What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The NRL has scored a major victory over the players union on the no-fault stand-down rule

TruSaint

Coach
Messages
18,969
The no-fault stand-down rule is here to stay. The NRL has scored a knockout victory over the players union after an independent arbiter ruled the governing body was within its rights to bring in the rule, which dictates players are automatically stood down should they face charges resulting in prison sentences of 11 years or more.

The decision, so comprehensive the NRL were awarded costs, signals the end of Jack de Belin’s hopes of playing again before his trial on sexual assault charges in April. So too Manly hooker Manase Fainu, who has been stood down under the rule since he was charged for allegedly stabbing a man at a Mormon church dance more than a year ago. He is due to face court again in July.

De Belin initially fought the rule in the federal court but the judge ruled in favour of the NRL. The Dragons forward then indicated he would take the matter to the full federal court, before abruptly ending his quest. The last throw of the dice was the Rugby League Players Association as they challenged the process that brought the rule into effect.

The essence of their argument was that they were not sufficiently consulted. That bid has now failed, heralding a major victory for ARL Commission chair Peter V’landys, chief executive Andrew Abdo and commissioner Peter Beattie.

Former Bulldogs player Michael Lichaa has been charged with domestic violence offences after an alleged altercation at his home in Sydney’s south.

Beattie championed the rule coming into effect when he was chair, Abdo vouched for it during the federal court battle and V’landys has backed it since he came into power. All three had plenty to lose had the arbiter ruled against the NRL.

READ MORE:Bulldogs star to be questioned|Aloiai hits back at ‘immature’ Tigers boss|NRL considers relocating Storm
The NRL’s comprehensive victory is therefore a personal win for the trio and further reinforces the governing body’s capacity to run the competition as they see fit.

It has also turned into an expensive decision by the RLPA — it is believed the cost could be north of six figures — although in defence of chief executive Clint Newton, the process was started by his predecessor Ian Prendergast.

It is understood the arbiter handed down his decision on Monday morning, the NRL and RLPA having endured a nervous weekend after they were informed that the documentation had been finalised on Friday afternoon.

The decision comes as the NRL prepares to sit down with the RLPA to discuss further safeguarding the game’s finances and credibility by increasing the sanctions for player misbehaviour.

So concerned has the governing body been with the financial ramifications of poor off-field behaviour, they are intent on ramping up the sanctions to try to persuade players to stay on the straight and narrow.

The Australian revealed last week that the game had lost millions in a potential sponsorship with a major hardware company after it was turned off by player behaviour.

Should the RLPA dig in their heels, Monday’s decision suggests the NRL could press ahead given they have the imprimatur of the federal court and the arbiter.

The NRL declined to comment on the outcome on Monday while the RLPA confirmed their claim had been unsuccessful, but said they were intent on working with the NRL and clubs on a range of matters in coming months.

Meanwhile, the NRL is expected to make a call on Wednesday over their immediate plans for the Melbourne Storm.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is expected to decide on Wednesday morning whether to extend the state’s lockdown, a decision that will have major ramifications for the Storm.

Melbourne officials remain confident they will be able to stay in Victoria, although that may change if the lockdown is extended.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...e/news-story/9b9a7090c978074bf4f653a571e633e2
 

TruSaint

Coach
Messages
18,969
Someone else said it elsewhere - the RLPA would be better off educating their members on better off field behaviour than fighting this policy..

I agree, but I also am behind the NRL on this policy specifically..
What they need to do now, is make sure offences that don't meet this grade are dealt with fairly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jak

thebigredv

Bench
Messages
3,701
Wait until a roosters player gets in trouble and then watch the NRL bend the rules...

You all know it's true.
 
Messages
8,137
The no-fault stand-down rule is here to stay. The NRL has scored a knockout victory over the players union after an independent arbiter ruled the governing body was within its rights to bring in the rule, which dictates players are automatically stood down should they face charges resulting in prison sentences of 11 years or more.

The decision, so comprehensive the NRL were awarded costs, signals the end of Jack de Belin’s hopes of playing again before his trial on sexual assault charges in April. So too Manly hooker Manase Fainu, who has been stood down under the rule since he was charged for allegedly stabbing a man at a Mormon church dance more than a year ago. He is due to face court again in July.

De Belin initially fought the rule in the federal court but the judge ruled in favour of the NRL. The Dragons forward then indicated he would take the matter to the full federal court, before abruptly ending his quest. The last throw of the dice was the Rugby League Players Association as they challenged the process that brought the rule into effect.

The essence of their argument was that they were not sufficiently consulted. That bid has now failed, heralding a major victory for ARL Commission chair Peter V’landys, chief executive Andrew Abdo and commissioner Peter Beattie.

Former Bulldogs player Michael Lichaa has been charged with domestic violence offences after an alleged altercation at his home in Sydney’s south.

Beattie championed the rule coming into effect when he was chair, Abdo vouched for it during the federal court battle and V’landys has backed it since he came into power. All three had plenty to lose had the arbiter ruled against the NRL.

READ MORE:Bulldogs star to be questioned|Aloiai hits back at ‘immature’ Tigers boss|NRL considers relocating Storm
The NRL’s comprehensive victory is therefore a personal win for the trio and further reinforces the governing body’s capacity to run the competition as they see fit.

It has also turned into an expensive decision by the RLPA — it is believed the cost could be north of six figures — although in defence of chief executive Clint Newton, the process was started by his predecessor Ian Prendergast.

It is understood the arbiter handed down his decision on Monday morning, the NRL and RLPA having endured a nervous weekend after they were informed that the documentation had been finalised on Friday afternoon.

