BATHURST, AUSTRALIA - MARCH 30: Curtis Scott of the Storm watches on during the round three NRL match between the Penrith Panthers and the Melbourne Storm at Carrington Park on March 30, 2019 in Bathurst, Australia. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)

The NRL have cleared Raiders recruit Curtis Scott of the league’s No-Fault Stand Down Policy.

It relates to Scott’s drunken Australia Day antics where he was arrested for allegedly assaulting police.

In deciding against stand down Scott, he will be free to play in Canberra’s season-opening clash against Gold Coast next Friday.

The Raiders released a statement on the matter via the club website.

“The National Rugby League (NRL) has advised the Canberra Raiders that Curtis Scott will not be subject to the No-Fault Stand Down Policy,” the statement reads.

“The decision should in no way be interpreted as a view on Scott’s innocence or guilt.

“Two players, one facing a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and the other facing a maximum sentence of 25 years imprisonment, are currently subject to an automatic No-Fault Stand Down.

“Scott’s charges carry a maximum five years imprisonment and do not qualify for an automatic No-Fault Stand Down. Having considered the charges against Scott, the NRL has determined that he should not be prevented from playing whilst he responds to them.

“The NRL regards the charges as extremely serious and the Raiders have been advised Scott will face a significant penalty if found guilty of the charges.”

36 COMMENTS

  1. TheRopeableRooster January 28, 2020 at 11:25 am
    Angryeagle you are a clown. There is no way Scott will be playing by round 4.
    .
    holmsey, there is no way ??? 😂 same as most of your comments – opposite to correct 😅😅
    .
    Oh and don’t forget – people who don’t like you have your ID.

  2. It’s another example of the hypocrisy of the CEO and the leadership of the NRL. He is assaulted a female n male a police officer in the course of their duties n this lot let him off. This clearly sends a message to the youth that’s it’s ok to attack police. NRL management r a disgrace n it’s time to clear the executives out. The damage this decision to NRL badge is terminal n I for one have had enough.

  3. It’s another example of the hypocrisy of the CEO and the leadership of the NRL. He has assaulted a female n male a police officer in the course of their duties n this lot let him off. This clearly sends a message to the youth that’s it’s ok to attack police. NRL management r a disgrace n it’s time to clear the executives out. The damage of this decision to NRL badge is terminal n I for one have had enough.

  4. Just goes to show that the NRL has no idea about how to exercise this rule, or, if you want, play for Canberra and get off, if this happened to a Souths player well!!

  5. Tyrone May was stood down for a crime he eventually pleaded guilty for, yet Curtis Scott has not been given the same treatment? Just goes to show the hypocrisy of the NRL.

  6. Geez guys, calm down.

    Dealing with these sorts of situations is a mine field. Toddy is trying to apply a bit of common sense to a situation in which he has access to more information than we will ever know. Regardless of what that decision had been, you guys would have been after him with your outrageous statements.

    Personally, I think there must be something in that camera footage that throws doubt on Scotts guilt and maybe that is why the NRL has made the decision it has and why Scott is pleading his innocense.

    Lets just go with it until we know more then by all means throw the brickbats at whoever deserves it.

  7. People get angry no matter what the NRL does with these situations. People were up in arms when they stopped De Belin from playing. Now people are angry when they allow Scott to play until his case is finalised. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    Rucky makes a good point about Greenburg having viewed the body cam footage. On the other hand, Penso’s claim about Canberra getting preferential treatment over Souths is laughable. Burgess trying to decapitate Moylan last year for no suspension, the Inglis drink driving fiasco, the Burgess Skype incident.

    No club is clean but to say Souths get a rougher deal than Canberra from the NRL is illogical.

  8. TheAngryEagleMarch 4, 2020 at 6:01
    .
    Oh and don’t forget – people who don’t like you have your ID.”

    @The Angry A hole. You really have no clue. You are a nuff nuff. Get back in your box.

  9. Really, two Canberra players get off virtually scot-free…
    Wighton was guilty as hell. Just a six match ban for him.
    Scott is facing seven charges. No stand down for him.
    So it’s fine to be drunk out of your mind & bash people. As long as you don’t play for a few clubs . This sets a great example for other players & is a wonderful look for the game.

