The Australian Rugby League Commission has argued the code's 'no fault' stand down policy is necessary because the sport was "beset by a series of scandals."

Key points: The ARLC has put forth its argument in favour of its stand-down policy, citing numerous player scandals

The ARLC has put forth its argument in favour of its stand-down policy, citing numerous player scandals Jack de Belin, who is facing serious criminal charges, is challenging the policy in Federal Court

Jack de Belin, who is facing serious criminal charges, is challenging the policy in Federal Court The ARLC says one player has been involved in some kind of scandal every 22 days since 2015

In new documents submitted to the Federal Court, lawyers for the code's governing body have outlined its response to a fresh challenge to the policy launched by St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin.

The ARLC explains the need for policy preceded the allegations against de Belin, and pointed to evidence it presented in the original case identifying 66 scandals relating to player behaviour, including 21 allegations of assault, 11 of which involved women.

It claims that between 2015 and 2018 NRL players were implicated in off-field scandals every 22 days.

"Predictably, the image and standing of the game has been increasingly undermined by these events," the document reads.

'Summer of Hell'

The code also points to the so-called 'Summer of Hell' encompassing the 2018-2019 season, where "there was a further flood of serious allegations and charges against NRL players."

"One of those players was the Appellant, Jack de Belin," the document states.

"Mr de Belin was charge with aggravated sexual assault in company on 13 December 2018, but the full panoply of allegations against him was only revealed on 12 February 2019. "This led to a further wave of condemnation and negative reporting. "Unsurprisingly, the game's fans, sponsors and community partners had had enough."

The ARLC argues there is a "clear association between players and the NRL competition … when a player is charged with a criminal offence it inevitably creates a negative association with the competition."

The code also revealed that the game's naming rights sponsor, Telstra had privately complained of reputational damage to their brand and demanded tough action.

'Speculative' claims

De Bellin was stood down by the code in February after being charged with aggravated sexual assault in company, which he has denied.

He has been committed to stand trial on those charges in the Wollongong District Court next month.

In June, the Federal Court ruled in favour of the ARLC in de Belin's initial challenge, finding players accused of serious charges will be suspended on full pay, until they are dealt with by the courts.

The NSW Origin player turned himself into Wollongong Police Station this afternoon. ( AAP: David Moir )

Last month the player appealed the ruling and was granted an expedited hearing for two days in August.

In making the case for the challenge de Belin's lawyers argued claims of a mass exodus of fans due to player misbehaviour should never have been considered in the original Federal Court hearing.

They also claimed the original judge erred in considering an assertion that up to 1.4 million fans may have been lost due to the impact of player behaviour, because the claims were speculative.

While he has been stood down on full pay of $500,000 a year from the Dragons, his lawyers argued he missed the opportunity to make $90,000 because he was able to be selected to play State of Origin this year.

'Reality check'

But the ARLC has rejected the argument on the grounds that there is no basis for thinking de Belin would be considered for representative selection while facing serious criminal charges.

It also dismissed claims that there was no evidence indicating that broadcasters and sponsors were concerned about the negative impact of player behaviour.

The ARLC also called on the player to have a "reality check."

"Is the Appellant really suggesting that the fact of his charge, and the reporting of the 'shocking' allegations against him, have not damaged his reputation? "Is it seriously being suggested that at present there is no risk that people have a a lesser opinion of him than prior to the publication of these matters?"

The ARLC is also requesting cost be awarded against de Belin.