AFL’s Match Review Panel in state of disrepair
Columnist By Cameron Rose, 17 Sep 2012 Cameron Rose is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL match review panel, Andrew Demetriou
Is the AFL Match Review Panel helping or hurting the game? (Image: Slattery)
Related coverage
There are only three AFL matches left in 2012, so the time for post-season reflection is near. Without question, the most pressing issue of concern is the tribunal system.
No longer can players, clubs and supporters be subject to the glaring inconsistencies of Match Review Panel verdicts.
No longer can the AFL afford to be held up for ridicule as their judicial system breaks down week after week in a storm of chaos and confusion.
No longer can Andrew Demetriou and Adrian Anderson stand idly by and refuse to take action as the whisper of discontent becomes a roar.
It’s now become a running joke for ex-players, educated football minds and talk show panellists to offer their opinion on incidents to be assessed, then adding the disclaimer, ‘but who knows what the MRP will do’.
The theory behind the current system was sound enough. Allocating points based on a set of fixed parameters seemed simple. Rewarding players with a good record. Punishing repeat offenders. Reduced points for a guilty plea.
But the rigidity of the system has now become the noose upon which all in football are choking on each week. To put it simply, justice is not being served.
Incidental off-the-ball bumps, barely worthy of a free kick, have players missing matches simply because they may have committed some equally minor infraction four years earlier and the ‘victim’ takes five seconds to get up.
A player in the midst of a high intensity match will approach a contest at full steam, which is exactly what we supporters demand of every single one of them.
But if he arrives a split-second late, makes a simple error in judgement, or even turns to protect himself in the wrong way, he’ll be watching the next few matches on the sidelines.
The tribunal system, ostensibly there to punish acts of thuggery, brutish behaviour or genuinely dangerous malfeasance, has become almost bloodthirsty in its ambition to punish trivial misdemeanours. To steal a line from my favourite show, The West Wing, they now dole out five thousand dollars worth of punishment for a fifty-buck crime.
Jack Ziebell’s clash with Aaron Joseph and resulting four match suspension was arguably the most celebrated case heard this year.
It divided opinion between the majority who like their football real and hard, and the minority who have sipped too often of the AFL’s Kool-Aid and believe that every injury must see blame attributed to an opposing player.
Both arrived to the ball at the exact same time, but Ziebell’s oh-so-heinous crime was to arrive to the contest with more momentum and jump to try and win it. There was no doubt about Joseph’s courage to put himself in the danger zone, but the reason we applaud such bravery is because it often comes at a cost.
As football watchers, we relish in this cost, because we know we’re watching a sport that taxes physically and mentally over and over again, and players are willing to pay Allan Jeans’ famous ‘price’.
Ziebell’s next crime was to contest the three weeks he was initially lumped with, and within that, the seeds of a broken system are sown. He was either going to get off and play the next week, or be found guilty and miss four.
Why must all nuance be removed from these incidents? While the collision, like almost all that get adjudicated on, found people taking both sides, all were agreed that a four week penalty was too harsh, even taking into account errant past behaviour.
Last week we saw Quentin Lynch offered a one-week suspension for charging Scott McMahon in the Subiaco elimination final.
What most saw as a legitimate attempt to mark or spoil the ball at best, and at worst simply making the defender ‘earn’ the mark as most forwards have done for a hundred years, MRP chairman Mark Fraser thought it was an attempt by Lynch to break McMahon’s back, Bane-on-Batman style.
After the calculations were done, it was determined that the West Coast veteran was going to miss a week whether he challenged it or not, so he was able to make his case, successfully as it turned out, with only extra points as the deterrent.
If he was risking a two match ban instead of taking the one, under no circumstances would he or the Eagles brains trust have challenged yet, as we now know, he was in fact an innocent man.
After the Ziebell result, it is more and more unlikely that any clubs will challenge if a guilty verdict means more matches missed. Again, this means the system is broken.
The MRP, while attempting to become a time-saving and cost-cutting exercise, has become obsessed with ‘fifty buck crimes’, scares the innocent into pleading guilty, and offers no justice for the participants.
It’s a mess that needs cleaning, and immediately so.
Cameron Rose is a born and bred Melbournian, raised on a regime of AFL, cricket and horse racing. He likes people who agree with him but loves those that don't, for in his mind there is nothing better than a roaring debate. He tweets from @camtherose.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (4) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, AFL match review panel, Andrew Demetriou
September 17th 2012 @ 1:47pm
wisey_9 said | September 17th 2012 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
Whilst I agree that the MRP and it’s system has flaws, is there a viable alternative?
At least Ziebell and Lynch knew what they were getting into when they appealed – the system is good that it is transparent in this way.
September 17th 2012 @ 3:58pm
Deep Thinker said | September 17th 2012 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
The system in and of itself is fine. There will always be some inconsistency.
The problem for me is the severity of the rules that are applied by the system. I have no problem with carry over points. What I do have a problem with is
(1) Very minor indiscretions (I am using the term “indiscretion” very liberally here) attract large numbers of carry over points.
(2) The penalty for appealing tribunal decisions is too high.
(3) The fact that carry over points do not diminish over time. If a player has had a good record for a period of time since attracting carry over points, this should be taken into account.
This cost Geelong an opportunity to appeal the Steve Johnson decision – ordinarily a second look at that incident would have been sensible. While Steve Johnson was dumb for putting himself and the team in that situation, it looked pretty innocuous. He may have not got off on appeal with the rules the way they are. It probably wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the Geelong-Freo Game – but may have if he had an absolute blinder or if it meant that James Kelly wasn’t tagged. If it did change the result, Geelong could still be in the premiership hunt and all this premature speculation of the end of Geelong’s era would not be happening
Oh well, a VFL premiership with a team full of youngsters may provide some compensation for Geelong’s “inevitable” period of decline.
The rules are too harsh, which is making the game too precious. I remember the days where there was genuine debate as to whether AFL was as tough as rugby. At the time, it arguably was – in AFL, you never know when you are going to get hit. In rugby, you can always see it coming.
These days, the AFL is a very soft alternative, making it less of a spectacle. A little bump now carries a suspension and the rules committee is making it worse. Who knows where this will lead – yellow and red cards, players rolling around on the turf to attract penalties against the opposition? Sound familiar?
September 17th 2012 @ 7:20pm
brendan said | September 17th 2012 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
The officiating umpires should be directed by the MRP to look at icontentious incidents that the MRP panel thinks need consideration.Obviously the authourity of the umpire should be respected and given they are closer to the play surely there judgement is more pertinent than a video reviewer whoever thry may be.After consideration the umpire then can lay a charge providing a two fold advantage firstly the umpire is more aware of incidents he should penalise and secondly the umpires authourity on the ground isn’t usurped by a third party.Once a report is made set penalties should be handed out.The Afl haven’t got this one or the rules commitee right.
September 18th 2012 @ 12:06pm
Rob said | September 18th 2012 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
An appropriate time for this article. Whilst I believe the current system is still the best framework for consistency, it’s implementation is ruining this. What could provide general acceptance is leading to general disappointment.
Nothing is black and white, give some discretion and as the writer points out, let’s go back to punishing malice acts, not all acts which result in injury.