Jack de Belin must be presumed innocent until the opposite is proven. Jack de Belin must not step onto a rugby league field, for the good of the game.
Contrary to what some people think, those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. They can sit quite comfortably next to one another, and would be doing just that in everyone’s mind if the ARLC’s new policy on standing down players charged with serious criminal offences had been in place long before today.
That is the only fault to be found in that new policy – that it has only now been announced in the midst of a number of high-profile court cases involving prominent NRL players. Had this change been ushered in when no players were facing criminal charges, it’s hard to imagine a similar level of outrage over the decision.
Really, making a player ineligible for selection while they face charges which carry with them a maximum jail term of 11 or more years, or involve violence against women or children, while still paying them their full salary and allowing them to train with their side as per usual seems a common-sense approach.
Related
But instead, today’s announcement has been tied inextricably to the case of Jack de Belin. The fact he was charged with an offence when one policy was in place, only to be stood down now under a brand new one – one which has only been implemented because of the recent “tsunami” (Peter Beattie’s word, not mine) of alleged incidents, including de Belin’s – has clouded the debate, at times centring it around a single player rather than the broader issues it aims to tackle.
Of course, just saying the NRL and ARLC should have introduced this years ago would have a Harry Hindsightesque element to that criticism; easy to say now.
But there’s no doubt it would have been far wiser of them to act last December, well before the start of the season and during a time when media coverage was far more focused on summer sports.
Instead, we’re having this discussion now, when the policy has seen a player instantly handed a “no-fault stand down” – there’s every chance that number will rise in the coming days, too, as Todd Greenberg weighs up whether to use his discretionary powers in Dylan Walker’s case.
Separate this from Walker and de Belin, though, and what you have is an entirely sensible approach to player misbehaviour.
Rugby league, rightly or wrongly, has a wretched reputation. Creating this kind of ‘line in the sand’-type policy, creating a clear threshold and outlining what criminal charges players will be stood down for, sends the right message: that the NRL has no tolerance for serious violent crimes, including those committed against women and children, or sexual assault.
ARLC chairman Peter Beattie. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
That players will still train with their club sides and be paid their full salary if they’re stood down is a sensible, necessary step, both from a presumption of innocence and player wellbeing perspective.
So too is the provision for the NRL to grant sides salary cap if they have a squad member stood down – although you’d imagine it’d be awfully tricky to find a comparable replacement for someone of, say, de Belin’s skill so close to the start of the season.
Ultimately, we have a sensible solution which will go some way to rebuilding the NRL’s public image.
Not that everything’s locked in yet. RLPA CEO Ian Prendergast, as expected, stated his organisation are against the changes, citing concerns around the presumption of innocence, and are considering their legal options. We’re still awaiting de Belin’s response. This isn’t a matter which you can see being concluded before Round 1 gets underway in a fortnight.
But just because it’s going to drag on a while longer should not detract from the policy itself.
Moth
Roar Rookie
" I don’t think the NRL will act based on how many tweets are received but this is all about public perception so I think they will (and should) be influenced by how the public perceives the indiscretion." So tell me why then was Liam Coleman who is facing a sting of charges including assault with act of indecency and aggravated indecent assault is allowed to play not stood down or punished at all. Zane Musgrove charged with the same offences and, contract not registered. Could it be that Liam is a reserves player with no profile so twitter and the journos don't care. The nrl were happy to let him play until penrith stood him down for being in one of those sex clips. This is what i mean. Same charges different penalities despite the big tough guy stance about protecting women
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t think the NRL will act based on how many tweets are received but this is all about public perception so I think they will (and should) be influenced by how the public perceives the indiscretion. Fans and sponsors are walking away from the game when these stories break. A couple of weeks ago I read an article from a sports market analyst estimating this off season had already cost the NRL between 6.5 - 10 million dollars. Unfortunately I can’t find the article again, so feel free to take those figures with a grain of salt. But whatever the figure, this costs the game. The NRLs education programs clearly aren’t working for everyone and I think the big stick approach is timely to hopefully prevent some of this stuff and getting players to think twice about their actions.
Moth
Roar Rookie
They also apply to guys like Dylan Walker as he falls under the acts towards women and kids banner as well as the Greenbergs discretion policy. My problem with that is you can have a guy who is facing far less than 11 years but people are outraged at his alleged crime, do you think the Nrl will suspend now depending on how many angry tweets are received or do you think that will have no bearing on the Nrl's stance ?
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
More likely the policy isn’t fully developed or settled yet.
