The application of those rules caused de Belin to miss the 2019 NRL season, the entire 2020 season, and around half of the 2021 season. He was paid throughout by St George Illawarra; the club could have elected to cut the player loose.
The balance of convenience, of course, must enable the NRL to exclude players from the game on an interim basis and in limited circumstances. That’s not in issue and it’s not a difficult argument to prosecute; the terms of the exclusion, however, require closer examination.
Credit:
Criminal charges are mere police allegations; nothing greater. Anyone charged by the police is presumed innocent; that’s easy to say, sometimes harder as a concept for people to bend their minds around.
But it can’t be countenanced that if a player is charged with crimes of a particularly heinous or revolting nature, they should nonetheless be allowed to proceed with their career unhindered pending their day in court, because they’re presumed innocent. That’s the balance.
There’s a manifest danger in a governing body conducting any disciplinary processes while criminal proceedings remain outstanding. Any documents created or information gathered could be subpoenaed by the prosecution; forcing a player into a disciplinary investigation is tantamount to forcing them to abrogate both their right to silence and their privilege against self-incrimination.
Think of it like forcing a criminal defendant to give evidence at their own trial – which of course can’t and never does happen.
Jack de Belin playing for NSW in 2018.Credit: Getty
A player can’t defend themselves in that sporting disciplinary investigation any more successfully than a one-legged man can win a world championship arse-kicking contest. The sport must, however, be permitted passage to do something, where the court process can take years.
The NRL’s no-fault stand-down rule is rooted in the idea that once a player is charged with a serious criminal offence, their continued participation in the NRL has the propensity to damage the best image, interests and welfare of the professional game. That damage is manifest, although the game can’t be inoculated by excluding the player.
The NRL’s rules provide for a self-executing and immediate standing down of a player charged with a serious crime, carrying maximum jail time of 11 years or more. However, the residual discretion exists to stand down players charged with offences involving violence against women or other particular elements. A standing down of a player operates until all criminal proceedings are concluded.
That’s all well and good, but there must be boundaries. To wit, consider the conundrum of former Panthers player Taylan May, he of the eponymous neck tattoo. In late March 2024, he inked a $1.2 million, two-year extension on his then-current playing contract, meaning he’d remain at the club until the end of 2026.
Shortly thereafter, the NSW Police laid charges against May, alleging that on April 8, 2024 he punched his wife in the face, and elsewhere. May was charged with three offences, with those charges then listed to be determined in court this week.
Pausing there, rightly the NRL activated the discretionary component of its no-fault policy and prohibited May from playing in or otherwise being involved with the competition until the finalisation of the criminal matters. What that meant was that he couldn’t play or train for the Panthers, or otherwise participate in their activities, for the balance of the 2024 season and beyond. He hasn’t played an NRL game since.
Later in 2024, May was sacked by the Panthers, for matters apparently unconnected with the criminal proceedings and more revolving around social media nastiness and joyriding as a passenger in an Audi R8. Thereafter, May was unable to obtain alternate employment with any other NRL club.
This week, all criminal charges against the player were dropped; the NRL’s no fault ban was lifted, and it’s since been declared that there’s no barrier against May’s return to the bosom of rugby league.
That there’s no barrier to Taylan May resuming his career doesn’t serve to wallpaper over the cracks and deficiencies in the NRL’s stand-down system. The player has missed out on maybe a year’s remuneration and over half a million in the folding stuff, where the NRL contracting system does nothing to preserve the employee/employer status quo, in a manner consistent with the player being presumed innocent and stood down without any findings or determinations adverse to the player.
Jack de Belin was fortunate his employer stood by him; it’s obvious that some clubs won’t have much truck for remaining loyal to a player accused of nasty criminal conduct, such is the reputational stain and financial consequence of having a player on your books. That’s especially so when they can’t play.
It can’t be known what Penrith’s real motivations were, in terminating Taylan May’s contract in 2024. If the player ends up back at the same club now, that will reveal an immense amount.
Loading
Yet considered from the opposite angle, what’s a club supposed to do? What decisions should it make, should it be so misfortunate that three players are stood down, as part of a joint criminal enterprise perhaps? What about five?
There’s only so much elasticity in the rubber band, which is the NRL’s salary cap, even accounting for the moderate dispensations which might be offered. Players don’t grow out in crops in the field; replacements can’t be found, and some people who know much more than me consider that the player pool has already been drained.
The system of standing players down from all privileges attaching to their NRL-contracted status, even for a short time and on an interim basis has the propensity to cause irreparable economic and other types of harm. It strikes me though, that neither the NRL, its clubs nor perhaps even the players’ representative association, have been able to strike the appropriate balance.
NRL is Live and Free on Channel 9 & 9Now
