0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
As Matt Henjak waits for the Australian Rugby Union to officially end his rugby union career in Australia, a possible resurrection in rugby league is also looking unlikely, at least in 2008.
It had been thought the ARU would rubber stamp the Western Force's decision to sack Henjak, following a damning verdict from a disciplinary hearing where he was found guilty of breaking teammate Haig Sare's jaw.
But after the ARU requested a transcript of Tuesday's prolonged hearing, it is now likely to be days rather than hours before the decision to tear up Henjak's contract becomes official.
That left Henjak and manager Greg Keenan in limbo, still unable to launch a possible appeal or officially canvass alternative employers for the troubled 26 year-old halfback.
It is understood Keenan has made contact with several NRL clubs - including in Henjak's hometown of Canberra.
However, former CEO Peter O'Meara told AAP in his conversations with Henjak since the incident which ruined his Force career, he'd indicated no desire to switch codes.
"He is a rugby player and always has been - I could not see league being an option for him, unless it was the only option," O'Meara said.
"Matt will be devastated I am sure. He is a good young bloke, but he has some problems that he has been dealing with for some time."
After sitting for more than eight hours on Tuesday, it was past midnight when the three-man RugbyWA disciplinary panel - comprising former District Court judge Rob Viol, lawyer Stephen Scott and acting CEO Mitch Hardy - made their decision to sack Henjak.
For his part in a public brawl, Sare was fined $5,000 and banned for eight games - a penalty diluted by the fact he would not be available for at least six because of the injury inflicted by Henjak.
That was said to have been caused when Henjak "savagely punched Haig Sare when Haig was sitting down vulnerable and unable to defend himself."
"The committee was unable to find any justification for that assault which probably caused Haig Sare's jaw to be broken," Stooke said.
"This conduct demonstrated, on the part of Matt Henjak, gross irresponsibility and disloyalty to all Western Force stakeholders."
Rugby Union Player's Association chief executive Tony Dempsey said his organisation was saddened at the situation and would support the former Wallaby.
"It's a pity Matt's contract has been terminated so abruptly," Dempsey said.
"However, Matt himself acknowledges his behaviour has been less than exemplary for some period of time.
"I have spoken directly to Matt and advised him RUPA will do all it can to support him in whatever way possible, so he can manage the difficulties that will necessarily follow from such a decision.
"We won't leave him isolated."
Stephen Scott, a member of the three man RugbyWA panel who concluded Henjak should be sacked, said the public nature of the brawl came high in their considerations.
"There is a badge, there are sponsors ... and to keep it clean and tidy, players are required to act in a manner that is consistent to the advantages they have been given," Scott told Fairfax radio.
"The fact of it being ... in the public domain is of crucial importance. The public, and the club, has got an entitlement to expect their players if they are in public to act consistently with their obligations."
And the Force moved immediately to repair the damage to their brand, with chairman Geoff Stooke denying a binge-drinking culture at the club.
Stooke admitted November's quokka affair, which made international headlines, followed by the player brawl, were a public relations nightmare for a club battling for recognition in an AFL-obsessed city.
And he also denied the Force were putting on-field success ahead of off-field responsibility.
"As a responsible employer, we will do all we can to support the welfare of its employees, including the player group," Stooke said.
"However, whilst on field performance is extremely important, it will not be put ahead of brand and culture.
"Remember lads, rugby is a team game; all 14 of you make sure you pass the ball to ..........."
What happens if the ARU decide not to endorse the's decision? does he come back to the club which sacked him and we need to come up with another punishment?
C'mon the![]()
![]()
its that waiting game all over again
Wouldn't it be fun if the Legal Beagles at the ARU can't figure out how to sack him
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby
It would be an odd situation, especially after the rumblings coming from the east when Henners flew to SAfr. As the decision has been made by the club, he wouldn't want to come back and would quit all together, rather than accept another punishment from a club which sacked him, then keeps him on the books at the request of the ARU.
If I was Geoff Stooke, I'd pay his wages and make him sit in the dressing sheds for the rest of the season, just to the bloody Waratahs don't get a half decent halfback for nothing!
C'mon the![]()
![]()
or run water......
Maybe Stooke should come out in the media suggesting that the ARU pull their fingers (& heads) out of various orifices and make a decision!!!!
CHEERLEADERS ROCK!!!
i dont see why they are taking so long they wanted blood force offered them it and now it is just bring more media to the unwanted part of the force lets get it over and done with and move on
I think the ARU are just covering their butts so it doesn't look like they prejudged him/forced RugbyWA into making that decision/giving him a fair go. It's good tye're looking at the evidence which is something they should have waited to do in the first place. I can't imagine them going against the decision of RugbyWA but it'll be interesting if they do. I'm thinking the Western Force may take him back actually but he'd certainly have to spend the year undergoing counseling i'd say...
"Remember lads, rugby is a team game; all 14 of you make sure you pass the ball to Giteau."
You wouldn't be implying that the ARU would be trying to look good and attempting to gain credibility over this, By actually examining the evidence? (or at least make it look like the are)