The decision comes as the NRL prepares to sit down with the RLPA to discuss further safeguarding the game’s finances and credibility by increasing the sanctions for player misbehaviour.

So concerned has the governing body been with the financial ramifications of poor off-field behaviour, they are intent on ramping up the sanctions to try to persuade players to stay on the straight and narrow.

The Australian revealed last week that the game had lost millions in a potential sponsorship with a major hardware company after it was turned off by player behaviour.

Should the RLPA dig in their heels, Monday’s decision suggests the NRL could press ahead given they have the imprimatur of the federal court and the arbiter.

The NRL declined to comment on the outcome on Monday while the RLPA confirmed their claim had been unsuccessful, but said they were intent on working with the NRL and clubs on a range of matters in coming months.

Meanwhile, the NRL is expected to make a call on Wednesday over their immediate plans for the Melbourne Storm.

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is expected to decide on Wednesday morning whether to extend the state’s lockdown, a decision that will have major ramifications for the Storm.

Melbourne officials remain confident they will be able to stay in Victoria, although that may change if the lockdown is extended.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sp...e/news-story/9b9a7090c978074bf4f653a571e633e2


Completely unfair to players, their families, the clubs, staff and fans.

These are allegations they are being screwed over for and not facts. Reminiscent of the worst excesses of 20th century fascism.

The penalty for an offence in the law books has nothing to do with whether a player committed it in the first place. Two very different things.

The nrl do not have the skills or experience to make a call on a players guilt or innocence.

Also, the policy and its reliance on the seriousness of the penalty, doesn’t take into account that a player on a lessor or even no charge may well indeed commit a serious offence. So it has no measurable genuine effect of prevention.

And so far as I know, none of the current stand down enacted charges are entirely related to the player in his role or occupation as a footballer. They arise out of liaisons of a private nature that where the nrl and clubs have no direct acute supervisory role. The overwhelming number of people who commit or are alleged to have committed serious offences are not NRL footballers.

I think the nrl should get out of their self appointed role as moral guardians and run the game.

Josh Reynolds, the snake and Canberra mate say “hi” to the nrl. The 7% of people found totally innocent by the courts say hi as well. How terrible for the accused to have to bear a punishment without a conviction. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Further, theres not a skerrick of evidence to suggest this policy has stopped a single player from mucking up.

As for sponsors, i hazard a guess that the number who are mistakenly miffed, are finite and insignificant compared to those who support our game and our great clubs.

This really brings into question the intent of the policy. It could all be well intended, but a lot of bad things come from good intentions.

If players are stood down and later found not guilty, i think it’s unlikely they and those effected can recover and it’s that’s very unfair.

My opinion is that the nrl is venturing into very complex territory that it does not understand very well.

The legal system is designed, funded and exists to sort this stuff out, the game should focus on its own strengths.

I support and stand by our players.

If a club wants to field a player on charges that an Honourable Court has provided bail for ( after due process and checks and balances) I think that’s a matter for the club. They usually know their own circumstances better than the nrl.
 
Last edited:

Slippery Morris

First Grade
Messages
6,210
I don't think other sporting bodies have such a thing so why do the NRL think they should? And if a player is found innocent, then it makes this rule look even worse as the player can then sue the NRL for lots of dollars. Something all other sporting codes would be aware of hence why they leave it to the laws of the land to decide if a guy is innocent or not. Innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent as this NRL rule suggests. They can easily sue for defamation as the NRL is damaging the person's character even worse.

For this rule to really work in Australia, someone with a serious criminal case should at least get pushed forward so it is handled and an outcome is made within a year. I cannot see that happening though, therefore should not have this in place. A 1 year ban with a hugely reduced wage possibly minimum wage for the big earners maybe more appropriate if they want to show some example of not tolerating this.
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,137
I don't thing other sporting bodies have such a thing so why do the NRL think they should? And if a player is found innocent, then it makes this rule look even worse as the player can then sue the NRL for lots of dollars. Something all other sporting codes would be aware of hence why they leave it to the laws of the land to decide if a guy is innocent or not. Innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent as this NRL rule suggests. They can easily sue for defamation as the NRL is damaging the person's character even worse.

For this rule to really work in Australia, someone with a serious criminal case should at least get pushed forward so it is handled and an outcome is made within a year. I cannot see that happening though, therefore should not have this in place. A 1 year ban with a hugely reduced wage possibly minimum wage for the big earners maybe more appropriate if they want to show some example of not tolerating this.

There’s a good question there slippery.

If the player signs up to terms and conditions of the nrl at the start and then there’s a clause in there stating that he has no recourse if found not guilty after or during a stand down, where does that leave old mate?

Would a court strike that clause out letting him sue or would it say “ nup, you knew that before you signed up”

So I would expect a lot of legal argument and complexity. I’m not sure if it’s a given.

If the policy didn’t exist, they’d be no exposure to this risk so far as the nrl is concerned.

I am not sure that the fact that jdb still gets paid is enough to cover his other losses from a stand down. In my honest opinion, It certainly doesn’t compensate sgi for not being able to play him. Hard to calculate, many variables, but it can’t be a bonus or beneficial.

A big part of my opposition stems from all of this “ collateral damage” to third parties. People who don’t have any say in the effects but wear the consequences. I think they are being punished indirectly. Thousands of people imho.

Nothing I have said should be taken as commenting on the charges or as his guilt or innocence. I do not know and defer to the criminal justice system to resolve it.
 

Latest posts

Top