They should just publicise the criteria Todd uses to determine whether to stand a player down or not, so these outrageous allegations of favouritism can be thwarted.
There is a clear criteria, in order of diminishing importance, as follows:
1. Whether Todd likes them: If he does they're in the clear no matter what, and will get a reference if it is required. If he doesn't they will be stood down and hung out to dry. Most players fall somewhere in the middle on this measure so in most cases it won't be a determining factor. It's also worth noting that if Todd swept things under the carpet for a player before (hypothetically, of course) and they make him look like a corrupt liar by f***ing again they will be banned from the game.
2. Whether Nick says it is ok: As everyone knows Nick has a veto right for any decision in the game, which he famously called on in respect of every refereeing decision made by Shayne Hayne's in the 2013 GF. Nick's veto right of course extends to stand downs. Nick probably won't exercise that right most of the time as he couldn't care less (as most teams have less than half a dozen internationals, so aren't really even a remote threat to the Chooks). However if a Roosters player is involved in an incident, Nick will say allow Todd to stand them down if he is trying to push them out of the club (ie. if the SKD situation happened now), but if they are important to the team and in their future plans Nick will ensure they stay on the field. Nick will apply, and be granted, for the salary cap exemption whether the player is stood down or not (like it matters!).
3. What the media is saying: This is largely controlled by the first 2 criteria, as Todd has always aimed to rule the media like a dictator under the innocuous guise of "talk up the game!". Nevertheless, there are some loose canons out there that Todd can't control and if there is a journo on a crusade against a player (Peter Fitzsimmons is probably the most likely candidate), the NRL will do whatever the journo wants (unless it conflicts with criteria 1 and 2, obviously).
4. Which club they play for: The policy is a great opportunity to lay the boot into the "unfavoured" clubs who won't be able to replace players even if granted cap relief (which they have to apply for, to enable even more discretion for Todd). The odds of a Broncos, Storm or Roosters star being stood down are 1000000/1 (unless the relevant club is trying to push them out, or they are an unimportant player). Todd likes to use the term "eyeballing" when he is making decisions based on this criteria.
5. The player's ability: No names are far more likely to be hung out to dry than superstars. If Cameron Smith and Cooper Cronk were charged with mass murdering a class of schoolgirls Todd would put in a reference, post bail and do whatever else it took to ensure they didn't miss a game. However if a fringe first grader gets into a bar fight the NRL will throw the book at them.
7. The player's alleged conduct: The word of any member of the public is to be believed over the word of the players, no matter how far fetched their story may be (with the obvious exclusion of those players who are untouchable in accordance with criteria 1 and 2). Allegations from the public will not be tested or subject to any form of burden of proof whatsoever. The legal system can worry about those silly things. The NRL is above that and is in fact considering approaching the government if Rugby League Central can be deemed a sovereign state so it can officially be no longer bound by those archaic and silly legal concepts like "natural justice", "procedural fairness" and "precedents", which the NRL has replaced with the far superior concept of "Todd's discretion".
8. The player's actual conduct: In extreme circumstances it has been rumoured that the NRL may actually go so far as to consider what the player actually did. If the rumour is true (and I have my doubts), it is believed that this criteria will carry very little weight in determining whether or not the stand down rule is applied.