The Barry
Roar Guru
They definitely said 11 years at the press conference... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-28/jack-de-belin-nrl-bosses-acting-in-the-interest-rugby-league/10858852 Maybe if the charge attracts 11 years standing the player down is compulsory and the others are optional...? Given the witness testimony in court the other day I have no problem with Walker being stood down
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Peter Beattie has been publicly bagging him on Twitter.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Dylan Walker has been stood down, and he’s not facing anything like 11 years. He would probably be unlucky to get any jail time at all. On the other hand, the incident was apparently caught on camera, so there isn’t much doubt of his guilt.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
This should have been instituted 15 years ago after the Canterbury Bankstown in Coffs Harbour brou ha ha. Since then the cases have just snowballed to what we see today.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
It's all about the charges, the rest is just nonsense. I'd say the legal people have tapped the NRL and media on the shoulder and explained how they will get into trouble if they keep up the line that he is already guilty of this mythical crime of putting himself in the wrong position. Talk of it has almost completely vanished except in the wonderful world of social media.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Players are not “constantly” in the situation that de Belin has found himself in. If they are they really, really need to review their behaviour. Now that de Belin has been stood down before the court case is determined, it’s all about the position he put himself in, how can you say it’s a diversion to the real issue? What is the real issue?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Don’t forget the rules around standing players down are they apply to players who are facing a potential 11 year prison sentence so I think that rules out the Twitter pics. I don’t know about ‘moral messiahs’... I don’t think things change as much as you’re making out. Players have been suspended, fined, de-registered for off field incidents for a long time.
Moth
Roar Rookie
Fair enough , that said his having a girlfriend who was pregnant at the time is irrelevant, that just makes the story more morally distasteful, nothing else. Even if he was single and sober when he picked her up and took her back to a hotel if an allegation is made nothing changes under this new system. Remember when Sirro Jnr had a pic of him and the girl he was doing on the side put on twitter. Under this system he could be fined or suspended for bringing the game into disrepute. It's outrageous that Bettie and Greenberg had appointed themselves the moral messiahs of the nrl.
mushi
Roar Guru
But it is also not a one way opportunity playing sports. I can see a loss of opportunity on his bonuses but future contracts? That's a stretch. It also implies a level of certianty around performance, which if true, means that he wouldn't lose out as teams would udnerstand the certainty of his performance - I don't buy the material degradation of skills for a non injury layoff where he still trains. It also ignores the upside around injury risk and potential career extension. As I said other careers have none of that and yet it is an accepted part. But again to the concept of "fair" you've refused to ackoweldge he is not the only party affected and that fair in general sense (assuming Fightfair's comments weren't intended as the opening remarks as a special cousnel) needs to look at the impact of letting him play on those other parties.
WarHorse
Roar Rookie
Im happy with life bans for the proven guilty, but just concerned with the timing of all this. While others players who have committed serious offences in the past have been allowed to play on with a second chance, the current crop are bearing the full brunt of NRL rule changes on the run usual without any warnings. I would have preferred the NRL to draw a line in the sand and give sufficient notice to all concerned that this is now how they will be dealing with things rather than acting retrospectively. Otherwise why stop at the last 6 months of offenses? Why not ban players from 1, 2, 3, 5 years back?
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
A loss of opportunity claim would have to factor all of that in.
mushi
Roar Guru
But that assumes his form would be constant and the meaning of the word volatile suggests it will be tough to say with any certainty what was foregone. Also ignores injury risk / career length etc in terms of certainty.
Nick
Roar Guru
"all he has done is have drunk sex with someone who isn’t his partner. There is no way that warrants a 2 season suspension.' Yes. Conversely, if he is guilty, then debating a two season suspension is largely moot isn't it? At the very least this is a very, very firm lesson for him in the adage that nothing good comes from cheating. But, I think after a week of back and forth - we'll have to agree to disagree.
The Barry
Roar Guru
That’s not my logic mate...I haven’t said any of that. Surely you can see the difference in the risk being created between someone walking into a bathroom and having a slash versus spending 12 hours on the sauce on a pub crawl, getting into a cab with a drunk, random teenager and a team mate at 1.30 am and taking her back to your cousins empty apartment to have a shower and sex, while your pregnant fiancé is asleep at home...? Surely. I’ve never said that anyone accused of anything should be stood down. Case by case. But in JDBs case he had enough control of the situation to prevent it from happening and it’s reasonable to expect him to know that it’s an extremely high risk situation to put himself into.
Gray-Hand
Roar Rookie
Yeah. That’s probably what the legal challenge will hinge around. The NRL’s decision would arguably be stronger if they had conducted an investigation (hamstrung as it would have been), and formed a bona fide view as to the likelihood of his guilt. They appear to have deliberately avoided doing that in order to not prejudice his chances in court down the track. Tough call as to which way would have been more appropriate.
Nick
Roar Guru
Laws and policies can't be made on the assumption everyone out there is ready to exploit.