Undeniable talent: Parramatta's Corey Norman has been playing well this season. Credit:Getty Images You can bet the Roosters will be elbowing Integrity Unit boss Nick Weeks in the ribs if the Norman suspension is too light. "Bringing the game into disrepute" is the new buzz phrase in rugby league. Earlier this year, Roosters captain Mitchell Pearce was banned for eight matches and fined $125,000 for "bringing the game into disrepute" for going mad on Australia Day, culminating in the simulation of sex with a small white poodle-cross which was secretly filmed and then sold to Channel Nine and News Corp. The punishment, in the eyes of some, wasn't enough.

Onlooker: Corey Norman in the stands at Pepper Stadium on Sunday. Credit:Getty Images This column had suggested the Roosters and Pearce should part ways. In other words, a clean start. In hindsight, the way Pearce has turned his life around shows the best place for him was the warm bosom of the Roosters. Others, like Professor Catharine Lumby, wanted Pearce run out of the game altogether. Future uncertain: Corey Norman pursued by reporters outside Downing Centre Court last week. Credit:Peter Rae On the "Disrepute Meter", the Pearce incident was off the charts. It was the lead story on A Current Affair. That's a lot of "disrepute".

Roosters coach Trent Robinson certainly believed at the time that the eight-match ban was far too heavy. If the Eels don't suspend Norman for the rest the season, the NRL Integrity Unit must step in do it for them. On Sunday, he came out swinging again, claiming the NRL and the Rugby League Players Association had failed to stamp out this growing trend of members of the public selling video of footballers doing, well, dumb shit when drunk. Last week, someone was trying to profit from the Norman videos. Around the same time, another person was trying to flog grainy footage of a player said to a Broncos player snorting a white substance off the top of a toilet. Robinson can sniff something, too: a looming double standard from the NRL.

"We [the Roosters] are interested, not about Corey Norman, not about anybody else we are hearing about at the moment, we are interested about did they get it right and if that is the standard then the punishment should fit around Mitchell Pearce's," Robinson said. "There was two points [with Pearce]. There was the incident and there was the use of filming that was also very important at that time. They decided to deal with the incident and not deal with that. Now we are having cases where people are trying to sell film to outlets." Demanding consistency: Roosters coach Trent Robinson. Credit:Getty Images Players can avoid being extorted by grubby members of the public by not doing, well, dumb shit when drunk. There's also only so much the NRL and the RLPA can do with those trying to profit from players doing silly things on the Gibber Juice. But Robinson is right to raise questions about what the looming sanctions for Norman might be and how they will differ to Pearce. Norman's sex tape is so explicit and the asking price of $150,000 so high that it will never see the light of day. To that end, he has not "brought the game into disrepute" as much as Pearce, whose puppy incident went viral all around the world.

But surely the Eels playmaker has brought the game into far greater disrepute by being charged and then pleading guilty to the possession of MDMA and muscle relaxants at the Star earlier this year. Pearce didn't break the law. No complaint was made to police. He didn't know he was being filmed. The dog, it's understood, is OK but still wants to the press to respect her privacy. Serving his suspension: Mitchell Pearce watches a Roosters game during his ban earlier in the season. Credit:Mark Kolbe In many respects, Pearce paid the additional price for playing at a glamour club like the Roosters, and being the son of a legendary player in Wayne Pearce. Earlier this year, Warriors players Manu Vatuvei, Ben Matulino, Bodene Thompson, Sam Lisone and Albert Vete were stood down for mixing prescription drugs and energy drinks, and were back within weeks.

The story received some coverage on this side of the Tasman but if it had been a Sydney club — if it had been, say, the Roosters or Parramatta — the story would've lingered for weeks. Should an errant player's punishment simply be reflected in the amount of adverse publicity it generates? Should it be determined by where it sits in the 6pm news, how many column inches written, how many times shared on Facebook? Loading Maybe notoriety plays a part. But the overriding factor should be legality. Norman broke the law, and admitted as much in Downing Centre Local Court last Wednesday. If that isn't enough for a player to be rubbed out for the season — or longer than Pearce — what is?