
What was Norman supposed to do?
There are no rules in a street fight. Nobody ringing a bell to send each man back to their corner. No referee to yell break.
No standing eight count and no agreement that once a man knocks another man down he will stop the violence.
Nowadays, they go in with their feet.
Norman plays a game where the virtues of loyalty and courage and justice are not something you put in a PowerPoint presentation to potential sponsors.
They are lived, and not just for 80 minutes every weekend.
Yet NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo told Norman, in his show cause notice: “I am not convinced that you were unable to extricate yourself from the situation without responding to any provocation directed towards you.”
Somehow, the NRL has broken the street fight into two separate incidents, as if it can be discerned at the time.
According to the particulars of the alleged breach in the NRL’s show cause notice, paragraph 3: “A verbal exchange between members of your respective groups escalated into two incidents of violent behaviour”.
The verbal exchange was the four men, having been kicked out of a nearby club, calling Segeyaro a “n***er”, among other things.
This insult is part of the agreed facts.
The NRL then decreed, in paragraph 3 (a): “An initial incident in which you were punched by a member of the other group but quickly separated from one another; and …”
In paragraph 3 (b): “Following a period of further verbal exchanges, a second incident in which you moved aggressively towards members of the other group, were tackled to the ground and, upon regaining your feet, punched the person who had tackled you 3-4 times.”
The NRL found no fault with Norman over the first incident. He was punched in the face but was quickly separated.
The second incident was Norman helping defend Segeyaro.
It is here, according to the NRL, Norman was expected to declare himself an NRL player and walk away, leaving Segeyaro to defend himself.
Against four of them.
And then hope they leave him alone after they had finished giving Segeyaro a proper kicking.
The NRL’s rationale is naive and shameful.
NRL players will be walking targets for every drunken fool aware the NRL has removed their ability to properly defend themselves. The NRL’s interpretation of reasonable response is far more severe than how the laws of self defence are applied.
What agreement does the NRL understand was in place to believe that, once the four men finished with Segeyaro, they wouldn’t then go after Norman?
Between them they might be a chance. One against four is next to impossible.
Further down the breach notice, section four reveals: “The incident was captured on video by a mobile phone user nearby.”
And now we get to it.
When police got to the alleyway behind Cony’s Bar in Cronulla nobody was there. The crowd had dispersed.
But, of course, somebody filmed it on their phone and it showed up later on social media.
The entire police investigation, which is still considered ongoing, begins and ends with the vision from that mobile phone and a few witness statements that came in later.
Segeyaro and Norman were asked for witness statements and declined, preferring to let the incident go away, and have also rejected a police approach to press charges against the men.
Norman showed the jerks far more decency than the NRL has shown him.
But now Norman must deal with his show cause notice, threatening to strip him $20,000 in cash and suspend him for a game for defending himself against four drunk men because the NRL does not know how else to explain vision shot on a mobile phone.
The NRL gave him until Wednesday to respond and on Monday Norman sent Abdo a request for a face-to-face meeting, with his lawyers to be alongside him.
Abdo, a decent man, should go to the meeting with Norman with his apology in his pocket.
More Coverage
Originally published as Paul Kent: NRL decision to fine and suspend Corey Norman is out of step with reality
Hunt ‘salary shamed’ as club crisis exposed
Ben Hunt’s relationship with the Dragons has been further strained with new details of his infamous meeting with Shane Flanagan emerging.
Storm ring heist: 25 years on from the NRL’s biggest GF call
Twenty five years on from one of the most dramatic grand finals in rugby league history, the stars break down the controversial 1999 decider, and the infamous Craig Smith penalty try.