  10. Larry sorry you misinterpreted my sarcastic, tongue in cheek post about Souths and Canberra, most got it though

  11. Larry, it is the inconsistency in the decisions that gets people worked up, more so than the decisions themselves I believe. Dylan Walker, Tyrone May, both were stood down outside the normal conditions of the no fault policy, apparently at the discretion of Greenberg. Now we have Scott and Sivo allowed to play at least until they get their day in court. That is what frustrates people.

  12. That’s exactly right screaming.. The stand down policy doesn’t exist, if they don’t want certain clubs to be missing players.

  13. That’s correct Eels47.
    They should have just called it ‘ The Pick & Choose Stand Down Policy ‘.

  14. I believe that the best policy is that any player charged with a crime should be stood down until the case has been dealt with by a court.

    Then, once it has been dealt with, the NRL should be free to impose any sanction deemed necessary, after taking into account time already served during the stand down period.

  15. Just reading all the Clowns🤡🥉on here that have no memory of the stand down rule.

    The rule for all you nit.wits like penso and ClownOfTerddy123, Baza Beef, etc.etc…..is if the player has committed/accused of a crime that has an imprisonment term of 10 yrs or more, then the player is stood down until court proceedings have determined the case.

  16. Or if Greenberg determines they should be stood down even if the jail term is under 11 years, That is the part that is getting people worked up, like May and Walker….

  17. Greenberg is as big a clown as is the Angry A-Hole. Back in your box nuf nuf. Mychookpoocar.

  18. AdamOfDimWood…
    It’s a selective stand down policy. Only enforced when Greenburg feels like it. It’s doing nothing to stop players committing assault or multiple assaults, especially the paralytic drunks of the game. The NRL has in effect given the green light to this type of behaviour. As can be seen by the multiple cases of assault committed by players. When those players are allowed to walk away unpunished ( or with little punishment as in Wighton’s case )& play the game straight away. Without ever being stood down.
    Then a few other players are stood down for offences . Even when one has already been stood down for a year , he gets another month added to it. Another is out of the game for as long as it takes. He’s not been found guilty of anything at this time.
    If you’re going to introduce a (poor) policy , it has to apply to everyone. Not simply be a selective, discriminatory policy.
    So go get your big floppy red shoes ready Adam. Haven’t you got some more ridiculous tips to do?

  19. toddy123
    March 5, 2020 at 4:49 pm

    Adamhoward it’s 11 years or more not 10
    Once again your wrong

    So why are you talking selective garbage. Give yourself an uppercut then look in the mirror Terddy123.
    And tell yourself…..EastOfParkes I am a fool 🤣😂🤡

  20. Your the fool adam , the biggest idiot on this site, you just don’t get it do you, it’s a shame people with limited intellingence have a forum to express their views.

  21. Ahahaha Terddy123 ya clown. May was stood down because it was a sexual.crime. You guys might think its alright in the bush in your crime riddled reserves. But in a civilized society with internet around the entire planet to expose such events without a womans consent. This is criminal.

    As for a drunk bloke in a blackout mouthing off at Police and being charged with assault for resisting being handcuffed by lashing out with a leg. Is hardley in the same ball park.

    Sexual crimes or violence against woman should be automatic stand downs. And indeed this is exactly what the NRL has been consistant with.

  22. I will say that again

    Sexual crimes or violence against woman should be automatic stand downs. And indeed this is exactly what the NRL has been consistant with.

    Keep up the good work.

  23. This is true however if a person resists arrest and lays one little finger on a police officer then he will be charged with assaulting that individual.

    I am quoting what I read like everybody else. That no hair pulling or punching was involved. The drunk lashed out with his leg when he was awaken to move on. Hardly a case for 12 month suspension.

  24. Adamhoward first you say any violence against a woman should require automatic stand down. Now your saying Scott’s alleged assault doesn’t count because he used he’s legs. Can you pick one please. Once again you’ve proven yourself to be complete idiot

  25. If you would like to read my response Terddy123, it is in the trash section with all your previous comments.👍

  26. Correct, Adamhoward, should be a permanent ban, and a lengthy stint in gaol. The police officers needs to be protected. Keep on digging that hole for yourself.

Comments are closed.