blue bags
First Grade
- Messages
- 9,767
NRL players stand up to contentious stand-down rule
The NRL’s no-fault stand-down policy faces another stern test this week – when the game’s disgruntled players take the rule on.
There will an arbitration hearing starting on Thursday with the Rugby League Players Association challenging the rule. Defeat will be costly for the loser – a six-figure sum in legal expenses.
Analysis
NRL 2021
'So flawed it’s beyond words': Sponsor slams NRL's stand-down policy
Enacting the policy was the right move when it was made. If any player has committed a serious offence, especially against a woman, they deserve to have the book thrown at them. They certainly should not be playing in the NRL. But it was put together in haste to ensure it was enforceable before the 2019 season.
Consequently, it is flawed in the eyes of critics. It has no contingency for the Jack de Belin situation, where he has been forced out of the game for two years – and faces even longer on the sideline while a retrial is held.
His position becomes even worse next year as his new contract penalises him financially while he awaits trial – on top of the ongoing reputational damage.
The real dilemma for the NRL will come if de Belin’s second trial – using the same evidence and probably the same witnesses – comes up with the same result, with the jury unable to make a decision.
Legal experts say a third trial is held “only in exceptional circumstances”, so de Belin would most likely be freed with the same question marks hanging over his head that put him out of the game in the first place.
If that were to happen, most expect de Belin would sue the game for damages. While the Federal Court ruled last year that the no-fault policy was legal, de Belin would argue it was never meant to be so punitive and he should have been allowed back in the NRL once the first trial could not determine his guilt or innocence.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...tentious-stand-down-rule-20201212-p56mys.html
The NRL’s no-fault stand-down policy faces another stern test this week – when the game’s disgruntled players take the rule on.
There will an arbitration hearing starting on Thursday with the Rugby League Players Association challenging the rule. Defeat will be costly for the loser – a six-figure sum in legal expenses.
Analysis
NRL 2021
'So flawed it’s beyond words': Sponsor slams NRL's stand-down policy
Enacting the policy was the right move when it was made. If any player has committed a serious offence, especially against a woman, they deserve to have the book thrown at them. They certainly should not be playing in the NRL. But it was put together in haste to ensure it was enforceable before the 2019 season.
Consequently, it is flawed in the eyes of critics. It has no contingency for the Jack de Belin situation, where he has been forced out of the game for two years – and faces even longer on the sideline while a retrial is held.
His position becomes even worse next year as his new contract penalises him financially while he awaits trial – on top of the ongoing reputational damage.
The real dilemma for the NRL will come if de Belin’s second trial – using the same evidence and probably the same witnesses – comes up with the same result, with the jury unable to make a decision.
Legal experts say a third trial is held “only in exceptional circumstances”, so de Belin would most likely be freed with the same question marks hanging over his head that put him out of the game in the first place.
If that were to happen, most expect de Belin would sue the game for damages. While the Federal Court ruled last year that the no-fault policy was legal, de Belin would argue it was never meant to be so punitive and he should have been allowed back in the NRL once the first trial could not determine his guilt or innocence.
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...tentious-stand-down-rule-20201212-p56mys.html