The NRL could put itself on a war footing with players if it decides to stand down individuals charged by police with serious offences, with the Rugby League Players' Association declaring: “The game can’t be judge, jury and executioner before the criminal process is complete.”

As the players' union outlined its stance, ARL Commission chairman Peter Beattie on Thursday gave the strongest indication yet that the game's current disciplinary policy would be changed at a landmark meeting next week.

Going hard: RLPA chief Ian Prendergast is against standing down players charged with serious crimes. Daniel Munoz

The decision will likely have implications for Jack de Belin, who has been charged with aggravated sexual assault. The St George Illawarra forward has pleaded not guilty, but could be banned until the court process is completed for bringing the game into disrepute.

The NRL’s current protocol is to afford players a presumption of innocence, allowing them to play until the matter is resolved in court. However, Beattie told Macquarie Radio on Thursday “the policy needs changing”, raising the prospect of players have their careers curtailed or even ended, only to then be acquitted in court.

“There’s overwhelming support for change and the full messages I’ll convey to the commission next week,” Beattie said.

A change to the policy would jeopardise the strong relationship the NRL and the RLPA formed after settling on a new collective bargaining agreement in 2017 and threaten to put the governing body on a collision course with its players.

“As we have stated previously, we are committed to working with the NRL and clubs on the best way to address player behaviour,” said RLPA chief executive Ian Prendergast.

“The RLPA’s position is clear in that we continue to support the current NRL policy of not standing players down following criminal charges to ensure their fundamental right to the presumption of innocence is protected.

“It is also our view that, given any change to the policy could materially impact on the employment of a player, the ARLC and NRL would be required to reach agreement on that change with the RLPA.

“It is important as a game that we respect the integrity of any criminal proceedings."

The RLPA has been conducting club visits in recent weeks, giving it a chance to canvas player opinion on the issue. The union claims the overwhelming majority of players back the status quo to be maintained.

“The current policy is both fair and sensible," Prendergast said. "There is a reason that it was adopted by the game as it was believed to be the most appropriate approach. There is no overwhelming reason to amend that approach now.

“The principle of presumption of innocence is well established in this country and should be respected. By suspending a player pending the outcome of legal proceedings, we are essentially saying ‘you cannot play our game until such time as you demonstrate your innocence’. That reverses the presumption of innocence principle and it is not the game’s place to override such an important and enshrined legal principle.

“You often hear people say that ‘no individual is bigger than the game’ – but we also need to ensure that the interests of sport are not put before the fundamental human rights of the participants.”

The NRL has indicated it will come down heavier than ever before on player misbehaviour after a series of incidents tarnished the game’s brand over the summer. Prendergast backed the move and said there may be instances where “objective evidence” meant immediate action was appropriate. However, the RLPA wants players to be afforded natural justice.

“A professional rugby league career is short, and a player will suffer irreparable damage to his career as a direct result of being suspended while the criminal process runs its course,” he said.

“This would have an immense impact on the player and the lost opportunities could not be remedied. It is also likely to be considered an unreasonable restraint of trade.”

Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates has passed on all of the relevant material from the Nick D’Arcy case to the NRL to help league officials make an informed decision. However, the RLPA believes the case of swimmer D’Arcy - cut from the 2008 Olympics team to Beijing after being charged with assault - is not relevant to the current debate.

“The comparison to the Nick Darcy case with an AOC policy is also misleading as in that instance there was evidence that could be relied on in relation to penalising the athlete for the conduct,” Prendergast said.

“Darcy was also not in an employment relationship with the AOC. The AOC essentially made a selection decision, not an employment decision.”