The concept of the Australian Rugby League Commission being conferred with powers to charge players with offences, in instances where the independent match review committee hasn’t, warrants close inspection.
You could dress such arrangements up as a derivation of a “captain’s challenge”, yet the idea represents nothing of the sort. A captain having limited rights to ask that a referee’s on-field decision be more closely examined is different to that player overruling the match official.
On the one hand, of course, we could be side-stepping shadows here. If the core purpose of these new reserve powers is to construct a backstop in terms of safeguarding fairness to NRL clubs and enhancing the safety of players, it is difficult to argue with the concept.
The well-documented links between collision sports and brain damage means ARLC directors must take all necessary steps to limit the risks of harm. No questions there.
But the move to give the ARLC itself powers to charge players still needs to be pressure-tested.
Watching the watchdog.Credit: Simon Letch
Let’s start by looking at the NRL’s “judiciary code of procedure” in the NRL rules. The code not only governs the complex procedures of the NRL Judiciary, but also how a matter is brought before the tribunal in the first place.
It also formalises the powers of the NRL’s match-review committee, specifically its role in considering the on-field conduct of any player that may constitute an offence.
Each of the maximum of five members of the MRC must be a former player, coach or referee to ensure they have a good understanding of the game. Rule 20(1) specifically requires the MRC members to discharge their obligations “independently, impartially and fairly, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.
The code goes on to say that the MRC’s decisions can’t be reviewed except in the case of fraud.
So that’s the system, at least as it existed up until last week. Now, however, it seems the ARLC itself will play a role as a final arbiter of sorts, in terms of examining and considering any conduct of any player that may constitute an offence.
That’s a poisoned chalice, and not the sort of responsibility I would want to labour myself with as a company director. You can’t be an expert at everything. Try that, and you won’t be good at very much.
But also the fact the ARLC now has this reserve power impacts gravely on the job of the MRC, and its obligation to act “independently, impartially and fairly, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”. Put differently, can you do a difficult job bravely if you’re forever at the risk of being publicly second-guessed?
Those standards of independence, impartiality and fairness aren’t easy to live by if there’s an omnipresent set of eyes peering over your shoulder, with the power to step in over the top.
The existing rule 20A(1) of the judiciary code makes it clear the decisions of the MRC are final, except if laced with fraud.
Now, however, those decisions maybe aren’t a conclusion of the process. Question: Who would want to be an MRC member in those circumstances?
Jack Goseiwski is sent to the sin bin during the Broncos’ defeat to the Roosters.Credit: NRL Photos
There’s a cogent theory behind why there’s a match-review committee and associated processes in the first place, and not just the NRL issuing charges themselves at the end of each weekend’s round of matches.
First, the MRC and its processes are independent and at arm’s length. The MRC makes its decisions based on its review of the evidence in the form of match footage, referees’ reports and whatever other material.
The MRC is – or at least is designed to be – insulated from influence, whether it be newspaper back-page hysteria, or club powerbrokers petitioning for certain action to be triggered.
Second, and this is made plain by the judiciary code itself, committee members are selected based on themselves having been elite players, coaches or referees; they know significantly more than three parts of you-know-what about the game and its infinite variety, and spectrums of misconduct.
Without meaning disrespect, serious misgivings should be tightly held before being discharged, regarding whether a board of directors knows better than the purposely selected members of the MRC.
By way of analogy, can you imagine the carnage that might ensue if every police officer who laid a criminal charge was second-guessing themselves because The Commish had an actual propensity to change decisions?
Third, the match-review process is a part of a necessarily swift justice system. The process of review, charge, plea and hearing takes place within three or four days. If the review and charge processes of the MRC fail to materialise in the laying of a charge such that the ARLC steps in and reviews the matter itself, how quickly can eight directors get properly across the evidence and make their own decisions so that the timelines are not pushed back by an unacceptable degree?
Fourth, in precisely what circumstances may a matter be brought to the attention of the ARLC, such that it can be asked to step in above any decision made by the MRC? Is that process as simple as a club’s chairman sending an email of complaint, or is the process more sophisticated and constricted than that? Can a club coach send a DM on Instagram, or whinge loudly in some other forum?
On balance, it makes a degree of sense that the ARLC has some type of reserve powers. The directors are the people ultimately responsible for the conduct of the ARLC’s and NRL’s business. Matters like head-injury management are critical to the future going concern of the business. There can’t be gaps in such processes.
But that observation doesn’t definitely morph into the idea that the ARLC should itself have charging powers. Rather, a balanced and proportionate approach would be for the directors to have the codified power, by a special majority of their own, to formally direct the MRC to review and reconsider a decision to not charge a player in relation to particular conduct.
That redirection must be limited in time to 24 hours after the MRC has made any decision to not charge. The direction must only be capable of issue in very limited circumstances, such as where the ARLC is concerned on a reasonable basis that the MRC has made a grave error of judgment. There isn’t a need for the ARLC to have the power to ask that a charge and proposed sanction be reviewed because it’s too severe.
But the final decision on charging must remain with the MRC. The current process isn’t unfair. It’s independent and appropriate.
NRL is Live and Free on Channel 9 & 9Now
Michael Chammas and Andrew “Joey” Johns dissect the upcoming NRL round, plus the latest footy news, results and analysis. Sign up for the Sin Bin newsletter.
