The NRL are edging closer to taking full control of player punishments, with the power to determine the first sanctions for misbehaving players set to be taken away from the clubs.
While teams currently have the first right to first address player behaviour in conjunction with the NRL’s integrity unit, that appears set to change as part of a raft of changes ushered in this year.
It’s understood the potential change was discussed with club chiefs at the ARL Commission’s AGM on Thursday, with mixed reviews from some and support from others.
“That’s an open item on our table at the moment,” NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg said.
“I don’t think we’ve got consensus amongst the clubs but I do think we have a majority view that sanctioning should come from the centre and it should be removed from the club’s hands.
“That’s a discussion I’m keen to have in the first half of this year with some clubs and the leaders of our clubs.
“I have long maintained that clubs should own the culture of their clubs and the sanctioning of their players. What I’m starting to consider though is it may be better in the hands of a regulator like us.”
It comes after Canberra star Jack Wighton was banned for six games by the Raiders last season after he pleaded guilty to five counts of assault, only for the NRL to add another four matches to his suspension.
“We need to be mindful that clubs form part of a competition,” Greenberg said.
“They compete with each other and they compete to win. We look through a lens which is the best thing for the game.
“Quite often they will look through the lens that is best for their club. We’re going to be at odds sometimes, so we need to think about that carefully.”
Any changes will likely form part of the fallout from a dramatic start to the year, after a shift in policy this week led to Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker being stood down after pleading not guilty to charges levelled against them.
The NRL stressed these were no-fault decisions, and there was no presumption of the player’s guilt or innocence intended or considered.
Meanwhile, the NRL also said they have no plans of pouring extra resources into the integrity unit.
Peter Piper
Guest
The NRL is in a no win situation here. Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. What the NRL has done is put the business of Rugby League on the same footing as the vast majority of major sports and businesses around the world. The NRL is not acting as Judge, Jury nor Executioner as you say as this is automatic, police prosecute for major crime and your stood aside - no judgement involved. The Stewart type situation is an unfortunate one but it is the girl that instigates the false accusation that needs to be held to account not the NRL.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
Slippery slope the NRL have found themselves on with the “no-fault” criteria. Need to wipe out a star halfback from another club for a year? Or any star player for that matter. Simply create and make up a serious sexual assault allegation. Pretty easy to do. With little repercussions. Brett Stewart was falsely accused by a scam artists daughter of sexual assault on March 6 2009. He was finally acquitted on September 28, 2010. Under these rules Stewart would have missed 2 seasons of the NRL and, after being out for so long, would have struggled to get back into the squad. The NRL should not be judge, jury and executioner. That is for the courts to decide. I understand that something needed to be done, but again it looks like a knee-jerk reaction. Peter Beattie even admitting they’ve only done this due to the sheer volume of cases over the summer. It is very easy to make up a “he said, she said” scenario on what constitutes consent. And in the meantime the players career could be ruined or severely impacted. An overreaction by the NRL. And that’s before we even consider if they’ll administer it consistently with their “discretionary” take on less serious matters.