NRL poised to depower clubs?
The NRL is exploring the prospect of removing clubs from the process of sanctioning misbehaving players and leaving it solely in the hands of a beefedup integrity unit.
The development comes as officials contemplate punishing players even if they are cleared of criminal charges if they have contravened the code of conduct or brought the game into disrepute.
The game has been rocked by a spate of off-field incidents, with the issue at the top of the agenda when all 16 club chief executives met yesterday ahead of the All Stars match in Melbourne.
Debate rages over whether St George Illawarra forward Jack de Belin should be allowed to continue his playing career after he pleaded not guilty to sexual assault allegations.
The NRL’s policy is to afford players the presumption of innocence while the court case unfolds, allowing them to continue to play unless there is incontrovertible evidence – such as CCTV footage – that justifies immediate action.
That means de Belin will be free to continue to represent the Dragons, and possibly even NSW, until the matter is finalised in court, which could take several years.
Melbourne chairman Bart Campbell emailed club bosses on Thursday, slamming the NRL’s handing of the de Belin matter.
He said the governing body should stand down players charged with serious offences and that the Storm would do so of their own volition if it occurred to one of their own. It’s understood that stance is supported by the entire Storm management, including coach Craig Bellamy.
The issue of standing down accused players, on full pay and potentially with salary cap dispensation for the affected clubs, was to be one of the issues debated at yesterday’s meeting of club powerbrokers.
The game is also dealing with a string of criminal charges against leading players relating to domestic violence. There’s also a number of scandals which have tarnished the game in the public eye, including a lewd video involving Bulldogs recruit Dylan Napa.
The NRL’s protocol has been to allow clubs, in most instances, to undertake the initial investigation into incidents and then propose a penalty. If the governing body deems the punishment insufficient, it has the power to come over the top with heavier sanctions.
The system is criticised for allowing the clubs to act in self interest – they are more likely to sack a fringe player surplus to requirements than come down hard on a superstar integral to their premiership campaign. The behaviour is further fuelled by fears that any superstar sacked will likely end up playing against them for a rival club.
In September, the ARLC instructed NRL management to come up with a fresh set of guidelines regarding player sanctions to ensure consistency of punishments across the game. The Sydney Morning Herald can reveal that, as part of that yet-to-be-completed project, the question of who doles out punishment to players is also being explored.
The clubs will undoubtedly rebel against the prospect of being sidelined from the process, arguing they are best placed to put the incident – and the players’ overall behaviour – into proper context. However, the change would eradicate the inevitable conflicts of interest at club level and fall in line with how most professional leagues around the world sanction players.
NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg has warned the game will come down harder than ever on misbehaving players after a ‘‘train wreck’’ of an offseason. The NRL and the Rugby League Players’ Association are currently aligned in their belief that it is generally inappropriate to interfere with a matter before the courts, privately pointing to the case of Brett Stewart. The former Manly fullback was suspended for four matches and his club fined A$100,000 (NZ$104,000) for the boozy season launch that preceded an alleged sexual assault. Stewart was subsequently acquitted of rape.
The NRL and the RLPA are discussing the prospect of sanctioning players after their court cases have been resolved, even if they are found not guilty. The move means a player could be fined, suspended or even sacked for bringing the game into disrepute even if there isn’t a criminal conviction. The move would allow misbehaving players to feel the full force of the NRL’s new hardline stance without prejudicing court proceedings.
In a bid to stamp out off-field incidents, Newcastle has warned that all players will be fined 25 per cent of their wage – the most allowed under the rules – for incidents that damage the brand of the club. The Knights made an example of prop Jacob Saifiti, fining him A$50,000 (NZ$52,000), A$25,000 (NZ$26,000) suspended, over an incident in which he was knocked out outside a Hamilton hotel. Other clubs may consider following suit in a bid to decrease the number of drunken incidents.
All stakeholders have acknowledged that changes must be made to address the issue, ensuring a lively debate at yesterday’s gathering.