- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
“How is Fyfe’s behind-the-play-but-not-that-far-behind-the-play elbow worth the same as Conca’s the-play-wasn’t-even-on-the-same-planet elbow on an unassuming Giant?” is the latest in a series of head scratchers coming from the AFL and its Match Review Panel thus far in Season 2014.
Let’s not cover old ground here. Crime and punishment on the field in the AFL is broken, and it’s been broken for some time. I’m sure you’ve already read 19 opinion pieces, 17 of which from the Herald Sun, with this at the thesis. I’m a solutions kind of guy.
Which is to say Match Review Panel reform is coming.
What’s the problem?
In essence, the AFL has created its own problem.
The Match Review Panel (MRP) was introduced in 2005, in response to some concerns that the AFL’s relatively subjective tribunal processes were dealing up contradictory and unsatisfactory outcomes when it came to punishments for on-field ‘errors of judgement’.
The MRP was formed to essentially codify indiscretions and remove the subjectivity that comes with any legal process. A jab to the guts gets the same as every other jab to the guts, regardless of who jabs and who the guts belong to.
There’s something to be said for administrative efficiency here, too. Rather than having to fly a bunch of players and/or representatives over to the judiciary 26 weeks of the year, the AFL could dole out the punishment from the comfort of its keyboard.
But 2014 has shown up in a fairly ugly fashion that the system has shortcomings.
Not insurmountable shortcomings, but large enough to warrant a bit of a review. To its credit, the AFL initiated just that late last year, and according to recent reports they have been running an alternative system alongside the current one in 2014.
One change which is almost certain to come in next year is the abolition of carryover points. For the less initiated, carry over points are (essentially) the difference between the total points awarded for an incident, less the number of weeks the player is eventually done in for multiplied by 100.
The argument for their introduction was to try and act as a disincentive for players to continuously flout the rules; I haven’t got the stats, but the AFL is full of repeat offenders. Plus, the carryover points are broadly “weeks neutral” when all of the other permutations of the system are taken into account.
So they’re Tyrone Vickery – gone. Get it?
Another mooted change is the introduction of a system of fines for so-called “minor” offences; tripping comes to mind. But the AFL Players Association doesn’t like this, fearing it will disproportionately impact on younger and generally less lucratively awarded players.
Fair enough, I reckon, but I can see the attraction to this idea from the AFL’s point of view. I can imagine Mark Evans running into Gill’s office shouting, “Gill! I’ve done it! I’ve worked out a way to keep players on the park and pay Mark Fraser’s salary!”
A system of fines might also result in the Brownlow eligibility rules being changed. Whether Fyfe’s early season indiscretion would have been a “fine” offence or a “weeks” offence is debatable, but at least we’d be able to have that discussion.
This new system isn’t perfect, dealing up a handful of “unsatisfactory outcomes”. What this means is anyone’s guess, unfortunately, but something is happening.
For mine there are two interrelated problems. First is the MRP process tries to quantify the unquantifiable; context.
We’ve seen context rear its head in pretty much every contentious MRP finding so far this year.
Fyfe’s accidental head clash, which was “reasonable in the circumstances”.
Viney’s shirt front. Did he have “a reasonable alternative”?
The Buddy Bump, The Ablett Avalanche, The Vickery Vault and the Conca Cock-up. You get the idea.
Under the current system, the MRP is trying to compare apples-with-oranges with an apples-with-apples mindset. This is where the punters can get a bit miffed.
Take this fairly extreme example, sourced from the past couple of weeks’ worth of footy.
Reece Conca’s off-the-play elbow to the head of an unsuspecting Devon Smith was judged as intentional, medium impact and high contact. After the various manipulations, he was able to “get off” with a two-week suspension.
Nathan Fyfe’s off-the-play elbow to the head of a semi-but-still-probably-unsuspecting Jordan Lewis was judged as intentional, low impact, and high contact. He also got two weeks on the bench.
Now you can argue all you like about early pleas, carry over points, bad behaviour records and the like. There is no way the two are equal as incidents, yet the codification of them results in a proportionate penalty. It’s the system’s lack of context that leads to this outcome.
But there is an avenue to stop this sort of thing isn’t there?
Yes. The MRP is simply the first part of the AFL’s judicial flowchart; players then have a right to appeal to the Tribunal as to what they believe the circumstances are that led to the incident occurring – the context – in an effort to receive an alternative penalty.
But the system of “early pleas” actively works against this. That’s the other major problem afflicting the AFL’s legal system at the moment.
By granting a 25 percent discount to players who opt to cop the MRP’s initial assessment of an incident, the AFL is (quite deliberately) introducing an element of risk associated with “taking on” a charge and seeking to overturn it.
Quite often, this 25 percent discount alone is enough to shave a week off the codified penalty handed down by the AFL, and so unless a player and his club are pretty much certain they can argue against the MRP, effectively there is simply no value in pursuing this avenue.
I reckon maybe three incidents that were MRP-graded have gone to the Tribunal stage this year. And I reckon two of these were because this penalty risk didn’t exist (as in, the 25 percent discount didn’t result in a one week incentive).
When I said quite deliberately above, I was referring to the AFL’s desire to have as many incidents as possible dealt with by the MRP and so not adjudicated by the Tribunal.
For mine there’s two reasons for this: to save everyone’s time and money, and to ensure that the system can be as “objective” as possible.
“Objective”, because as I’ve argued the AFL is seeking to quantify the unquantifiable.
So if that’s the case, where to from here?
The small stuff first. I reckon the whole notion of more minor incidents having fines as opposed to weeks probably makes sense. However it would have to come with some kind of strings attached that mean the player responsible ultimately bears the financial cost – the last thing you’d want is for a Collingwood to start introducing tripping into its tactical repertoire, underwritten by Eddie M.
It ticks a lot of the AFL’s problem boxes: means minor offences aren’t met with “weeks” on the sidelines, it would instantly solve the Brownlow problem (although again, I’d question whether Fyfe’s head clash would’ve gone for a fine) and it would go some way to addressing the perception that the system is relatively lenient when it comes to more harsh, intentional acts.
The removal of carryover points and “early pleas” also seems to be like a no-brainer. As we’ve discussed, carryover points are practically useless as a deterrent (which is what they’re designed to be) and don’t have the intended impact anyway.
As for early pleas, I think it would again go some way as to clearing up the confusion surrounding why “intentional” acts and “accidental” acts can end up with the same number of weeks. It would also get rid of this ridiculous incentive that the AFL has created which acts against a charge being open to challenge.
Fyfe’s case this week illustrates this nicely. He had no incentive to take the “early plea” as the 25 per cent discount didn’t reduce his points by the requisite amount, and so they took their case to the tribunal. The Tribunal heard arguments from both sides, and concluded that although it wasn’t Fyfe’s intent to strike Lewis in the head, that was the outcome and so the penalty remained. Had the “early plea” shaved enough points off of the charge to reduce the penalty from two weeks to one week, I’d hazard a guess Fremantle wouldn’t have challenged.
For mine, I reckon you can bank on one or more of those changes coming in next year.
Now on to the fun stuff.
If I was Mark Evans, I would be giving strong consideration to ditching the whole Match Review Panel process all together, and move back to the Tribunal for anything that isn’t considered a “fines” offence.
You’re joking right?
Nope. Dead serious.
For starters, one of the reasons the MRP process was first introduced was to cut down on the amount of times the Tribunal had to sit over the course of the season; partially for costs to the AFL but also for costs to the non-Melbourne teams who had to make representations. Sure, you had the option to conference call, but face-to-face is perhaps ten times as effective and so I’d imagine most teams would fly their legal teams over.
Well, technology has changed quite a bit, to the point where video conferencing would now be a viable option. That knocks off one of the reasons for the MRP’s introduction.
But even more fundamentally, and I think this has been demonstrated so far this year, is that the MRP process cannot adequately deal with the almost unlimited contextual information that is thrown up on an AFL field. Recall all of the controversial decisions handed down this year; the MRP was forced into making a judgement of whether the player had a “reasonable” alternative or could “reasonably” foresee something occurring.
How do you codify that? The short answer is you can’t.
Wouldn’t it be much more effective to actually ask the player what was going on at the time? To hear arguments from both sides? To watch the vision a few times with the player in the room?
You can also ensure that the “apples-for-apples” intent of the system is kept intact using legal precedent. What I’m saying here is that it’s not difficult to see a world where players and their representatives are citing previous examples of on-field indiscretion to bolster their case or argue a penalty.
The costs? No doubt it would cost everyone more. But the AFL’s rights are up for negotiation in the next year or so. That’ll be an instant increase in the size of the AFL economy, and a big increase I’d imagine, so I’m sure they’d be able to stump up for any extra coin required.
Even better, we could have Mark Stevens hosting “AFL Court TV” every week. Wouldn’t that be brilliant?